Out of interest, what would happen in the Sun printed the name?
Contempt of court.
And....worst that could happen?
Unlimited fine and or Prison, IIRC depending on malice/wilfulness of it, can be a life sentence
Realistically though? You think they would bang up the Sun editor for any substantial time?
That's a possibility in a criminal case.
I suspect in this case, the judges have made their rulings, and would want to make an example of someone high profile violating the ruling.
I can see judges wanting to make an example, although can you imagine the uproar if the banged up the editor of a national newspaper for telling the truth about a story that is completely here nor there and everybody who wants to know, knows.
It would be some right out dust up. I can imagine the old unions of journos would actually stick together on this one, even those who don't like Murdoch, Currant Bun or the Daily Mail.
There's two things I'm sure of
1) Judges don't like their rulings ignored
2) Judges don't give two hoots about the public think, justice be done, though the heavens fall
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
65% would be a crushing victory for Remain. You think it could get that high?
It only (only?) has to be 60.1 for that band to win.
Yeah sure, I was just asking if people thought it could get up to 65%.
The idiots at Vote Leave could have opted for EFTA and EEA but no, they decided on no exit plan whatsoever. First there was the Canada model, then the Albanian model, then the some other model. Vote Leave were incapable of answering the question on single market access and now have paid the price.
That was very much my preferred option because the economic threat was the obvious big stick for remain and it needed cut down to a manageable size which the EEA would have done. It would have weakened the immigration stick but one is now clearly bigger than the other and always likely to be.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
65% would be a crushing victory for Remain. You think it could get that high?
It only (only?) has to be 60.1 for that band to win.
Yeah sure, I was just asking if people thought it could get up to 65%.
Personally I think it's very very unlikely. I think Remain 44.9% is more likely than 65.1%.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
50%+1 for Leave means a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum.
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
50%+1 for Leave means a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum.
I'm not sure what renegotiation would be possible to prevent a second leave vote, especially given what was achieved the first time around.
No, no, they are perfectly happy together. No problems at all.
looks like England heading for the concrete capital of Europe,how sad.
Well the SE certainly...
You can have a protected green belt, affordable housing for young people, or EU free movement. You can't have all three. That's the simple truth that Remain supporters refuse to admit.
65% would be a crushing victory for Remain. You think it could get that high?
No, but I think it could sneak past 60%. If the phone polls are to be believed (a big if, admittedly), that would only require a couple of percent swing from the current position, which I think is quite likely.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
50%+1 for Leave means a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum.
Which is what Leave front man Boris Johnson originally proposed.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
That is the inevitable result of Remain being given a vast sum by the taxpayer.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
That is the inevitable result of Remain being given a vast sum by the taxpayer.
The idiots at Vote Leave could have opted for EFTA and EEA but no, they decided on no exit plan whatsoever. First there was the Canada model, then the Albanian model, then the some other model. Vote Leave were incapable of answering the question on single market access and now have paid the price.
Which would have lead to an immediate ' they won't stop free movement' from remain. Immigration stays as the untapped thermal nuclear device of campaign. Just needs to be launched at right time imho , not over a month away...
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
That is the inevitable result of Remain being given a vast sum by the taxpayer.
Here we go
I'm afraid you can't have an unfair vote and hand wave away the unfairness when someone brings it up.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
That is the inevitable result of Remain being given a vast sum by the taxpayer.
Here we go
I'm afraid you can't have an unfair vote and hand wave away the unfairness when someone brings it up.
You really think that pamphlet effectively gave Leave a 10% handicap? LOL. Talk about overegging it.
Saw a Fox news Poll mentioned today. Polled May 14-17, 1021 registered voters. MOE +/- 3%
Trump beats Clinton 45% 42%
Favorable / Unfavorable -
Clinton - 37% 61%
Trump - 41% 56%
Clinton wins among women by 14%, Trump wins among men by 22%. Trump leads Clinton among white women - no percentage given. Independents broke for Trump by 16%.
A Rasmussen poll was mentioned as also showing Trump leading, but I didn't see details.
This may all start to shake out a bit when Sanders withdraws.
One minor oddity about the ComRes poll is that they are still prefacing the question with "If a referendum were held tomorrow on the UK's membership of the European Union..". That seems strange given that we know the referendum is coming up five weeks today - why not ask people how they are actually planning to vote then?
Dunno if it would make any difference to the poll figures, mind.
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
50%+1 for Leave means a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum.
Which is what Leave front man Boris Johnson originally proposed.
Logically so.
Its from the standard EU playbook as seen when referenda have produced the 'wrong' results in Denmark, Ireland, France and the Netherlands.
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
One minor oddity about the ComRes poll is that they are still prefacing the question with "If a referendum were held tomorrow on the UK's membership of the European Union..". That seems strange given that we know the referendum is coming up five weeks today - why not ask people how they are actually planning to vote then?
Dunno if it would make any difference to the poll figures, mind.
Is like the Indyref, when the pollsters tested it, it made no difference whatsoever.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
That is the inevitable result of Remain being given a vast sum by the taxpayer.
Here we go
I'm afraid you can't have an unfair vote and hand wave away the unfairness when someone brings it up.
You really think that pamphlet effectively gave Leave a 10% handicap? LOL. Talk about overegging it.
The leaflet drop cost more than the entire amount the Leave campaign is allowed to spend.
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
50%+1 for Leave means a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum.
I'm not sure what renegotiation would be possible to prevent a second leave vote, especially given what was achieved the first time around.
Nothing was achieved the first time round as evidenced by nobody talking about it since.
So a second renegotiation would actually be about the issues which were supposed to be discussed during the first renegotiation.
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
It was, I meant more about detailed knowledge and experience of the naughty step rules.
So, not much change, with Remain on 57% after eliminating Don't Knows. I think the Ipsos MORI change was probably largely noise (their voting intention polls are often quite volatile).
The overall position seems to be that Remain are on track to get between 55% and 60%. I'd expect a late shift to nurse for fear of something worse, so I stand by my 8/1 (IIRC) tip on 60% to 65% of a couple of weeks ago. But the 55% to 60% band is still the most likely winner IMO.
Remain need to get to 60% to settle it, any result from 50% to 59% Remain will simply see the Leavers cry 'We Woz robbed' and push for another go, led by UKIP
I always think it's unfair, given 50%+1 vote would be it for the other side.
That is the inevitable result of Remain being given a vast sum by the taxpayer.
Here we go
I'm afraid you can't have an unfair vote and hand wave away the unfairness when someone brings it up.
You really think that pamphlet effectively gave Leave a 10% handicap? LOL. Talk about overegging it.
The leaflet drop cost more than the entire amount the Leave campaign is allowed to spend.
Yeah, I don't deny that it stinks, but do you really think it has swayed that many people?!
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
It was, I meant more about detailed knowledge and experience of the naughty step rules.
He was kicked out for the remainder of the day for refusing to retract unparliamentary language aimed at the PM. I would guess that Bercow would see a deliberate breach of a specific instruction to the whole House, in the same way a judge would see an editor publishing a front page about the subject of an injunction.
Any experts here who can confirm the extent of the Speaker's powers to discipline an MP for something he says in the Chamber?
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
The Speaker has no real powers on this issue, it is Parliamentary Privilege
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
It was, I meant more about detailed knowledge and experience of the naughty step rules.
He was kicked out for the remainder of the day for refusing to retract unparliamentary language aimed at the PM. I would guess that Bercow would see a deliberate breach of a specific instruction to the whole House, in the same way a judge would see an editor publishing a front page about the subject of an injunction.
Any experts here who can confirm the extent of the Speaker's powers to discipline an MP for something he says in the Chamber?
He can kick out any MP for the remainder of the day's sitting
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
The Speaker has no real powers on this issue, it is Parliamentary Privilege
Isn't it technically the case that they are still breaking the law (or I suppose breaking an injunction), but that they can't be sued because of where it was said. It isn't as if saying it in Parliament absolves them of the "crime".
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
It was, I meant more about detailed knowledge and experience of the naughty step rules.
He was kicked out for the remainder of the day for refusing to retract unparliamentary language aimed at the PM. I would guess that Bercow would see a deliberate breach of a specific instruction to the whole House, in the same way a judge would see an editor publishing a front page about the subject of an injunction.
Any experts here who can confirm the extent of the Speaker's powers to discipline an MP for something he says in the Chamber?
He can kick out any MP for the remainder of the day's sitting
So basically no real punishment other than naughty step i.e. the bar for the afternoon. Given how little some MPs actually spend in the chamber, it really is absolutely no punishment.
Saw a Fox news Poll mentioned today. Polled May 14-17, 1021 registered voters. MOE +/- 3%
Trump beats Clinton 45% 42%
Favorable / Unfavorable -
Clinton - 37% 61%
Trump - 41% 56%
Clinton wins among women by 14%, Trump wins among men by 22%. Trump leads Clinton among white women - no percentage given. Independents broke for Trump by 16%.
A Rasmussen poll was mentioned as also showing Trump leading, but I didn't see details.
This may all start to shake out a bit when Sanders withdraws.
The same poll had Sanders leading Trump 46 42. RCP still has HRC ahead by 3.3%
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
It was, I meant more about detailed knowledge and experience of the naughty step rules.
He was kicked out for the remainder of the day for refusing to retract unparliamentary language aimed at the PM. I would guess that Bercow would see a deliberate breach of a specific instruction to the whole House, in the same way a judge would see an editor publishing a front page about the subject of an injunction.
Any experts here who can confirm the extent of the Speaker's powers to discipline an MP for something he says in the Chamber?
He can kick out any MP for the remainder of the day's sitting
So basically no real punishment other than naughty step i.e. the bar for the afternoon. Given how little some MPs actually spend in the chamber, it really is absolutely no punishment.
IIRC The Speaker via the House does have the power to suspend a member for however long they wish, but it has to go to a full vote of the House.
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
It was, I meant more about detailed knowledge and experience of the naughty step rules.
He was kicked out for the remainder of the day for refusing to retract unparliamentary language aimed at the PM. I would guess that Bercow would see a deliberate breach of a specific instruction to the whole House, in the same way a judge would see an editor publishing a front page about the subject of an injunction.
Any experts here who can confirm the extent of the Speaker's powers to discipline an MP for something he says in the Chamber?
He can kick out any MP for the remainder of the day's sitting
If that's all that the Speaker can do to punish them, surely some (maybe Scottish) MP will say it sometime this week?
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
I guess Dennis Skinner is the person to ask about that ;-)
Indeed, although I think it was Mr Hemming the last time, he named Ryan Giggs.
It was, I meant more about detailed knowledge and experience of the naughty step rules.
He was kicked out for the remainder of the day for refusing to retract unparliamentary language aimed at the PM. I would guess that Bercow would see a deliberate breach of a specific instruction to the whole House, in the same way a judge would see an editor publishing a front page about the subject of an injunction.
Any experts here who can confirm the extent of the Speaker's powers to discipline an MP for something he says in the Chamber?
He can kick out any MP for the remainder of the day's sitting
If that's all that the Speaker can do to punish them, surely some (maybe Scottish) MP will say it sometime this week?
Aren't they all too busy deciding whose turn it is to have an affair with a journo?
Could we conceivably see a story in the coming days, that a judge has summoned someone to see him, but it can't be reported who he is, who he works for and what he's done, even if he is jailed?
I have to say I am really surprised that a publicity hungry MP hasn't said something. It isn't like the chamber isn't short of individuals who like to make a scene.
IIRC the Speaker made a statement a few weeks ago when the PJS case was in the news, to the effect that it would not be appropriate for a Member to say the names in Parliament in an attempt to 'out' them against a court injunction. It would be interesting for someone with appropriate knowledge to comment on what punishment the Speaker to hand down to an MP who disobeys him on that point of order - suspension from the House for a period of time..?
The Speaker has no real powers on this issue, it is Parliamentary Privilege
Isn't it technically the case that they are still breaking the law (or I suppose breaking an injunction), but that they can't be sued because of where it was said. It isn't as if saying it in Parliament absolves them of the "crime".
Yes, basically it is a 'get out of jail free card' but as Parliament is supposed to make the law it is correct that it should not be told what to do by those who are supposed to interpret the law!
Ouch! Who the hell signed that off as the front page..? Expect a very quick second edition before too many copies get actually printed.
What are all the luvvies actually been shown for? I can't read the byline.
It says "Artists for In", I guess it's a reference to another letter writing campaign to the Guardian on the referendum. Doublebad fcukup on the juxtaposition with the headline!
Ouch! Who the hell signed that off as the front page..? Expect a very quick second edition before too many copies get actually printed.
What are all the luvvies actually been shown for? I can't read the byline.
It says "Artists for In", I guess it's a reference to another letter writing campaign to the Guardian on the referendum. Doublebad fcukup on the juxtaposition with the headline!
I wish some judge would bloody outlaw these stupid round robin letters.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
DT claiming that the Supreme Court decision today in PJS v News Corp sets a legal precident and therefore a de facto privacy law - even though there is a full trial scheduled for later in the year.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
I hope it's Priti Patel,just to take some of the smugness away from TSE ;-)
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
The Law of Comedy dictates I insert the phrase "...or Clarkson". There's a fine if I don't, apparently
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Same thing happened with Brown, and we didn't have the Right saying they'd prefer direct rule from Brussels. Maybe there should be an election after a new PM is appointed, but it's a current quirk of our system. To not vote leave because you dislike the prospect of three years of rule by a PM is stupid, especially given that these are quite rare events!
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
I hope it's Priti Patel,just to take some of the smugness away from TSE ;-)
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
I hope it's Priti Patel,just to take some of the smugness away from TSE ;-)
Interesting development. Meeting of 52 Muslim nations to take place in Abu Dhabi later this year, in a bid to rid the Muslim world of terrorists and extremists, whilst also embracing other religions and the concept of freedom of religion within Muslim nations.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
I hope it's Priti Patel,just to take some of the smugness away from TSE ;-)
Saw a Fox news Poll mentioned today. Polled May 14-17, 1021 registered voters. MOE +/- 3%
Trump beats Clinton 45% 42%
Favorable / Unfavorable -
Clinton - 37% 61%
Trump - 41% 56%
Clinton wins among women by 14%, Trump wins among men by 22%. Trump leads Clinton among white women - no percentage given. Independents broke for Trump by 16%.
A Rasmussen poll was mentioned as also showing Trump leading, but I didn't see details.
This may all start to shake out a bit when Sanders withdraws.
The same poll had Sanders leading Trump 46 42. RCP still has HRC ahead by 3.3%
Sanders isn't the candidate, so that's irrelevant.
RCP is by definition a lagging indicator, so that too may turn out to be irrelevant. We shall see.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Very true and exactly the point Paul Mason was making. He actually said in a few years he believes it'll be possible to re run the vote when the EU collapses and more sane voices are running the out campaign. Gove Redwood Johnson IDS Grayling. A centre centre left nightmare
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
May is still 8/1 for next PM, Hammond is 28/1 - both massive value while Osborne and Johnson occupy the top two spots - neither of whom will be elected by the membership.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Very true and exactly the point Paul Mason was making. He actually said in a few years he believes it'll be possible to re run the vote when the EU collapses and more sane voices are running the out campaign.
But nothing is preventing the same kind of Johnson/Gove-types being elected at elections after that vote. IMO it's still a stupid reason to vote to remain.
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
May is still 8/1 for next PM, Hammond is 28/1 - both massive value while Osborne and Johnson occupy the top two spots - neither of whom will be elected by the membership.
Indeed, I am very tempted to put some money on Hammond if it is a close Remain
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Same thing happened with Brown, and we didn't have the Right saying they'd prefer direct rule from Brussels. Maybe there should be an election after a new PM is appointed, but it's a current quirk of our system. To not vote leave because you dislike the prospect of three years of rule by a PM is stupid, especially given that these are quite rare events!
Sure, it's the way our system works. But if a section of the public feels that *anything* would be better than a government led by certain Conservative politicians then that's their view. It's not stupid. It's a testament to how unattractive they find those politicians.
Not sure where "direct rule from Brussels" comes into this. Is that on the ballot paper?
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
And the same if we remain.
No it will be Hammond or May if Remain in my view
May is still 8/1 for next PM, Hammond is 28/1 - both massive value while Osborne and Johnson occupy the top two spots - neither of whom will be elected by the membership.
Saw a Fox news Poll mentioned today. Polled May 14-17, 1021 registered voters. MOE +/- 3%
Trump beats Clinton 45% 42%
Favorable / Unfavorable -
Clinton - 37% 61%
Trump - 41% 56%
Clinton wins among women by 14%, Trump wins among men by 22%. Trump leads Clinton among white women - no percentage given. Independents broke for Trump by 16%.
A Rasmussen poll was mentioned as also showing Trump leading, but I didn't see details.
This may all start to shake out a bit when Sanders withdraws.
The same poll had Sanders leading Trump 46 42. RCP still has HRC ahead by 3.3%
Sanders isn't the candidate, so that's irrelevant.
RCP is by definition a lagging indicator, so that too may turn out to be irrelevant. We shall see.
Technically Hillary is not yet the candidate either and very unlikely though it is, were Sanders to win California and NJ by a landslide anything could happen. RCP includes both Fox and Rasmussen's latest polls and it got the 2012 election right, Rasmussen and Fox did not
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Same thing happened with Brown, and we didn't have the Right saying they'd prefer direct rule from Brussels. Maybe there should be an election after a new PM is appointed, but it's a current quirk of our system. To not vote leave because you dislike the prospect of three years of rule by a PM is stupid, especially given that these are quite rare events!
Sure, it's the way our system works. But if a section of the public feels that *anything* would be better than a government led by certain Conservative politicians then that's their view. It's not stupid. It's a testament to how unattractive they find those politicians.
Not sure where "direct rule from Brussels" comes into this. Is that on the ballot paper?
A vote for LibLabCon or Remain is a vote for Direct Rule from Bruxelles according to a comment I read over at the Telegraph a while back
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Very true and exactly the point Paul Mason was making. He actually said in a few years he believes it'll be possible to re run the vote when the EU collapses and more sane voices are running the out campaign.
But nothing is preventing the same kind of Johnson/Gove-types being elected at elections after that vote. IMO it's still a stupid reason to vote to remain.
If any of them looked like becoming PM there's little doubt a combined opposition would mobilize to make sure it never happened. This will be an election of the hard right choosing one of their own
Not exactly what he said. He said even though he wanted out he wouldn't vote Brexit because those leading it were nutters and he'd prefer to stay with an undemocratic Europe that have Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage incharge of this country. He's not alone in that as you could judge by the applause
Does he think that Johnson/Gove/Farage will be installed as dictators after we vote Leave or something? Utterly ridiculous. I suppose he'd prefer us to be ruled directly from Brussels rather than have a democratically elected Tory government.
Johnson and Gove might be PM in a few months time in the event of Brexit.
Yes, but they aren't going to be PM forever. I still can't fathom this undemocratic streak which is apparent in some of the arguments surrounding the EU from the left
People are assuming there won't be a general election and that the Cameron-Conservatives who won the election will morph into, say, the Gove-Conservatives who never stood for election. I have nothing against Gove personally but he's a bogeyman for a lot of people. For them, three or four years of such a government (before they have a chance to kick it out) is a nightmare.
Same thing happened with Brown, and we didn't have the Right saying they'd prefer direct rule from Brussels. Maybe there should be an election after a new PM is appointed, but it's a current quirk of our system. To not vote leave because you dislike the prospect of three years of rule by a PM is stupid, especially given that these are quite rare events!
Sure, it's the way our system works. But if a section of the public feels that *anything* would be better than a government led by certain Conservative politicians then that's their view. It's not stupid. It's a testament to how unattractive they find those politicians.
Not sure where "direct rule from Brussels" comes into this. Is that on the ballot paper?
Not on the ballot paper, but I'm sure they would prefer it rather than accept the small chance of someone they don't agree with being elected democratically!
Comments
1) Judges don't like their rulings ignored
2) Judges don't give two hoots about the public think, justice be done, though the heavens fall
Trump beats Clinton 45% 42%
Favorable / Unfavorable -
Clinton - 37% 61%
Trump - 41% 56%
Clinton wins among women by 14%, Trump wins among men by 22%. Trump leads Clinton among white women - no percentage given. Independents broke for Trump by 16%.
A Rasmussen poll was mentioned as also showing Trump leading, but I didn't see details.
This may all start to shake out a bit when Sanders withdraws.
Dunno if it would make any difference to the poll figures, mind.
Its from the standard EU playbook as seen when referenda have produced the 'wrong' results in Denmark, Ireland, France and the Netherlands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIrHwaxQyRs
So a second renegotiation would actually be about the issues which were supposed to be discussed during the first renegotiation.
They need a pivotal moment in one of the debates.
Something like when Ed Miliband said the last Labour government didn't overspend.
It is also quite possible for Leave to have an Ed Milliband moment and completely implode.
Any experts here who can confirm the extent of the Speaker's powers to discipline an MP for something he says in the Chamber?
Remarkable
Two days ago an online poll showed a > MoE move to Leave and a Leave lead.
Nearly as good as his Northern Soul documentary.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/733413831985102849
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/733424159938781184
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIrHwaxQyRs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/how-labours-human-rights-act-morphed-into-a-privacy-law/
I may have mentioned it.
#BigBoyPants
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/uae-signs-agreement-to-ensure-equality-for-all-religious-groups
Good luck to them, they will need it!
"She refuses to even say the words 'Radical Islamic Terrorism'..."
RCP is by definition a lagging indicator, so that too may turn out to be irrelevant. We shall see.
Not sure where "direct rule from Brussels" comes into this. Is that on the ballot paper?
If that one comes through....