As I have been away (still am..but the call of PB...) could someone pls summarise what TKMay's (or DD's or LF's) Brexit settlement is looking like.
There was an unattributed report in the Daily Express that Ghana and New Zealand might be interested in thinking about some sort of trade deal at some point. That's all I've heard.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Both of the following would require Labour support: Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
Toying around but if 104 Labour MPs volunteered for political radiotherapy and voted with the Tories to bring about an early GE, that could be possible even if Corbyn opposed it.
All it needs now is for the Pope to declare Crusade
But there’s no latter-day Constantinople – Oh well, I suppose France & Bavaria will have to do
Well, there's Constantinople. And no crusade was ever declared against Constantinople, they just sort of ended up there.
A bit relatedly, I was hearing a few weeks ago that Turkey would never join the EU, I am now hearing that Turkey will never join the EU *if it introduces the death penalty*. How does that work?
Numbers are capitalist lies. Corbyn is ahead in the hearts of the people.
This "poll" is clearly an MI5 fabrication.
Clearly they polled CCHQ. #toryplot
Corbynistas just say "who believes polls anymore after May 2015?" End of discussion.
I doubt they will even believe it when actual seats have been lost at next GE. The reports of losses from the electoral returning officers are "being distorted by right wing media".
Numbers are capitalist lies. Corbyn is ahead in the hearts of the people.
This "poll" is clearly an MI5 fabrication.
Clearly they polled CCHQ. #toryplot
I doubt they will even believe it when actual seats have been lost at next GE.
Common phenomenon. Consider all the fringe parties, Greens, BNP as was, who are convinced they speak for 'the people' even though the people don't vote for them.
All it needs now is for the Pope to declare Crusade
But there’s no latter-day Constantinople – Oh well, I suppose France & Bavaria will have to do
Well, there's Constantinople. And no crusade was ever declared against Constantinople, they just sort of ended up there.
A bit relatedly, I was hearing a few weeks ago that Turkey would never join the EU, I am now hearing that Turkey will never join the EU *if it introduces the death penalty*. How does that work?
Violates the human rights part of the accession criteria.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
It only takes a simple maority to amend the FTPA. But May wouldn't even need to do that if she wanted a general election. Say you intend to go to the country. Call a dissolution vote, dare Labour to vote against it. If they do, they look weak and pathetic, then you either amend the bill (or deliberately lose a confidence vote in yourself that you caused).
More likely Labour's machismo means they would support the dissolution vote.
Where there's a will, etc.
The Labour backbenchers would probably welcome it, along Southam Observer's lines, though of course some would be voting themselves into unemployment, which might be tough. I suspect enough of them would defy a Corbyn whip to get up to two-thirds, assuming the Government and Lib Dems vote for (not sure what the others would do).
All it needs now is for the Pope to declare Crusade
But there’s no latter-day Constantinople – Oh well, I suppose France & Bavaria will have to do
Well, there's Constantinople. And no crusade was ever declared against Constantinople, they just sort of ended up there.
A bit relatedly, I was hearing a few weeks ago that Turkey would never join the EU, I am now hearing that Turkey will never join the EU *if it introduces the death penalty*. How does that work?
Violates the human rights part of the accession criteria.
The question is whether the EU will take the opportunity to formally reject their application rather than just postponing accession talks.
If you assume a 65% turnout 27% of the electorate is 17.55% of the adult population, almost 1 in 5. Who are these people? Do they pay no attention at all?
As I said on the previous thread Labour is truly a name worth fighting for. It has a bedrock of support that almost nothing will diminish. A major problem for the development of any sane centre left party.
In the darkest days of the leadership of IDS, I remember thinking: "If there's an election, can I in all honesty persuade myself that this shower under IDS....I remember thinking that it would make sense to vote Conservative in order to ensure that the party wasn't wiped out completely and would eventually be able to get its act together, but only on the strict understanding that there was no danger that they might actually win under IDS.
You're kidding right? As we have all seen recently, IDS is a searingly insightful, relevant politician. As is David Davis.
Universal Credit now delayed to 2022. 6 years and almost nothing achieved. That's IDS for you.
I doubt this reform will ever happen now. Quietly dropped in the next couple of years.
The DWP does seem to be in the most appalling state and to take a specific example the disability changes managed to piss alot of people off whilst actually costing the state even more money than the old system would have done.
Producing a solid and robust database of where everyone is in the system should probably be the first order of the day there before looking to change anything.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said: 'Evil attacks the weakest, denies truth and love, is defeated through Jesus Christ. Pray for France, for victims, for their communities.'
Polls being poor for Labour are not a blow against Corbyn - his whole case is predicated on assuming they are wrong or irrelevant.
Obviously to the extent any poll can be trusted it looks very bad for Labour, but I still think May will not want a GE any time soon, and in any case in the absence of a split (and I don't think there will be one) a few will come back to Labour if they fear the Tories winning. It's still bad for an opposition to be down so low, but as noted this is honeymood period stuff, and probably inflated with UKIP voters temporarily 'returning' to Con, who will abandon it again if a Brexit fudge is announced.
So it is bad, but not as apocalyptic as at first glance.
"The men shouted "Daesh" and cut the priest's throat before being "neutralised," police said.
Le Figaro newspaper reported that the priest died after his throat was cut.
The men’s motives are still unknown."
Right.
If that's true, then it surely isn't Daesh, as Daesh hate being called Daesh.
Or so it is stated.
Personally I prefer 'so called Islamic State'. It makes clear its proper islamic and state credentials are not accepted by, say, us, but does not deny what they call themselves and that millions think they are both islamic and a state, which hopefully upsets the majority of muslims who don't support them.
Although it's widely misunderstood, the expression "so-called Islamic State" was coined to emphasise that it is not a state, at least not one that is recognised, and to discourage Muslims and non-Muslims from thinking it has legitimacy in the Islamic world. This is important because otherwise people might think it's an actual country, rather than a cleverly named band of brigands. The expression is not meant (or wasn't originally anyway) to suggest that the group is not founded on Islamic principles.
All it needs now is for the Pope to declare Crusade
But there’s no latter-day Constantinople – Oh well, I suppose France & Bavaria will have to do
Well, there's Constantinople. And no crusade was ever declared against Constantinople, they just sort of ended up there.
A bit relatedly, I was hearing a few weeks ago that Turkey would never join the EU, I am now hearing that Turkey will never join the EU *if it introduces the death penalty*. How does that work?
Violates the human rights part of the accession criteria.
The question is whether the EU will take the opportunity to formally reject their application rather than just postponing accession talks.
With Turkey holding three million refugees, I'm going to guess 'no'.
If you assume a 65% turnout 27% of the electorate is 17.55% of the adult population, almost 1 in 5. Who are these people? Do they pay no attention at all?
As I said on the previous thread Labour is truly a name worth fighting for. It has a bedrock of support that almost nothing will diminish. A major problem for the development of any sane centre left party.
In the darkest days of the leadership of IDS, I remember thinking: "If there's an election, can I in all honesty persuade myself that this shower under IDS would make a better government than Blair and his team?". In the end I didn't have to make the decision, but I remember thinking that it would make sense to vote Conservative in order to ensure that the party wasn't wiped out completely and would eventually be able to get its act together, but only on the strict understanding that there was no danger that they might actually win under IDS.
I imagine a lot of traditional Labour supporters will reason in the same way about Labour today.
I am a Labour member who will not vote Labour in a GE while the party is led by Corbyn.
Polls being poor for Labour are not a blow against Corbyn - his whole case is predicated on assuming they are wrong or irrelevant.
Obviously to the extent any poll can be trusted it looks very bad for Labour, but I still think May will not want a GE any time soon, and in any case in the absence of a split (and I don't think there will be one) a few will come back to Labour if they fear the Tories winning. It's still bad for an opposition to be down so low, but as noted this is honeymood period stuff, and probably inflated with UKIP voters temporarily 'returning' to Con, who will abandon it again if a Brexit fudge is announced.
So it is bad, but not as apocalyptic as at first glance.
"The men shouted "Daesh" and cut the priest's throat before being "neutralised," police said.
Le Figaro newspaper reported that the priest died after his throat was cut.
The men’s motives are still unknown."
Right.
If that's true, then it surely isn't Daesh, as Daesh hate being called Daesh.
Or so it is stated.
Personally I prefer 'so called Islamic State'. It makes clear its proper islamic and state credentials are not accepted by, say, us, but does not deny what they call themselves and that millions think they are both islamic and a state, which hopefully upsets the majority of muslims who don't support them.
Although it's widely misunderstood, the expression "so-called Islamic State" was coined to emphasise that it is not a state, at least not one that is recognised, and to discourage Muslims and non-Muslims from thinking it has legitimacy in the Islamic world. This is important because otherwise people might think it's an actual country, rather than a cleverly named band of brigands. The expression is not meant (or wasn't originally anyway) to suggest that the group is not founded on Islamic principles.
It can be used that way though, which pleases everyone - those who want to deny it has 'proper' Islamic principles, and those who accept that it does.
"This poll will also add to the pressure on Corbyn. It matters little that many members and £25 sign-ups back him if the party under his leadership is failing so badly in the polls."
To a normal leader, yes, but a normal leader would have resigned when 80% of his MPs no-confidenced him. Corbyn views elections rather like he views the support of his MPs: nice to win but not essential to the main task in hand.
Media seem certain now that the two men (some reports of 3) beheaded the priest, then came out the church armed and dangerous. Looks like the French got elite forces there quickly to neutralise them before they could do anything else.
I am sure there are a lot of Labour rebels who are smiling a the latest poll result and looking forward to using it against Corbyn. It's like the captain of a football team knocking in 3 own goals and then blaming the manager because the side are 3-0 down.
I am sure there are a lot of Labour rebels who are smiling a the latest poll result and looking forward to using it against Corbyn. It's like the captain of a football team knocking in 3 own goals and then blaming the manager because the side are 3-0 down.
I think the captain, manager and players are sharing the blame here.
On the ICM poll, it's the first that I'm aware of since before 2010 where the Conservative lead over Labour has not been extended (or the Labour lead reduced) by their "shy Tory" adjustment to add back don't knows and refusers.
Before the adjustment (Table 4), the Conservative lead is 17% with Labour polling 26%.
After the adjustment (Table 5), the Conservative lead is the headline 16%.
When a political party has become a laughing stock whilst simultaneously claiming the "nasty" epithet from their former opponents, the rationale for the ICM adjustment does seem to make some sense. That it should be boosting Labour to the giddy heights of a 16% deficit speaks volumes for the present state of the party.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
It only takes a simple maority to amend the FTPA. But May wouldn't even need to do that if she wanted a general election. Say you intend to go to the country. Call a dissolution vote, dare Labour to vote against it. If they do, they look weak and pathetic, then you either amend the bill (or deliberately lose a confidence vote in yourself that you caused).
More likely Labour's machismo means they would support the dissolution vote.
Where there's a will, etc.
The Labour backbenchers would probably welcome it, along Southam Observer's lines, though of course some would be voting themselves into unemployment, which might be tough. I suspect enough of them would defy a Corbyn whip to get up to two-thirds, assuming the Government and Lib Dems vote for (not sure what the others would do).
Well ironically I would have some sympathy for the view (cf Jezza) that there is no point being in politics and not in power, so voting to put yourself out of power is the wrong thing to do.
Ramadhan Foundation spokeman making a tw@at of himself. Muttering about right wing extremists in the same sentence as this and talking about attack on all faiths.
This is the same guy who tried to get Maajid Nawaz deselected over the his comment on not being offended by Jesus and Mo cartoons.
"But to put it as politely as I can, Shafiq is not your standard Liberal Democrat. He is in charge of the Ramadhan Foundation, which has hosted speakers whose attitudes towards gay people and Jews are anything but liberal. To make sure that Nawaz felt the full force of his critique, Shafiq slipped an aside into his open letter to Nick Clegg. He talked of Nawaz's "expected, suspected, wanted reaction from the minority of unhinged in those communities". Nawaz was deliberately soliciting attacks from the "unhinged", apparently. He expected them. He wanted them. And if the unhinged should assault or kill him – he had no one to blame but himself."
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Getting it through the Lords? For all that many people do not like the FTPA, proposing to repeal it would clearly only be for partisan political gain, it would be easy for all the non-Tories in the Lords to block it.
I agree that the composition of the Lords is an issue. But that will have to be fixed in any event. If Mrs May wants to go to the country, she should. If the Lords block it, it's their lookout.
I disagree. The legislation's been passed. It's fair game for the Lords to block a PM trying to take advantage of a current poll lead to go to the country in precisely the way that the legislation was intended to prevent (and indeed, does prevent).
If she wants an early election, she should use one of the mechanisms within the Act.
"This poll will also add to the pressure on Corbyn. It matters little that many members and £25 sign-ups back him if the party under his leadership is failing so badly in the polls."
To a normal leader, yes, but a normal leader would have resigned when 80% of his MPs no-confidenced him. Corbyn views elections rather like he views the support of his MPs: nice to win but not essential to the main task in hand.
Begs the question, if he lost an election and MPs in the process, could he be moved even then?
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
It only takes a simple maority to amend the FTPA. But May wouldn't even need to do that if she wanted a general election. Say you intend to go to the country. Call a dissolution vote, dare Labour to vote against it. If they do, they look weak and pathetic, then you either amend the bill (or deliberately lose a confidence vote in yourself that you caused).
More likely Labour's machismo means they would support the dissolution vote.
Where there's a will, etc.
The Labour backbenchers would probably welcome it, along Southam Observer's lines, though of course some would be voting themselves into unemployment, which might be tough. I suspect enough of them would defy a Corbyn whip to get up to two-thirds, assuming the Government and Lib Dems vote for (not sure what the others would do).
Well ironically I would have some sympathy for the view (cf Jezza) that there is no point being in politics and not in power, so voting to put yourself out of power is the wrong thing to do.
Catch 22 for sensible Lab MPs.
That depends on how you'd expect things to pan out over the next three years (not just in terms of election result but also changes to and within Labour).
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said: 'Evil attacks the weakest, denies truth and love, is defeated through Jesus Christ. Pray for France, for victims, for their communities.' Thanks for that Justin.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said: 'Evil attacks the weakest, denies truth and love, is defeated through Jesus Christ. Pray for France, for victims, for their communities.'
Thanks for that Justin.
If that Christ bloke is in the French special forces, he may have a point.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said: 'Evil attacks the weakest, denies truth and love, is defeated through Jesus Christ. Pray for France, for victims, for their communities.' Thanks for that Justin.
But do not mention immigrants or muslims.
Many French Islamic terrorists are not immigrants.
The Berlin attack may be a murder-suicide in the spurned lover mould [the reason Zap Brannigan has that voice is because the actor bases it on the chap meant to play him, who was murdered by his [maybe ex-]wife, who then shot herself].
Of course, that still leaves the Rouen beheading, and possibly a Jungle attack.
One suspects the latter will be blamed by the dinner party set on a failure of the UK to take more migrants.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
They wouldn't have to. The Tories have a majority in the Commons. The Lords won't reject an early election if they value their survival.
Don't agree with that . The Lords would be applauded for obstructing political sharp practice if a Government seeks to fiddle around with the constitution for electoral gain. Polls are are a bit erratic at moment - two polls with leads of 6% and 16% within a couple of days.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
It only takes a simple maority to amend the FTPA. But May wouldn't even need to do that if she wanted a general election. Say you intend to go to the country. Call a dissolution vote, dare Labour to vote against it. If they do, they look weak and pathetic, then you either amend the bill (or deliberately lose a confidence vote in yourself that you caused).
More likely Labour's machismo means they would support the dissolution vote.
Where there's a will, etc.
The Labour backbenchers would probably welcome it, along Southam Observer's lines, though of course some would be voting themselves into unemployment, which might be tough. I suspect enough of them would defy a Corbyn whip to get up to two-thirds, assuming the Government and Lib Dems vote for (not sure what the others would do).
Well ironically I would have some sympathy for the view (cf Jezza) that there is no point being in politics and not in power, so voting to put yourself out of power is the wrong thing to do.
Catch 22 for sensible Lab MPs.
That depends on how you'd expect things to pan out over the next three years (not just in terms of election result but also changes to and within Labour).
Lab destroyed, Chuka/Don takes over, TMay cocks up, DD-inspired reawakening of a Cons civil war...
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Both of the following would require Labour support: Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
The first wouldn't. With a working majority the Conservatives just have to support the vote of no confidence. Then over the next two weeks vote down all attempts to form a new government.
The only substantive effect of the FTPA is to give the opposition parties an additional two weeks in which to gear up for a snap general election.
That would be a 'brave' act of Mrs May's government. If you've got no confidence in yourselves, why should we have any?
I disagree with the premise of this article. Corbyn and Momentum don't care about how well or not they do at elections. They only care about the "Movement". Whilst he is filling halls with yes-men and yes-women and is able to shout from the sidelines whilst maintaining ideological purity he will be happy.
Nothing will dislodge him, even a severe election defeat, at least within the next 4 years. He will claim Kinnock as his precedent and remain. He is an electorally poisonous limpet that will kill the Labour Party.
If you assume a 65% turnout 27% of the electorate is 17.55% of the adult population, almost 1 in 5. Who are these people? Do they pay no attention at all?
As I said on the previous thread Labour is truly a name worth fighting for. It has a bedrock of support that almost nothing will diminish. A major problem for the development of any sane centre left party.
In the darkest days of the leadership of IDS, I remember thinking: "If there's an election, can I in all honesty persuade myself that this shower under IDS would make a better government than Blair and his team?". In the end I didn't have to make the decision, but I remember thinking that it would make sense to vote Conservative in order to ensure that the party wasn't wiped out completely and would eventually be able to get its act together, but only on the strict understanding that there was no danger that they might actually win under IDS.
I imagine a lot of traditional Labour supporters will reason in the same way about Labour today.
I am a Labour member who will not vote Labour in a GE while the party is led by Corbyn.
Shouldn't you take your local candidate into consideration?
I'll be voting for Hilary Benn, whoever the leader is (unless he is deselected in a Momentum plot, that is).
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
They wouldn't have to. The Tories have a majority in the Commons. The Lords won't reject an early election if they value their survival.
Don't agree with that . The Lords would be applauded for obstructing political sharp practice if a Government seeks to fiddle around with the constitution for electoral gain.
Yes. They cannot pretend it was for any other reason, and that's a little too blunt in its politicking for people to like, I think.
The Berlin attack may be a murder-suicide in the spurned lover mould [the reason Zap Brannigan has that voice is because the actor bases it on the chap meant to play him, who was murdered by his [maybe ex-]wife, who then shot herself].
Of course, that still leaves the Rouen beheading, and possibly a Jungle attack.
One suspects the latter will be blamed by the dinner party set on a failure of the UK to take more migrants.
On the last point. We haven't had that bullshit for a while. After a number of attacks and robberies of journalists, I am guessing that perhaps it has got a bit dicey for the London dinner party set to wander around looking for stories of appalling conditions and mistreatment, while always avoiding the obvious question why offered option to claim asylum nobody does and why the French don't sort the problem.
At one point they were trying to claim that it was Brits who were running the smuggling network, but by Brits they meant Afghan refugees.
Ramadhan Foundation spokeman making a tw@at of himself. Muttering about right wing extremists in the same sentence as this and talking about attack on all faiths.
This is the same guy who tried to get Maajid Nawaz deselected over the his comment on not being offended by Jesus and Mo cartoons.
"But to put it as politely as I can, Shafiq is not your standard Liberal Democrat. He is in charge of the Ramadhan Foundation, which has hosted speakers whose attitudes towards gay people and Jews are anything but liberal. To make sure that Nawaz felt the full force of his critique, Shafiq slipped an aside into his open letter to Nick Clegg. He talked of Nawaz's "expected, suspected, wanted reaction from the minority of unhinged in those communities". Nawaz was deliberately soliciting attacks from the "unhinged", apparently. He expected them. He wanted them. And if the unhinged should assault or kill him – he had no one to blame but himself."
Nawaz still the PPC for Hampstead - glad he wasn't changed, would have sent out a poor message. The flak he has taken from islamists on Tw@tter is appalling - anyway he knows what the dark side of radicalisation looks like as he's been there and come out the other side.
Ramadhan Foundation spokeman making a tw@at of himself. Muttering about right wing extremists in the same sentence as this and talking about attack on all faiths.
This is the same guy who tried to get Maajid Nawaz deselected over the his comment on not being offended by Jesus and Mo cartoons.
"But to put it as politely as I can, Shafiq is not your standard Liberal Democrat. He is in charge of the Ramadhan Foundation, which has hosted speakers whose attitudes towards gay people and Jews are anything but liberal. To make sure that Nawaz felt the full force of his critique, Shafiq slipped an aside into his open letter to Nick Clegg. He talked of Nawaz's "expected, suspected, wanted reaction from the minority of unhinged in those communities". Nawaz was deliberately soliciting attacks from the "unhinged", apparently. He expected them. He wanted them. And if the unhinged should assault or kill him – he had no one to blame but himself."
Nawaz still the PPC for Hampstead - glad he wasn't changed, would have sent out a poor message. The flak he has taken from islamists on Tw@tter is appalling - anyway he knows what the dark side of radicalisation looks like as he's been there and come out the other side.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Both of the following would require Labour support: Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
Toying around but if 104 Labour MPs volunteered for political radiotherapy and voted with the Tories to bring about an early GE, that could be possible even if Corbyn opposed it.
Such MPs would be denied NEC endorsement at the election which followed.
I haven't been able to check in much over the last few months. Is NPXMP still around? I'd be interested in his view of the Labour party, its MPs and its leadership. Has it evolved since his strong support of JC during 2015?
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Both of the following would require Labour support: Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
The first wouldn't. With a working majority the Conservatives just have to support the vote of no confidence. Then over the next two weeks vote down all attempts to form a new government.
The only substantive effect of the FTPA is to give the opposition parties an additional two weeks in which to gear up for a snap general election.
That would be a 'brave' act of Mrs May's government. If you've got no confidence in yourselves, why should we have any?
Not so brave when you have a 16% poll lead. And anyway, May can be brutally honest and say that we only have a FTPA because Nick Clegg insisted on it, say she agrees with Clegg's successor as well as the rest of the opposition that there should be an early general election so that a new government has a mandate in the wake of the Brexit vote, and state that she is therefore going to arrange a vote in the HoC to bring that about. No-one would bat an eyelid if that had to be done through a no confidence vote, in fact it might even win her plaudits for her candour.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Getting it through the Lords? For all that many people do not like the FTPA, proposing to repeal it would clearly only be for partisan political gain, it would be easy for all the non-Tories in the Lords to block it.
I agree that the composition of the Lords is an issue. But that will have to be fixed in any event. If Mrs May wants to go to the country, she should. If the Lords block it, it's their lookout.
I disagree. The legislation's been passed. It's fair game for the Lords to block a PM trying to take advantage of a current poll lead to go to the country in precisely the way that the legislation was intended to prevent (and indeed, does prevent).
If she wants an early election, she should use one of the mechanisms within the Act.
Absolutely correct. And of course the Act was carefully drafted. It protects coalition partners from each other but there's nothing to stop a majority government from taking the "constructive no con" route. It might be a bit embarrassing, but at that point the Opposition will have already been shown to be frit anyway.
All you need is a reasonable case for the election to put to the electorate. A new PM and a Brexit plan qualifies twice over.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Both of the following would require Labour support: Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
The first wouldn't. With a working majority the Conservatives just have to support the vote of no confidence. Then over the next two weeks vote down all attempts to form a new government.
The only substantive effect of the FTPA is to give the opposition parties an additional two weeks in which to gear up for a snap general election.
Is a government really going to declare No Confidence in itself? That sounds like a PR disaster
I haven't been able to check in much over the last few months. Is NPXMP still around? I'd be interested in his view of the Labour party, its MPs and its leadership. Has it evolved since his strong support of JC during 2015?
He seems to be taking a bit of a break the last few weeks - I assume either on holiday or wisely avoiding the abuse he'd take for daring to be Corbyn supporting during the period of the leadership election.
If you assume a 65% turnout 27% of the electorate is 17.55% of the adult population, almost 1 in 5. Who are these people? Do they pay no attention at all?
As I said on the previous thread Labour is truly a name worth fighting for. It has a bedrock of support that almost nothing will diminish. A major problem for the development of any sane centre left party.
In the darkest days of the leadership of IDS, I remember thinking: "If there's an election, can I in all honesty persuade myself that this shower under IDS would make a better government than Blair and his team?". In the end I didn't have to make the decision, but I remember thinking that it would make sense to vote Conservative in order to ensure that the party wasn't wiped out completely and would eventually be able to get its act together, but only on the strict understanding that there was no danger that they might actually win under IDS.
I imagine a lot of traditional Labour supporters will reason in the same way about Labour today.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Both of the following would require Labour support: Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
The first wouldn't. With a working majority the Conservatives just have to support the vote of no confidence. Then over the next two weeks vote down all attempts to form a new government.
The only substantive effect of the FTPA is to give the opposition parties an additional two weeks in which to gear up for a snap general election.
Is a government really going to declare No Confidence in itself? That sounds like a PR disaster
Works fine in Germany. And the Opposition will already have declared No Confidence in itself anyway.
Momentum can Fuck Right Off. We the Labour Party can't meet. Momentum can because "we aren't the Labour Party" ye at their meetings they plot to call Labour Party members to lobby them about the leader of the Labour Party but they don't obey the rules involved with being the Labour Party.
So go Fuck Yourselves Momentum and take these paranoid lunatics with you.
That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. We don't trust us. But you the electorate will. According to Momentum.
Reminds me of the opinion polls in September 2007 showing a substantial Labour lead during Brown's honeymoon period . Those polls were not reflected then in the council by elections of the time and similarly by elections at the moment are showing Conservatives are losing support not gaining it despite UKIP support evaporating faster than water in the Sahara Desert ..
I haven't been able to check in much over the last few months. Is NPXMP still around? I'd be interested in his view of the Labour party, its MPs and its leadership. Has it evolved since his strong support of JC during 2015?
Evolved would be one way to put it. It's certainly got stronger.
If there is an early general election, I've already written on it, here's an excerpt.
Perhaps the magnitude of the moment we face is too great for us collectively to bear. Shortly there will be an election, in which the Tories will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Tory government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Why would Labour support the Tories in repealing the FTPA if it looked like the Tories would win a GE handsomely?
Why would Labour need to support the Tories in order for them to repeal the FTPA?
Both of the following would require Labour support: Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
The first wouldn't. With a working majority the Conservatives just have to support the vote of no confidence. Then over the next two weeks vote down all attempts to form a new government.
The only substantive effect of the FTPA is to give the opposition parties an additional two weeks in which to gear up for a snap general election.
Is a government really going to declare No Confidence in itself? That sounds like a PR disaster
Works fine in Germany. And the Opposition will already have declared No Confidence in itself anyway.
Don't see why. It will be patently clear it's just a tactical manouvre.
In the darkest days of the leadership of IDS, I remember thinking: "If there's an election, can I in all honesty persuade myself that this shower under IDS would make a better government than Blair and his team?". In the end I didn't have to make the decision
Reminds me of the opinion polls in September 2007 showing a substantial Labour lead during Brown's honeymoon period . Those polls were not reflected then in the council by elections of the time and similarly by elections at the moment are showing Conservatives are losing support not gaining it despite UKIP support evaporating faster than water in the Sahara Desert ..
Unless Labour formally split, which seems unlikely, it's not worth risking it for May. Although if she does do poorly in 2020 this will be called her Brown moment.
Reminds me of the opinion polls in September 2007 showing a substantial Labour lead during Brown's honeymoon period . Those polls were not reflected then in the council by elections of the time and similarly by elections at the moment are showing Conservatives are losing support not gaining it despite UKIP support evaporating faster than water in the Sahara Desert ..
Genuine q, Mark - how many MPs do you think the Lib Dems could win in a Spring 2017 election (assuming Labour still in one piece but still led by Corbyn)?
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/26/ukip-needs-lisa-duffy-to-take-it-forward-after-nigel-farage/
Was it it me, or was Season 4 awful?
If it had just been a one season show, it would have been absolutely barn storming.
0 DAYS SINCE OUR LAST ISLAMIST TERROR
A bit relatedly, I was hearing a few weeks ago that Turkey would never join the EU, I am now hearing that Turkey will never join the EU *if it introduces the death penalty*. How does that work?
I doubt they will even believe it when actual seats have been lost at next GE. The reports of losses from the electoral returning officers are "being distorted by right wing media".
I reckon the British equivalent of The Company are Tories and Corbyn is a Company sleeper
This France 24 report suggests the attackers were armed with guns, opened fire at police officers #France
https://t.co/oRR4netFj9 …
It also indicates one police officer was lightly injured and the attackers shouted "Allah Akbar" #France
#Normandy church attackers on #French terror watch list
source, BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt-VzpLNNHM
Producing a solid and robust database of where everyone is in the system should probably be the first order of the day there before looking to change anything.
I'm the PBer that introduced MILFs to PB discourse after all
Thanks for that Justin.
Hauchard converted to Islam and frequented a local mosque.
Hauchard frequented the mosque of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, according to security sources.
To a normal leader, yes, but a normal leader would have resigned when 80% of his MPs no-confidenced him. Corbyn views elections rather like he views the support of his MPs: nice to win but not essential to the main task in hand.
Someone has to.
The Tories have tricked the population into wanting to vote for them by having popular policies and attacking the opposition.
It's underhand.
Before the adjustment (Table 4), the Conservative lead is 17% with Labour polling 26%.
After the adjustment (Table 5), the Conservative lead is the headline 16%.
When a political party has become a laughing stock whilst simultaneously claiming the "nasty" epithet from their former opponents, the rationale for the ICM adjustment does seem to make some sense. That it should be boosting Labour to the giddy heights of a 16% deficit speaks volumes for the present state of the party.
https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016_july_vote_poll-3.pdf
Catch 22 for sensible Lab MPs.
This is the same guy who tried to get Maajid Nawaz deselected over the his comment on not being offended by Jesus and Mo cartoons.
"But to put it as politely as I can, Shafiq is not your standard Liberal Democrat. He is in charge of the Ramadhan Foundation, which has hosted speakers whose attitudes towards gay people and Jews are anything but liberal. To make sure that Nawaz felt the full force of his critique, Shafiq slipped an aside into his open letter to Nick Clegg. He talked of Nawaz's "expected, suspected, wanted reaction from the minority of unhinged in those communities". Nawaz was deliberately soliciting attacks from the "unhinged", apparently. He expected them. He wanted them. And if the unhinged should assault or kill him – he had no one to blame but himself."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/25/liberal-democrats-t-shirt-jesus-muhammad-religion
If she wants an early election, she should use one of the mechanisms within the Act.
Breaking
Shooting at Berlin Hospital reported https://t.co/nJtdfx7Ezr
Nope, still going for a domestic. Possibly one of his girlfriends?
They are going to have a massive mental health problem on their hands.
Itele says one of the perpetrators of the attack in Normandie, #France was arrested after trying to go to #Syria
According to iTele the attacker tried to enter #Turkey in May 2015, before being expelled and arrested in #France
He was freed on March 2 this year and was wearing an ankle bracelet #France
Of course, that still leaves the Rouen beheading, and possibly a Jungle attack.
One suspects the latter will be blamed by the dinner party set on a failure of the UK to take more migrants.
Polls are are a bit erratic at moment - two polls with leads of 6% and 16% within a couple of days.
...is possible.
But a tail event IMO (apart from the first bit).
If you've got no confidence in yourselves, why should we have any?
Nothing will dislodge him, even a severe election defeat, at least within the next 4 years. He will claim Kinnock as his precedent and remain. He is an electorally poisonous limpet that will kill the Labour Party.
I'll be voting for Hilary Benn, whoever the leader is (unless he is deselected in a Momentum plot, that is).
At one point they were trying to claim that it was Brits who were running the smuggling network, but by Brits they meant Afghan refugees.
All you need is a reasonable case for the election to put to the electorate. A new PM and a Brexit plan qualifies twice over.
Prescient, and you have to say completely depressing.
So go Fuck Yourselves Momentum and take these paranoid lunatics with you.
That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party. We don't trust us. But you the electorate will. According to Momentum.
@MSmithsonPB:
The England alone figures from latest ICM poll.
CON 47%
LAB 26%
A 21% lead
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160724/1043565965/erdogan-turkey-coup-purge-executions.html
This is their response Mike posting about ICM polling figures:
Momentum Rugby @MomentumRugby 53m53 minutes ago
Momentum Rugby Retweeted Mike Smithson
Not true. ALL OF THESE POLLS ARE RIGGED BY THE TORIES.