If May called a GE now, it would be dominated by Brexit. How would the Labour candidates in Leave areas campaign?
Pretend to agree with their constituents for the votes or tell the truth to try and keep us inside the EU?
On the up side... If May was reluctantly forced to call an early GE, it could certainly have the added bonus of finally getting Sturgeon and the SNP to hit the mute button on both Brexit and and another Indy Ref....
Only for Ruth to constantly bang on about Brexit and Indy Ref.
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
@ChrisMasonBBC: Conservative former Cabinet minister Lord Heseltine has been sacked as a government adviser after rebelling over Brexit
He should be put in a pit in the Forest of Dean, and the location of the pit then forgotten. What a ridiculous man. His career is the epitome of promise leading to failure.
The only harmony in the Conservative party is the stuff he sprays on his hair!
The Lords does have a rule - you have to turn up once per year (ie per Parliamentary session).
It's a new rule - introduced for the last year.
At the end of the first year to which it applied (ie 15/16), four peers were thrown out under this rule.
The forced retirements (like all retirements and deaths) were announced in the Lords chamber and were received by laughter. Very embarrassingly, literally just a few days later, one of the four died having been very ill for some time.
Last night’s Lords amendment to require parliament to have a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal is politically and constitutionally the right thing. It should not be overturned
I'm not convinced on this one in all honesty. The EU citizens one seemed more convincing in terms of impact or not on our strategy vs any sort of moral question or constitutional propriety. I'm still pondering, but I cannot say I'll be bestirred should the Commons, as expected, send it back unamended.
@SamCoatesTimes: Last week DCLG swore to me Hezza not bound by collective responsibility (so wd keep his job if he rebelled tonight). He's just been sacked
Quite right too. Given the Tories even if temporarily are enjoying a large lead in the polls one has to assume the government's collective approach to Brexit is reasonably popular with the public - those that seek to undermine can sling their hook (and if they feel that strongly about it join their natural bed fellows the Lib Dems).
We have already covered this. The public does not believe any such thing. A clear majority tell pollsters that they believe the government is handling Brexit badly.
He should be put in a pit in the Forest of Dean, and the location of the pit then forgotten. What a ridiculous man. His career is the epitome of promise leading to failure.
Well, failure apart from creating the Haymarket Group, being the leading mover behind Docklands, and having a distinguished cabinet career culminating in becoming Deputy PM. Most of us - at least those who haven't yet been offered squillions of euros for writing pap - might be moderately content with that level of failure.
On the size of the Lords debate, an interesting number would be the number of peers who have never voted (or voted very rarely).
Seems like a quick way to reduce the numbers without needing to arrange a major reform in short time. If you don't turn up often enough - what is reasonable is a matter for debate - then you lose your place, and you're not replaced until they drop below a certain number again. I'm personally in favour for experienced persons who who otherwise not seek elected office participating in the legislature - retired military personnel, judges and the like - but it need not be a cushy pension scheme, you still need to put in the hours and appearances.
If you want a title without responsibility you can get an honour, and if you have a title but no longer are able or willing to put in the hours participating in law making, then you can keep the title but lose the right to sit in the chamber - no need to wait for people to make that choice, like Lord Ashcroft.
There are two nations with Upper House and Lower House of equal or very nearly equal size:
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
It's certainly going to be harder thanks to the Lords and their fellow-travellers. Quite how anyone who wanted us to Remain thinks that sabotaging a deal is going to improve things is utterly baffling - I imagine future historians will study that question in depth.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
All she has to do is call a GE, on her new Brexit mandate, and win it. Job done. Problem solved.
Grow some electoral cullions, Theresa. Go to the people, crush Labour and you are set.
Can you explain how she executes this cunning plan, given that we have fixed term parliaments?
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
Gina Miller for Gorton!
Gina Miller for Labour leader!
She has said she's a Labour supporter. Certainly rich enough.
@SamCoatesTimes: Last week DCLG swore to me Hezza not bound by collective responsibility (so wd keep his job if he rebelled tonight). He's just been sacked
Quite right too. Given the Tories even if temporarily are enjoying a large lead in the polls one has to assume the government's collective approach to Brexit is reasonably popular with the public - those that seek to undermine can sling their hook (and if they feel that strongly about it join their natural bed fellows the Lib Dems).
We have already covered this. The public does not believe any such thing. A clear majority tell pollsters that they believe the government is handling Brexit badly.
Things seemed to have changed recently, 51% approve of the governments handling in the latest poll:
Considering the government was quickly ready to move forward with an A50 bill, and despite a few setbacks it should still pass, what was the reasoning for not going to parliament earlier? I know, the government thought it already had the power to trigger, but some were still arguing parliament should be involved even so, and by leaving it so late next to what seems an arbitrarily chosen deadline, it has made government flexibility harder now.
Obviously we weren't ready right away, and its hard to say how much time would ever be enough for an undertaking this significant, but I don't recall an explanation of how the march date was chosen, other than to make sure we weren't coming up on a year without triggering, which would look pretty silly.
"People will judge Brexit on the overall package, on whether it feels like a good deal for Britain or not. By that measure, Theresa May's announcement was a success - by 55% to 19% people think the Brexit she described would be good for Britain, 62% think it would respect the referendum result and by 53% to 26% people say that they would be happy with the outcome."
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
It's certainly going to be harder thanks to the Lords and their fellow-travellers. Quite how anyone who wanted us to Remain thinks that sabotaging a deal is going to improve things is utterly baffling - I imagine future historians will study that question in depth.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
All she has to do is call a GE, on her new Brexit mandate, and win it. Job done. Problem solved.
Grow some electoral cullions, Theresa. Go to the people, crush Labour and you are set.
Can you explain how she executes this cunning plan, given that we have fixed term parliaments?
We know how it could be done - the mechanisms have been detailed ad nauseum - its a question of whether she thinks it is achievable, necessary or beneficial enough to risk trying it .
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
It's certainly going to be harder thanks to the Lords and their fellow-travellers. Quite how anyone who wanted us to Remain thinks that sabotaging a deal is going to improve things is utterly baffling - I imagine future historians will study that question in depth.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
All she has to do is call a GE, on her new Brexit mandate, and win it. Job done. Problem solved.
Grow some electoral cullions, Theresa. Go to the people, crush Labour and you are set.
Can you explain how she executes this cunning plan, given that we have fixed term parliaments?
We know how it could be done - the mechanisms have been detailed ad nauseum - its a question of whether she thinks it is achievable, necessary or beneficial enough to risk trying it .
I particularly enjoyed Nabavi's cunning plan from a few threads ago.
It all depends on whether Article 50 is revocable or not - and that is not yet determined.
I know many religious Quitters are in denial about that because they think their victory may be snatched away from them. And it might.
Yep and there were have it. As far as the Remoaners are concerned this is not about getting a good Brexit deal but about stopping Brexit entirely. Your arrogance and dishonesty is breathtaking
It is not arrogance or dishonesty. I am being honest in my desire to persuade the voters that they have made a grievous error in voting for Brexit and in keeping open the option for them to change their minds. It would be arrogant to deny that to them. So the boot is on the other foot.
I assume then you would be happy for us to have a referendum on the matter every 3 years - which is the logical conclusion of your comment.
I'm happy for us to have a General Election every five years with a position on membership of the EU in the party manifestos. I'd prefer a General Election based on acceptance of the actual deal versus status quo rather than a second referendum.
Of course. I forgot you were one of those who doesn't trust the public to make the 'right' decision.
We already voted against your fictional status quo. It is a typically EU response to want to revisit the question time and time again until we vote the right way
We had a referendum in 1975, voted to join, and participated in the development of the EU. Your friends continued to agitate against; now you've got your way. Why should you, with your tiny majority, refuse to allow us, who were happy to help develop the EU, the right to overturn what seems to us a dreadful mistake?
There wasn't much agitation until Maastricht came along and showed us that the rest of the EU was going in a direction that we would never be happy with.
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
Gina Miller for Gorton!
Gina Miller for Labour leader!
She has said she's a Labour supporter. Certainly rich enough.
Wealthy, eloquent, telegenic, privately educated woman from an ethnic minority. Would make a superb Labour leader to mop up the 48%. Maybe that's the secret plan you allude to?
There wasn't much agitation until Maastricht came along and showed us that the rest of the EU was going in a direction that we would never be happy with.
The most significant thing about Maastricht was that it came soon after the defenestration of Thatcher and became a lighting rod for Tories who couldn't accept what had happened.
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
It's certainly going to be harder thanks to the Lords and their fellow-travellers. Quite how anyone who wanted us to Remain thinks that sabotaging a deal is going to improve things is utterly baffling - I imagine future historians will study that question in depth.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
All she has to do is call a GE, on her new Brexit mandate, and win it. Job done. Problem solved.
Grow some electoral cullions, Theresa. Go to the people, crush Labour and you are set.
Can you explain how she executes this cunning plan, given that we have fixed term parliaments?
We know how it could be done - the mechanisms have been detailed ad nauseum - its a question of whether she thinks it is achievable, necessary or beneficial enough to risk trying it .
I particularly enjoyed Nabavi's cunning plan from a few threads ago.
Was that the one that was flawed insofar as it would require Labour MPs to vote to render themselves unemployed?
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
Gina Miller for Gorton!
Gina Miller for Labour leader!
She has said she's a Labour supporter. Certainly rich enough.
Wealthy, eloquent, telegenic, privately educated woman from an ethnic minority. Would make a superb Labour leader to mop up the 48%. Maybe that's the secret plan you allude to?
Its probably to give her a damehood for advancing constitutional clarity, so that Farage's head explodes.
No doubt Banks could find a way to pin it on Carswell too.
I can't believe we aren't all talking about the major announcement of the day...no not Brexit...no not Wikileaks....no not cause of George Michael death...no not Arsenal being embarrassed again...Visual Studio 2017 launch.
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
It's certainly going to be harder thanks to the Lords and their fellow-travellers. Quite how anyone who wanted us to Remain thinks that sabotaging a deal is going to improve things is utterly baffling - I imagine future historians will study that question in depth.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
All she has to do is call a GE, on her new Brexit mandate, and win it. Job done. Problem solved.
Grow some electoral cullions, Theresa. Go to the people, crush Labour and you are set.
Can you explain how she executes this cunning plan, given that we have fixed term parliaments?
We know how it could be done - the mechanisms have been detailed ad nauseum - its a question of whether she thinks it is achievable, necessary or beneficial enough to risk trying it .
I particularly enjoyed Nabavi's cunning plan from a few threads ago.
Was that the one that was flawed insofar as it would require Labour MPs to vote to render themselves unemployed?
I don't doubt a fair few of them would be happy to see the end of Corbyn sooner rather than later!
If we say we'll accept any deal the EU offers us (which is in affect what a vote in Commons/Lords would be) then the EU has no incentive to deal properly...
It's the opposite of that. If parliament votes against, we walk away with no deal.
For months Brexiteers have been telling us that no deal is great for the UK, and the EU will never allow that (anyone remember "BMW will tell Angela to do a deal" ?)
So being able to say to the EU "I need to get this deal through Parliament or we walk away" is what the Brexiteers have been arguing all along
And now they don't want it. They want to Take Back Control and establish Parliamentary Sovereignty by, er, abolishing it...
Awesome
Completely wrong. The amendment specifically says that if Parliament votes against we are not allowed to walk away with no deal. You could at least read the amendment if you are going to comment on it
Isn't that a little bit like Parliament disallowing the tide from coming in.
Once Article 50 has been served, the choice is between the negotiated deal and WTO.
Correct.
The thing which ought to be blindingly obvious is that there isn't enough time in the A50 timetable for two negotiations.
The BMG poll showed that 38 per cent of the public approved of the way Ms May has handled Brexit up to now, with 33 per cent disapproving and 29 per cent saying they “don’t know”.
Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
Surely the Sovereign is Sovereign, my Lord?
Again though, it does raise the issue of where ultimate power does or should lie - with Parliament or the people. At the moment legally it appears to be Parliament.
Yes, the Supreme Court had the chance to rectify this anomaly and blew it.
How was it their obligation to rectify such a thing? I know judges will overreach at times, but fundamentally altering the basis of our constitutional arrangements would really seem more of an issue for parliament.
They had the opportunity to do so, not the obligation.
But I would have thought that recognising that Parliament's authority only comes from it being the representatives of the people and hence is subservient to a direct decision by the people (and so if they don't want a referendum to go one way they shouldn't ask for it) could only come from the Supreme Court.
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
It's certainly going to be harder thanks to the Lords and their fellow-travellers. Quite how anyone who wanted us to Remain thinks that sabotaging a deal is going to improve things is utterly baffling - I imagine future historians will study that question in depth.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
All she has to do is call a GE, on her new Brexit mandate, and win it. Job done. Problem solved.
Grow some electoral cullions, Theresa. Go to the people, crush Labour and you are set.
Can you explain how she executes this cunning plan, given that we have fixed term parliaments?
We know how it could be done - the mechanisms have been detailed ad nauseum - its a question of whether she thinks it is achievable, necessary or beneficial enough to risk trying it .
I particularly enjoyed Nabavi's cunning plan from a few threads ago.
Was that the one that was flawed insofar as it would require Labour MPs to vote to render themselves unemployed?
I don't doubt a fair few of them would be happy to see the end of Corbyn sooner rather than later!
That is indeed the one hope that they could be persuaded.
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
The BMG poll showed that 38 per cent of the public approved of the way Ms May has handled Brexit up to now, with 33 per cent disapproving and 29 per cent saying they “don’t know”.
It's churlish to sack those who lead rebellions on three-line whips now?
It is if you have previously said they are not bound by collective responsibility
A case of careful wording? Not bound doesn't necessarily mean there won't be consequences. Doesn't collective responsibility usually get used in the sense of if you vote against you are expected to resign? Well if it is adviser and he's not bound by that, doesn't mean they cannot decide they no longer want his advice if he will be that way.
Eh, May and co have proven petty on occasion, this doesn't seem to rate very highly.
There wasn't much agitation until Maastricht came along and showed us that the rest of the EU was going in a direction that we would never be happy with.
The most significant thing about Maastricht was that it came soon after the defenestration of Thatcher and became a lighting rod for Tories who couldn't accept what had happened.
He should be put in a pit in the Forest of Dean, and the location of the pit then forgotten. What a ridiculous man. His career is the epitome of promise leading to failure.
Well, failure apart from creating the Haymarket Group, being the leading mover behind Docklands, and having a distinguished cabinet career culminating in becoming Deputy PM. Most of us - at least those who haven't yet been offered squillions of euros for pap - might be moderately content with that level of failure.
I submit, in all honesty, that the SEVERAL MILLION people who have read and enjoyed the Ice Twins, in its various 20-plus language translations, have gained greater pleasure from my existence and labours, than any of the sad Scouse twats forced to give spurious thanks to Lord Heseltine giving them a visit in a euro-helicopter, or whatever it was he did. Once. When he was desperate.
And then there's all the people he SACKED. All those poor miners!
To put it politely, any old c*nt could have done what Heseltine did. Been a sad, silly, posho, entitled, hugely narcissistic, sort-of-Thatcherite twat who also tried and failed to replace her, resulting in the election of John Major as PM. He also published magazines, but actually wrote NONE.
Mr Heseltine did not provide content. He was not talent. In the future he will be automated.
Have you watched this? You have to watch a couple times to take in the weight of what he says.
Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
Surely the Sovereign is Sovereign, my Lord?
Again though, it does raise the issue of where ultimate power does or should lie - with Parliament or the people. At the moment legally it appears to be Parliament.
Yes, the Supreme Court had the chance to rectify this anomaly and blew it.
How was rliament.
They had the opportunity to do so, not the obligation.
But I would have thought that recognising that Parliament's authority only comes from it being the representatives of the people and hence is subservient to a direct decision by the people (and so if they don't want a referendum to go one way they shouldn't ask for it) could only come from the Supreme Court.
I just don't see how it's a question they are able to answer. If Parliament - or crown-parliament or whatever - is the source of our law, I can see how judges can try to fill in gaps or interpretations sometimes in keeping with what they think the existing legislation suggests, but if it is a settled question to date that parliament is the supreme authority, then whether we now believe power should be recognized as coming from the people to parliament is immaterial, it would be up to parliament to not only imply that with their words, but to clarify it in legislation (in fact from the snippets of the government's argument in the A50 case I saw, they did seem to imply that mere having a referendum was devolving the decision making power back to the people - but that other referendum acts did include provisions that the result would be enacted would seem to indicate that is not legally the case). They can do that if they want, quite simply I would have thought.
Judges will disagree on what the law is, three dissented in the A50 case, but it is surely still only their role to state what they feel it is, not what they feel it should be, and if we the people want the relationship changed, if we want referendums to be binding for example, that's not hard for MPs to achieve.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
I have no doubt that the NEC would vote unanimously on this issue!
Why? Why would the NEC vote against their own MPs during an election campaign?
Especially if the MPs came out fighting first saying how they want to take the fight to the Tories, how the public are suffering due to Tory cuts and they need right now a Labour government to serve them?
Are you saying the NEC would during an election campaign say that no the public are not suffering due to Tory cuts, no we don't want to take the fight to the Tories and no the public do not need a Labour government?
You must be dreaming if you think the NEC would countenance that.
You rather misunderstand. Those MPs who had voted against the Leadership on this issue would no longer be the Labour candidates in their constituencies. They would have been denied endorsement and replaced by other candidates. A similar scenario to the deselection of George Gardiner at Reigate in 1997 . He eventually stood there as a candidate for the Referendum Party.
George Gardiner was deselected in January 1997 not during the election campaign and replaced with a new candidate long before the election.
A vote to dissolve Parliament and call a new election starts an immediate election campaign so is completely different.
There would be five weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day which gives plenty of time to select replacements.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
I have no doubt that the NEC would vote unanimously on this issue!
Why? Why would the NEC vote against their own MPs during an election campaign?
Especially if the MPs came out fighting first saying how they want to take the fight to the Tories, how the public are suffering due to Tory cuts and they need right now a Labour government to serve them?
Are you saying the NEC would during an election campaign say that no the public are not suffering due to Tory cuts, no we don't want to take the fight to the Tories and no the public do not need a Labour government?
You must be dreaming if you think the NEC would countenance that.
You rather misunderstand. Those MPs who had voted against the Leadership on this issue would no longer be the Labour candidates in their constituencies. They would have been denied endorsement and replaced by other candidates. A similar scenario to the deselection of George Gardiner at Reigate in 1997 . He eventually stood there as a candidate for the Referendum Party.
George Gardiner was deselected in January 1997 not during the election campaign and replaced with a new candidate long before the election.
A vote to dissolve Parliament and call a new election starts an immediate election campaign so is completely different.
There would be five weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day which gives plenty of time to select replacements.
I don't think nominations are open until polling day.
Question. If the commons will not overrule these amendments, can May accept them, invoke a50 as planned, then force an election (via a vote of no confidence in herself) and once elected with a large majority, pass new legislation that deletes the amendments?
Has the benefit of not delaying a50, gives her an excuse for the election and the amendments will be deleted before the come into effect.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
I have no doubt that the NEC would vote unanimously on this issue!
Why? Why would the NEC vote against their own MPs during an election campaign?
Especially if the MPs came out fighting first saying how they want to take the fight to the Tories, how the public are suffering due to Tory cuts and they need right now a Labour government to serve them?
Are you saying the NEC would during an election campaign say that no the public are not suffering due to Tory cuts, no we don't want to take the fight to the Tories and no the public do not need a Labour government?
You must be dreaming if you think the NEC would countenance that.
You rather misunderstand. Those MPs who had voted against the Leadership on this issue would no longer be the Labour candidates in their constituencies. They would have been denied endorsement and replaced by other candidates. A similar scenario to the deselection of George Gardiner at Reigate in 1997 . He eventually stood there as a candidate for the Referendum Party.
George Gardiner was deselected in January 1997 not during the election campaign and replaced with a new candidate long before the election.
A vote to dissolve Parliament and call a new election starts an immediate election campaign so is completely different.
There would be five weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day which gives plenty of time to select replacements.
I don't think nominations are open until polling day.
Two weeks would suffice - it has happened frequently in the past when an MP decides to stand down at the last minute.
Question. If the commons will not overrule these amendments, can May accept them, invoke a50 as planned, then force an election (via a vote of no confidence in herself) and once elected with a large majority, pass new legislation that deletes the amendments?.
Since 'no parliament can bind its successor' - 'yes'
Good to see Heseltine get the chop - I wonder if sacking rebels will come back into fashion (yes, Corbyn, I'm looking at you...)
.....then you read the figures...380 UK students, down 6%...I have been in taxi's with more people than this headline grabbing drop...also surely they would have applied before Brexit vote?
And...another Dutch university, the University of Groningen, has reported an increase in its UK students for September 2016 compared with the previous year.
I believe The Donald has a term for this.....I just can't remember what it is.
How and why would they even know, or measure, or care, how much a rubbish bin weighed? It may be tragically useful if they did know how much a rubbish bin weighed, but why would they weigh it and/or keep records of the weight in the first place?
How and why would they even know, or measure, or care, how much a rubbish bin weighed? It may be tragically useful if they did know how much a rubbish bin weighed, but why would they weigh it and/or keep records of the weight in the first place?
How and why would they even know, or measure, or care, how much a rubbish bin weighed? It may be tragically useful if they did know how much a rubbish bin weighed, but why would they weigh it and/or keep records of the weight in the first place?
If May called a GE now, it would be dominated by Brexit. How would the Labour candidates in Leave areas campaign?
Pretend to agree with their constituents for the votes or tell the truth to try and keep us inside the EU?
On the up side... If May was reluctantly forced to call an early GE, it could certainly have the added bonus of finally getting Sturgeon and the SNP to hit the mute button on both Brexit and and another Indy Ref....
Only for Ruth to constantly bang on about Brexit and Indy Ref.
Nicola Sturgeon has obsessively been threatening another Indy Ref to the exclusion of all other issues since the EU Ref result was announced eight months ago. This strategy was designed to help push the Yes vote over the line in the polls while also acting as a diversion away from her day job and her governments increasing domestic failures at Holyrood. It has been becoming increasingly obvious that not only was this strategy failing to shift that Yes vote upwards in the polls, but it was also beginning to push Sturgeon's personal ratings downwards rather faster than it has her party's polling. So no surprise that last week there was a very clear attempt to change tactics by trying to push the grievance machine in a new direction by trying to whip up anger and fear that Westminster might be trying to 'undermine the foundations of devolution at Holyrood'.
But one big problem, Sturgeon and her team have now marched both her troops, media, and the Opposition parties up to the top of the hill in anticipation of an imminent announcement of another Indy Ref on the back of the failure of a totally unachievable demand that May's Government unilaterally guarantee and deliver a Brexit deal for Scotland that leaves them in the Common Market before we even trigger Article 50.
"There is one other reason that the Tory leadership should at least consider it, however. And that is because an early election could be very bad for the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon at precisely the moment when the device that my Times colleague Kenny Farquarson describes, magnificently, as the “SNP Grievance Machine” is malfunctioning. Into this monstrous creation the SNP pours grievances and complaints, observes Kenny, and out the other end comes votes for the SNP. Something is wrong, though. Brexit has not yet produced the surge for independence that was expected by Nat strategists such as Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief heid-bummer (chief executive) of the SNP."
If May called a GE now, it would be dominated by Brexit. How would the Labour candidates in Leave areas campaign?
Pretend to agree with their constituents for the votes or tell the truth to try and keep us inside the EU?
On the up side... If May was reluctantly forced to call an early GE, it could certainly have the added bonus of finally getting Sturgeon and the SNP to hit the mute button on both Brexit and and another Indy Ref....
Only for Ruth to constantly bang on about Brexit and Indy Ref.
Nicola Sturgeon has obsessively been threatening another Indy Ref to the exclusion of all other issues since the EU Ref result was announced eight months ago. This strategy was designed to help push the Yes vote over the line in the polls while also acting as a diversion away from her day job and her governments increasing domestic failures at Holyrood. It has been becoming increasingly obvious that not only was this strategy failing to shift that Yes vote upwards in the polls, but it was also beginning to push Sturgeon's personal ratings downwards rather faster than it has her party's polling. So no surprise that last week there was a very clear attempt to change tactics by trying to push the grievance machine in a new direction by trying to whip up anger and fear that Westminster might be trying to 'undermine the foundations of devolution at Holyrood'.
But one big problem, Sturgeon and her team have now marched both her troops, media, and the Opposition parties up to the top of the hill in anticipation of an imminent announcement of another Indy Ref on the back of the failure of a totally unachievable demand that May's Government unilaterally guarantee and deliver a Brexit deal for Scotland that leaves them in the Common Market before we even trigger Article 50.
"There is one other reason that the Tory leadership should at least consider it, however. And that is because an early election could be very bad for the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon at precisely the moment when the device that my Times colleague Kenny Farquarson describes, magnificently, as the “SNP Grievance Machine” is malfunctioning. Into this monstrous creation the SNP pours grievances and complaints, observes Kenny, and out the other end comes votes for the SNP. Something is wrong, though. Brexit has not yet produced the surge for independence that was expected by Nat strategists such as Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief heid-bummer (chief executive) of the SNP."
I see Jim Sillars is gloriously off message again:
I see @Cyan's post (not unsurprisingly) has been deleted - impressed the mods are up this early.
However, he did post the text of the amendment - I think you could make an argument that, in approving the government to enact Article 50 then implicitly Parliament has already given approval for the UK to leave without a deal as that is explicit countenanced under the Article.
I see @Cyan's post (not unsurprisingly) has been deleted - impressed the mods are up this early.
However, he did post the text of the amendment - I think you could make an argument that, in approving the government to enact Article 50 then implicitly Parliament has already given approval for the UK to leave without a deal as that is explicit countenanced under the Article.
What did I miss? (Obviously not what warranted the removal, jut the general gist!) - and yes, I agree, exposing their Lordship's 'wisdom' to full scrutiny can do no harm......
I see @Cyan's post (not unsurprisingly) has been deleted - impressed the mods are up this early.
However, he did post the text of the amendment - I think you could make an argument that, in approving the government to enact Article 50 then implicitly Parliament has already given approval for the UK to leave without a deal as that is explicit countenanced under the Article.
Typical... you step away from PB for a few minutes and you miss all the fun
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? "A referendum on Scottish independence should not be triggered until the UK & EU have completed their Brexit negotiations""
I see @Cyan's post (not unsurprisingly) has been deleted - impressed the mods are up this early.
However, he did post the text of the amendment - I think you could make an argument that, in approving the government to enact Article 50 then implicitly Parliament has already given approval for the UK to leave without a deal as that is explicit countenanced under the Article.
What did I miss? (Obviously not what warranted the removal, jut the general gist!) - and yes, I agree, exposing their Lordship's 'wisdom' to full scrutiny can do no harm......
He basically made the point that if Estonia doesn't want extend Article 50 then we are out, but also posted the text of the amendment
The deletion was due to him using a disparaging term for our European partners that a certain type of person used to describe Africans in the 50s (not "piccaninnies" but similar)
Politicians are not known for making a virtue of the truth, even though most are honest and sincere public servants. Still, it is impolite to accuse a first minister of wilful deception, so let us give Miss Sturgeon the courtesy of euphemism. Her lecture was a distant relation of actuality, a bold adaptation of the facts, a gallimaufry of inveracities.
The SNP leader told reporters: ‘The Brexit process has emboldened a now powerful Westminster faction, which perhaps never fully embraced devolution, and which now sees an opportunity to rein in the Scottish Parliament…. [T]here is not yet any real guarantee from the Tories that the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved administrations won’t be stripped of some of their powers.’
The First Minister, a voracious reader, has entered the fiction market. Genre: Thriller. Sub-genre: Conspiracy theories. It’s gripping stuff. Shadowy cabals, hidden agendas, sinister plots whispered in the corridors of power. Ian Rankin has some competition on the bestseller list this year.
At risk of spoiling the ending, none of this is true. The ‘powerful Westminster faction’ is — again with the euphemism — artistic licence on Miss Sturgeon’s part. It does not exist. It is doubtful you could assemble enough Scotland-focussed Brexiteers to put on a one-man show, let alone a faction. The secret Westminster plot was so secret that no one at Westminster had heard of it.
Comments
Gina Miller for Labour leader!
It's a new rule - introduced for the last year.
At the end of the first year to which it applied (ie 15/16), four peers were thrown out under this rule.
The forced retirements (like all retirements and deaths) were announced in the Lords chamber and were received by laughter. Very embarrassingly, literally just a few days later, one of the four died having been very ill for some time.
There are two nations with Upper House and Lower House of equal or very nearly equal size:
Bahrain
Oman
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-approve-or-disapprove-of-the-way-in-which-the-government-is-handling-the-brexit-negotiations/
Obviously we weren't ready right away, and its hard to say how much time would ever be enough for an undertaking this significant, but I don't recall an explanation of how the march date was chosen, other than to make sure we weren't coming up on a year without triggering, which would look pretty silly.
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-approve-of-theresa-mays-handling-of-brexit-up-to-now/
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/public-back-brexit-plan-think-eu-will-nix-it/
No doubt Banks could find a way to pin it on Carswell too.
The thing which ought to be blindingly obvious is that there isn't enough time in the A50 timetable for two negotiations.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-plan-leave-eu-no-plan-uk-public-oppose-prime-minister-a7614526.html
But I would have thought that recognising that Parliament's authority only comes from it being the representatives of the people and hence is subservient to a direct decision by the people (and so if they don't want a referendum to go one way they shouldn't ask for it) could only come from the Supreme Court.
Eh, May and co have proven petty on occasion, this doesn't seem to rate very highly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPAmbUZ9UKk
Judges will disagree on what the law is, three dissented in the A50 case, but it is surely still only their role to state what they feel it is, not what they feel it should be, and if we the people want the relationship changed, if we want referendums to be binding for example, that's not hard for MPs to achieve.
The Commons can overturn, it's only an issue if the Lords persist in playing silly buggers multiple times.
Has the benefit of not delaying a50, gives her an excuse for the election and the amendments will be deleted before the come into effect.
Good to see Heseltine get the chop - I wonder if sacking rebels will come back into fashion (yes, Corbyn, I'm looking at you...)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39142031
.....then you read the figures...380 UK students, down 6%...I have been in taxi's with more people than this headline grabbing drop...also surely they would have applied before Brexit vote?
And...another Dutch university, the University of Groningen, has reported an increase in its UK students for September 2016 compared with the previous year.
I believe The Donald has a term for this.....I just can't remember what it is.
It may be tragically useful if they did know how much a rubbish bin weighed, but why would they weigh it and/or keep records of the weight in the first place?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-corrie-mckeagues-mum-posts-9984108
But one big problem, Sturgeon and her team have now marched both her troops, media, and the Opposition parties up to the top of the hill in anticipation of an imminent announcement of another Indy Ref on the back of the failure of a totally unachievable demand that May's Government unilaterally guarantee and deliver a Brexit deal for Scotland that leaves them in the Common Market before we even trigger Article 50.
Iain Martin in Reaction - Early general election could be very bad for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP
"There is one other reason that the Tory leadership should at least consider it, however. And that is because an early election could be very bad for the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon at precisely the moment when the device that my Times colleague Kenny Farquarson describes, magnificently, as the “SNP Grievance Machine” is malfunctioning. Into this monstrous creation the SNP pours grievances and complaints, observes Kenny, and out the other end comes votes for the SNP. Something is wrong, though. Brexit has not yet produced the surge for independence that was expected by Nat strategists such as Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief heid-bummer (chief executive) of the SNP."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/former-snp-deputy-leader-jim-sillars-wont-back-independence/amp/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-william-hague-early-general-election-scrap-fixed-term-parliaments-act-a7615296.html
However, he did post the text of the amendment - I think you could make an argument that, in approving the government to enact Article 50 then implicitly Parliament has already given approval for the UK to leave without a deal as that is explicit countenanced under the Article.
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-approve-of-theresa-mays-handling-of-brexit-up-to-now/?removed
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? "A referendum on Scottish independence should not be triggered until the UK & EU have completed their Brexit negotiations""
Agree: 51
Disagree: 25
Neither: 24
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-a-scottish-independence-referendum-not-be-called-until-the-brexit-negoti#table
The deletion was due to him using a disparaging term for our European partners that a certain type of person used to describe Africans in the 50s (not "piccaninnies" but similar)
Net agree Sindyref2 should wait for Brexit Deal:
(Sindy: yes/no, Brexit; Leave/Remain)
Yes/Remain: -23
Yes/Leave: +41
No/Remain: +58
No/Leave: +63
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/scots-opposed-second-referendum/
Even SNP (-8) supporters don't feel that strongly - 37% against a referendum before Brexit deal is done
Politicians are not known for making a virtue of the truth, even though most are honest and sincere public servants. Still, it is impolite to accuse a first minister of wilful deception, so let us give Miss Sturgeon the courtesy of euphemism. Her lecture was a distant relation of actuality, a bold adaptation of the facts, a gallimaufry of inveracities.
The SNP leader told reporters: ‘The Brexit process has emboldened a now powerful Westminster faction, which perhaps never fully embraced devolution, and which now sees an opportunity to rein in the Scottish Parliament…. [T]here is not yet any real guarantee from the Tories that the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved administrations won’t be stripped of some of their powers.’
The First Minister, a voracious reader, has entered the fiction market. Genre: Thriller. Sub-genre: Conspiracy theories. It’s gripping stuff. Shadowy cabals, hidden agendas, sinister plots whispered in the corridors of power. Ian Rankin has some competition on the bestseller list this year.
At risk of spoiling the ending, none of this is true. The ‘powerful Westminster faction’ is — again with the euphemism — artistic licence on Miss Sturgeon’s part. It does not exist. It is doubtful you could assemble enough Scotland-focussed Brexiteers to put on a one-man show, let alone a faction. The secret Westminster plot was so secret that no one at Westminster had heard of it.
https://stephendaisley.com/2017/03/06/if-they-want-to-stop-indyref2-the-silent-majority-cannot-be-silent/