Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the government is imperilling its Brexit Bill

SystemSystem Posts: 12,763
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the government is imperilling its Brexit Bill

 

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    edited November 2017
    While the sex hysteria burns on back in real politics numerous pieces of bad news for High Street retailing. Voters notice empty shops and hate them. ( Even if they shop on Amazon themselves )

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/04/marks-and-spencer-to-announce-more-store-closures
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    edited November 2017
    Second like Labour.
    What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.

    The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Again in real politics away from historic allegations this is exactly the sort of issue Labour will use opposition day motions to defeat the government on. Because it's the sort of thing voters care about. Unless it's fixed in the Budget which I expect it will be but where is the money coming from ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/05/social-care-providers-backbay-bill
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,880
    YellowSubmarine said:

    Again in real politics away from historic allegations this is exactly the sort of issue Labour will use opposition day motions to defeat the government on. Because it's the sort of thing voters care about. Unless it's fixed in the Budget which I expect it will be but where is the money coming from ?

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/05/social-care-providers-backbay-bill

    A one off payment of £400m is a drop in the ocean.
    If charities providing those services do fold I would expect govt to end up incurring some costs anyway - so the real cost may be lower... you’d hope the govt would be smart enough to deal with this before it becomes a big political drama...

    stand by for questionable comparisons to the banking sector bailouts!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    What should the government have done?

    What should the Opposition do?

    A series of Pyrrhic victories do not win a war.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    On topic it looks like we are caving on the Cut Off date for EU citizens rights.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/uk-has-conceded-over-cut-off-date-for-eu-nationals-brussels-brexit-rights
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,880
    Guardian reporting another inicident with Fallon... suggestion is this one was the proverbial straw...

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/michael-fallon-defence-secretary-sexual-harassment
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Telegraph wonders if shiny new Defence Secretary might have helped cover up incidents in his old job as Chief Whip
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/04/theresa-mays-chief-staff-new-defence-secretary-sat-claims-westminster/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    rkrkrk said:

    Guardian reporting another inicident with Fallon... suggestion is this one was the proverbial straw...

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/michael-fallon-defence-secretary-sexual-harassment

    The allegations are getting more serious against Fallon, but it’s all still minor in the grand scheme of things, and again historic. I can’t believe there isn’t stuff that’s both more serious and more recent, to force out a Cabinet minister.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Telegraph wonders if shiny new Defence Secretary might have helped cover up incidents in his old job as Chief Whip
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/04/theresa-mays-chief-staff-new-defence-secretary-sat-claims-westminster/

    It depends on the nature of the allegations. It’s the job of the whips to keep MPs in line, and they have little big black books full of stories and reports on members of their party.

    If the allegations are low-level then that’s fine, the party can deal with that internally, but if they’re covering up serious criminal offences that’s entirely different.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic it looks like we are caving on the Cut Off date for EU citizens rights.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/uk-has-conceded-over-cut-off-date-for-eu-nationals-brussels-brexit-rights

    Once again, from an EU source, a story that the British government denies.

    Designed purely to allow opponents of Brexit to say the government is being evil by denying human rights blah blah, when they’ve not actually changed their position on anything.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Interesting that the Mirror leads with the Green denial rather than the porn allegation....

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/damian-green-slams-claims-extreme-11469556
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,880
    Sandpit said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic it looks like we are caving on the Cut Off date for EU citizens rights.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/uk-has-conceded-over-cut-off-date-for-eu-nationals-brussels-brexit-rights

    Once again, from an EU source, a story that the British government denies.

    Designed purely to allow opponents of Brexit to say the government is being evil by denying human rights blah blah, when they’ve not actually changed their position on anything.
    It would probably actually be smart for the govt to cave on this later on.
    If the numbers are crashing anyway we might want those people to stay!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,301
    Green accused of having porn on his PC in 2008 ?!

    Pitchforks and pyres....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic it looks like we are caving on the Cut Off date for EU citizens rights.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/uk-has-conceded-over-cut-off-date-for-eu-nationals-brussels-brexit-rights

    Once again, from an EU source, a story that the British government denies.

    Designed purely to allow opponents of Brexit to say the government is being evil by denying human rights blah blah, when they’ve not actually changed their position on anything.
    It would probably actually be smart for the govt to cave on this later on.
    If the numbers are crashing anyway we might want those people to stay!
    Indeed, it’s not a massive issue but anything to do with people and residency rights is very sesnsitive.

    My guess is that the government don’t want to announce a cutoff date that’s in the future, in order to avoid a last-minute rush of potentially millions of unskilled people registering between the announcement date and the cutoff date. Every estimate ever given about how people react to being given the right to live and work in the UK has underestimated the actual numbers by an order of magnitude.

    What annoys me more is the way this is all being reported, with EU spin being reported as fact and a clear attempt at forming an anti-Brexit narrative from much of our own media, especially the broadcast media.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Sir Alan was more pithy:

    Strip away the bluster and bonhomie, and you are left with a chaotic, mendacious, philandering, egotistical, disloyal and thoroughly untrustworthy charlatan driven by ambition and self-interest. Or, as the BBC broadcaster Eddie Mair once put it, “a nasty piece of work”.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/11/joke-s-over-how-boris-johnson-damaging-britain-s-global-stature?amp
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Pulpstar said:

    Green accused of having porn on his PC in 2008 ?!

    Pitchforks and pyres....

    The comments on the Mail article are a hoot! Most popular not sympathetic to pitchforks.....
  • dogsbrexitdogsbrexit Posts: 1
    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.
    What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.

    The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.

    On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,880
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic it looks like we are caving on the Cut Off date for EU citizens rights.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/uk-has-conceded-over-cut-off-date-for-eu-nationals-brussels-brexit-rights

    Once again, from an EU source, a story that the British government denies.

    Designed purely to allow opponents of Brexit to say the government is being evil by denying human rights blah blah, when they’ve not actually changed their position on anything.
    It would probably actually be smart for the govt to cave on this later on.
    If the numbers are crashing anyway we might want those people to stay!
    Indeed, it’s not a massive issue but anything to do with people and residency rights is very sesnsitive.

    My guess is that the government don’t want to announce a cutoff date that’s in the future, in order to avoid a last-minute rush of potentially millions of unskilled people registering between the announcement date and the cutoff date. Every estimate ever given about how people react to being given the right to live and work in the UK has underestimated the actual numbers by an order of magnitude.

    What annoys me more is the way this is all being reported, with EU spin being reported as fact and a clear attempt at forming an anti-Brexit narrative from much of our own media, especially the broadcast media.
    I think the fear that EU citizens would rush to the UK if a cutoff is announced may be misplaced.
    They don’t seem to want to come any more going by the figures.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic it looks like we are caving on the Cut Off date for EU citizens rights.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/uk-has-conceded-over-cut-off-date-for-eu-nationals-brussels-brexit-rights

    Once again, from an EU source, a story that the British government denies.

    Designed purely to allow opponents of Brexit to say the government is being evil by denying human rights blah blah, when they’ve not actually changed their position on anything.
    It would probably actually be smart for the govt to cave on this later on.
    If the numbers are crashing anyway we might want those people to stay!
    Indeed, it’s not a massive issue but anything to do with people and residency rights is very sesnsitive.

    My guess is that the government don’t want to announce a cutoff date that’s in the future, in order to avoid a last-minute rush of potentially millions of unskilled people registering between the announcement date and the cutoff date. Every estimate ever given about how people react to being given the right to live and work in the UK has underestimated the actual numbers by an order of magnitude.

    What annoys me more is the way this is all being reported, with EU spin being reported as fact and a clear attempt at forming an anti-Brexit narrative from much of our own media, especially the broadcast media.
    I think the fear that EU citizens would rush to the UK if a cutoff is announced may be misplaced.
    They don’t seem to want to come any more going by the figures.
    Yes, people forget that emigration is generally a choice. Britain is simply a less attractive place to come to than it was a couple of years ago. Sterling is lower, so pay rates are lower, economic prospects are gloomier and the EZ economy is now growing strongly. Outside these economic issues, the UK brand as a welcoming and open country has been trashed.

    A feature, rather than a bug, as far as Brexiteers are concerned.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    dogsbrexit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.
    What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.

    The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.

    On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
    Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.

    I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    Master Meeks yet again misses the point: He has done a Sterling job in cynicism in my absence though. Maybe young Chaz could advise on knee-cap synthetic replacement suppliers as - one suspects - any attempt to block Brexit may see a surge in demand.

    :all-done-in-the-best-possible-taste:
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,466
    how does this play out with the Tory backbenchers who are already uneasy at the government's shenanigans with Ministerial appointments etc. whilst I can imagine they buy into the Brexit means Brexit piece, more than a few get hot under the collar about Parliamentary sovereignty - another small but significant nail for the current cabinet wannabees. In my opinion increasingly the next Tory leader will not come from the Cabinet I suspect candidates will be looking to distance them from this sort of procedure
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,103
    Rebourne_Fluffy said:

    Master Meeks yet again misses the point: He has done a Sterling job in cynicism in my absence though. Maybe young Chaz could advise on knee-cap synthetic replacement suppliers as - one suspects - any attempt to block Brexit may see a surge in demand.

    :all-done-in-the-best-possible-taste:

    Provisional Leavers threatening to kneecap Antifrank?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,065
    Good morning, everyone.

    Worth remembering there is a lot of distrust amongst those who voted Leave that many in the Commons want to reduce our departure to being in name only, or to reverse the referendum result.

    Starmer gives the impression of a man who's batting for the other side. Some in Labour appear to see this as Conservatives versus Labour, rather than the UK negotiating with the EU.

    I still think a second referendum or outright Parliamentary reversal is credible. Which would make the current atmosphere seem like the epitome of sweetness and light.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2017
    CarlottaVance said:

    Sir Alan was more pithy:

    Strip away the bluster and bonhomie, and you are left with a chaotic, mendacious, philandering, egotistical, disloyal and thoroughly untrustworthy charlatan driven by ambition and self-interest. Or, as the BBC broadcaster Eddie Mair once put it, “a nasty piece of work”.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/11/joke-s-over-how-boris-johnson-damaging-britain-s-global-stature?amp

    Boris's legal team must be raking in the overtime. I'd love to have seen his face when May set the resignation bar at Fallon-level antics.
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225


    Provisional Leavers threatening to kneecap Antifrank?
    Que?

    The democratic will of the people must be respected: To do otherwise is undemocratic. AntiFrank and Chaz are well aware of my opinions about them. *

    * Other posters be advised: This is an individual statement and may not apply in other cases.** :wink:
    ** No PB posters were harmed in this message. Please refer to relevant legislation as to how to behave.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,394
    Mr Sandpit,

    "I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table."

    Merde! You've seen through Starmer's cunning plan. Zut alors!

    If only Parliament was more like the French, or even the Italians. There'd be no complaints of sexual harassment then.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    https://www.fastcompany.com/40490204/the-most-outrageous-russian-propaganda-that-appeared-on-facebook

    Fascinating. The russian troll farms in action.
    (warning - not sure how reliable the source is)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,271
    So the papers didn't have the great raft of career-ending revelations then....at least, not last night.

    Surely, they can't ALL have kept their powder dry?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,893
    MarqueeMark said:

    So the papers didn't have the great raft of career-ending revelations then....at least, not last night.

    Surely, they can't ALL have kept their powder dry?

    If there are any potential criminal charges - so far I make referrals to the police as one in the Conservatives and three or perhaps more in Labour - might they be afraid of prejudicing any legal proceedings?

    It's never stopped them in the past, but the past was before Leveson.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    edited November 2017
    MarqueeMark said:

    So the papers didn't have the great raft of career-ending revelations then....at least, not last night.

    Surely, they can't ALL have kept their powder dry?

    Nothing career-ending by the look of it. Where are all the MPs shagging interns and forcing themselves on unsuspecting staffers?

    The biggest story of the week on this subject is still Bex Bailey and the coverup.

    Meanwhile, if anyone didn’t think that Kevin Spacey’s Career was dead, Bill Maher made a joke about him the other night, that no boy could possibly be too young...
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited November 2017
    Rebourne_Fluffy said:

    Master Meeks yet again misses the point: He has done a Sterling job in cynicism in my absence though. Maybe young Chaz could advise on knee-cap synthetic replacement suppliers as - one suspects - any attempt to block Brexit may see a surge in demand.

    :all-done-in-the-best-possible-taste:

    You are threatening knee-capping to people opposed to Brexit?

    Brexiteers sink to a new low
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,893
    edited November 2017
    Beverley_C said:

    Rebourne_Fluffy said:

    Master Meeks yet again misses the point: He has done a Sterling job in cynicism in my absence though. Maybe young Chaz could advise on knee-cap synthetic replacement suppliers as - one suspects - any attempt to block Brexit may see a surge in demand.

    :all-done-in-the-best-possible-taste:

    You are threatening knee-capping to people opposed to Brexit?

    Brexiteers sink to a new low
    It has to be said the Thoughts in that post are less than Fluffy.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,310
    Re the computer allegations: is it possible both sides are telling the truth? The newspaper version seems to be that the material was on an office computer, he is saying it wasn’t on his. Do we know how many computers were involved?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    So the papers didn't have the great raft of career-ending revelations then....at least, not last night.

    Surely, they can't ALL have kept their powder dry?

    If there are any potential criminal charges - so far I make referrals to the police as one in the Conservatives and three or perhaps more in Labour - might they be afraid of prejudicing any legal proceedings?

    It's never stopped them in the past, but the past was before Leveson.
    Not much of an issue prior to charges being brought.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,065
    F1: no market for this as yet, but noticed that in the title race on Ladbrokes (2018) the Force India drivers are around 201, yet the Renaults are 51.

    I keep saying the biggest question mark next year is whether the Renault engine will be reliable and fast enough, with the emphasis on the first part. If head-to-heads get put up, I'd be tempted to back Force India over Renault at around 5 or so, on the basis the Renault may just be far less reliable.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,271
    Sandpit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    So the papers didn't have the great raft of career-ending revelations then....at least, not last night.

    Surely, they can't ALL have kept their powder dry?

    Nothing career-ending by the look of it. Where are all the MPs shagging interns and forcing themselves on unsuspecting staffers?

    The biggest story of the week on this subject is still Bex Bailey and the coverup.
    Interesting though that Mann was talking of at least a dozen by-elections.

    But unless he has an inside track into dirt within the Tory Party, should we take that as an admission that he suspects Labour has a cupboard full of skeletons about to come clattering out, now the handle is being turned? It certainly looks like an invitation to the media to keep digging guys, keep digging.... MPs must love him for that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,271
    Beverley_C said:

    Rebourne_Fluffy said:

    Master Meeks yet again misses the point: He has done a Sterling job in cynicism in my absence though. Maybe young Chaz could advise on knee-cap synthetic replacement suppliers as - one suspects - any attempt to block Brexit may see a surge in demand.

    :all-done-in-the-best-possible-taste:

    You are threatening knee-capping to people opposed to Brexit?

    Brexiteers sink to a new low
    Brexiteers plural?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,893
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Re the computer allegations: is it possible both sides are telling the truth? The newspaper version seems to be that the material was on an office computer, he is saying it wasn’t on his. Do we know how many computers were involved?

    Given the complete and total mess they made of that investigation, do the police know how many computers were involved? Or even that they were computers?

    It's a fairly damning indictment of the Met that somebody as preternaturally useless as Quick was in charge of a significant chunk of national security.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited November 2017
    MarqueeMark said:

    Beverley_C said:

    Rebourne_Fluffy said:

    Master Meeks yet again misses the point: He has done a Sterling job in cynicism in my absence though. Maybe young Chaz could advise on knee-cap synthetic replacement suppliers as - one suspects - any attempt to block Brexit may see a surge in demand.

    :all-done-in-the-best-possible-taste:

    You are threatening knee-capping to people opposed to Brexit?

    Brexiteers sink to a new low
    Brexiteers plural?
    No, but I do not think Mr Fluffy identifies as a remainer ;)j
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,271
    nielh said:

    https://www.fastcompany.com/40490204/the-most-outrageous-russian-propaganda-that-appeared-on-facebook

    Fascinating. The russian troll farms in action.
    (warning - not sure how reliable the source is)

    But who needs Russians?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12177987/Jimmy-Savile-Vote-Conservative-hoax-spreads-on-social-media.html
  • Independent_ColinIndependent_Colin Posts: 54
    CarlottaVance said:

    Sir Alan was more pithy:

    Strip away the bluster and bonhomie, and you are left with a chaotic, mendacious, philandering, egotistical, disloyal and thoroughly untrustworthy charlatan driven by ambition and self-interest. Or, as the BBC broadcaster Eddie Mair once put it, “a nasty piece of work”.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/11/joke-s-over-how-boris-johnson-damaging-britain-s-global-stature?amp

    The Prime Minister's assessment was that he was suitable for Foreign Sec.
    Says much about her judgement.

    BoJo was appointed July 13th 2016. He is still the same and has not grown into the role or grown up.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Sandpit said:

    dogsbrexit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.
    What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.

    The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.

    On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
    Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.

    I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
    That's a fair point. But it's one the government could and should have made in and to parliament, with the aim of facing down the vote. It should not simply treat parliament with disdain when it votes for something the government does not like.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,065
    Mr. Colin, indeed. Boris is not fit to be Foreign Secretary.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.
    What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.

    The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.

    Then Parliament is not Sovereign, but now, the Conservative Party is. We are now in a one party state which is becoming more Soviet day by day.........
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,893
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Colin, indeed. Boris is not fit to be Foreign Secretary.

    Will I get into trouble if I suggest he only heard the 'Foreign Affairs' part and misunderstood?
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    So the papers didn't have the great raft of career-ending revelations then....at least, not last night.

    Surely, they can't ALL have kept their powder dry?

    Nothing career-ending by the look of it. Where are all the MPs shagging interns and forcing themselves on unsuspecting staffers?

    The biggest story of the week on this subject is still Bex Bailey and the coverup.
    Interesting though that Mann was talking of at least a dozen by-elections.

    But unless he has an inside track into dirt within the Tory Party, should we take that as an admission that he suspects Labour has a cupboard full of skeletons about to come clattering out, now the handle is being turned? It certainly looks like an invitation to the media to keep digging guys, keep digging.... MPs must love him for that.
    The way he seemingly gets his information direct from Israeli Intelligence, means he (and the Israelis) have control of the hearts and minds of the Parliamentarians, as well as other pieces of anatomy. Perhaps someone should be investigating his own allegiances.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    OchEye said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.
    What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.

    The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.

    Then Parliament is not Sovereign, but now, the Conservative Party is. We are now in a one party state which is becoming more Soviet day by day.........
    The concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty refers solely to the passing of legislation. But since you ask, Parliament has not been sovereign in practice since it passed the European Communities Act, that sovereignty shall return in March 2019.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    CarlottaVance said:

    What should the government have done?

    What should the Opposition do?

    A series of Pyrrhic victories do not win a war.

    Why not? They are still victories, just costly ones.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    edited November 2017
    The story of Damien Green and extreme porn on his computer does concern me. I do not understand why this has been put in the public domain by an ex police officer who seems to have an agenda against Green.

    I did think he should stand down pending the investigations into him as he is DPM but I can understand why he is furiously defending himself over what seems a revenge story so I am content to await the report on his behaviour in due course.

    Looking at porn on a business computer is usually a disciplinary matter but what goes on in anyone's home is nothing to do with anyone unless it is illegal porn

    The meeting between TM and party leaders tomorrow needs to agree the immediate appointment of a wholly independent forum with phone hotline so that all the allegations can be channelled correctly and avoid any allegations about parties burying complaints and whips using information for party advantage
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    edited November 2017
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Guardian reporting another inicident with Fallon... suggestion is this one was the proverbial straw...

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/michael-fallon-defence-secretary-sexual-harassment

    The allegations are getting more serious against Fallon, but it’s all still minor in the grand scheme of things, and again historic. I can’t believe there isn’t stuff that’s both more serious and more recent, to force out a Cabinet minister.
    I reckon this is the Fallon mystery solved.

    I heard Jane Merrick interviewed on R4 last Sunday, when she gave a detailed description of how as a 29 year old she had been lunged at by an MP, who had tried to kiss her after a lunch. She didn't name the MP, but, even if other journalists didn't already know (and I bet at least a few did), they would have been asking around. Fallon would have known it was a ticking bomb under himself; today a week later the story is public.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Guardian reporting another inicident with Fallon... suggestion is this one was the proverbial straw...

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/michael-fallon-defence-secretary-sexual-harassment

    The allegations are getting more serious against Fallon, but it’s all still minor in the grand scheme of things, and again historic. I can’t believe there isn’t stuff that’s both more serious and more recent, to force out a Cabinet minister.
    I reckon this is the Fallon mystery solved.

    I heard Jane Merrick interviewed on R4 last Sunday, when she gave a detailed description of how as a 29 year old she had been lunged at by an MP, who had tried to kiss her after a lunch. She didn't name the MP, but, even if other journalists didn't already know (and I bet at least a few did), they would have been asking around. Fallon would have known it was a ticking bomb under himself; today a week later the story is public.
    The lesson to learn from this is just how poor the reporting was by implicating Leadsom in his dismissal when the truth shows this was not the case, though I have little time for Leadsom.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The story of Damien Green and extreme porn on his computer does concern me. I do not understand why this has been put in the public domain by an ex police officer who seems to have an agenda against Green.

    I did think he should stand down pending the investigations into him as he is DPM but I can understand why he is furiously defending himself over what seems a revenge story so I am content to await the report on his behaviour in due course.

    Looking at porn on a business computer is usually a disciplinary matter but what goes on in anyone's home is nothing to do with anyone unless it is illegal porn

    The meeting between TM and party leaders tomorrow needs to agree the immediate appointment of a wholly independent forum with phone hotline so that all the allegations can be channelled correctly and avoid any allegations about parties burying complaints and whips using information for party advantage

    I haven't seen the ST but the BBC report doesn't say it was "extreme" porn, even if true. Was this in the ST or did you add it yourself for dramatic effect?
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 450
    It's the people who should be sovereign, not Parliament.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,893
    Recidivist said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    What should the government have done?

    What should the Opposition do?

    A series of Pyrrhic victories do not win a war.

    Why not? They are still victories, just costly ones.
    A series of very Pyrrhic victories won the American Civil War - Cold Harbour springs to mind.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    IanB2 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The story of Damien Green and extreme porn on his computer does concern me. I do not understand why this has been put in the public domain by an ex police officer who seems to have an agenda against Green.

    I did think he should stand down pending the investigations into him as he is DPM but I can understand why he is furiously defending himself over what seems a revenge story so I am content to await the report on his behaviour in due course.

    Looking at porn on a business computer is usually a disciplinary matter but what goes on in anyone's home is nothing to do with anyone unless it is illegal porn

    The meeting between TM and party leaders tomorrow needs to agree the immediate appointment of a wholly independent forum with phone hotline so that all the allegations can be channelled correctly and avoid any allegations about parties burying complaints and whips using information for party advantage

    I haven't seen the ST but the BBC report doesn't say it was "extreme" porn, even if true. Was this in the ST or did you add it yourself for dramatic effect?
    That comment is unfair.

    It was reported as extreme in various media outlets last night but not illegal. Indeed there were several references to it on last nights thread
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.

    I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,893
    houndtang said:

    It's the people who should be sovereign, not Parliament.

    In our system, the Sovereign is sovereign. However, she delegates her powers to Parliament. As a result technically the judges were right on Parliamentary sovereignty although their reasoning was quite badly flawed in other ways.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,065
    Mr. B2, I do wonder, though, about 'extreme'. 'Illegal' would be a more useful and less subjective term.

    Some people are very straitlaced, others rather more liberal-minded. One man's extremity is another man's delight. Ahem.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.

    I agree that Alastair's attempt to link the Tory abstaining with the Brexit issues is rather thin; maybe the article deadline was looming and he was struggling for inspiration? Nevertheless it is undeniable that the government has tried very hard to keep anything to do with Brexit away from Parliament, which does sit uneasily with support for its supposed sovereignty.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    edited November 2017
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The story of Damien Green and extreme porn on his computer does concern me. I do not understand why this has been put in the public domain by an ex police officer who seems to have an agenda against Green.

    I did think he should stand down pending the investigations into him as he is DPM but I can understand why he is furiously defending himself over what seems a revenge story so I am content to await the report on his behaviour in due course.

    Looking at porn on a business computer is usually a disciplinary matter but what goes on in anyone's home is nothing to do with anyone unless it is illegal porn

    The meeting between TM and party leaders tomorrow needs to agree the immediate appointment of a wholly independent forum with phone hotline so that all the allegations can be channelled correctly and avoid any allegations about parties burying complaints and whips using information for party advantage

    I haven't seen the ST but the BBC report doesn't say it was "extreme" porn, even if true. Was this in the ST or did you add it yourself for dramatic effect?
    That comment is unfair.

    It was reported as extreme in various media outlets last night but not illegal. Indeed there were several references to it on last nights thread
    It was a question, based on the description not appearing in the reports I have seen. If your answer is that this has been reported, then Ok.

    Edit/ and, yes, I see the Guardian story has this. Not really a helpful term as it somewhat depends on the perspective of the writer, up to a point. As says Mr Dancer.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,893
    Under the circumstances I will forego my usual awesome puns about organs this morning. However I do have a large musical instrument demanding my attention.

    Have a good morning.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    edited November 2017
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. B2, I do wonder, though, about 'extreme'. 'Illegal' would be a more useful and less subjective term.

    Some people are very straitlaced, others rather more liberal-minded. One man's extremity is another man's delight. Ahem.

    I did wonder why extreme was used so widely last night in the media as it is irrelevant if it is legal.

    However, not good that I should be accused of adding extreme to the story for 'dramatic effect'
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited November 2017
    Will Self on feminist male self flaggelation;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09c0ynm

    First half great, second half bollox, imo
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    david_herdson said:

    Sandpit said:

    dogsbrexit said:

    Sandpit said:

    On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
    Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.

    I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
    That's a fair point. But it's one the government could and should have made in and to parliament, with the aim of facing down the vote. It should not simply treat parliament with disdain when it votes for something the government does not like.
    I’d agree with you, except that there are several routes and procedures open to Mr Starmer if he wishes to view the documents. What’s a nakedly-obvious attempt to use a 200-year old procedure never before used by an Opposition to embarrass the government really doesn’t come into that category.

    As Mr Dancer said more eloquently than I upthread, Starmer acts like he’s batting for the other side - the negotiations are between the UK and EU, not between Conservative and Labour.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    edited November 2017
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    IanB2 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The story of Damien Green and extreme porn on his computer does concern me. I do not understand why this has been put in the public domain by an ex police officer who seems to have an agenda against Green.

    I did think he should stand down pending the investigations into him as he is DPM but I can understand why he is furiously defending himself over what seems a revenge story so I am content to await the report on his behaviour in due course.

    Looking at porn on a business computer is usually a disciplinary matter but what goes on in anyone's home is nothing to do with anyone unless it is illegal porn

    The meeting between TM and party leaders tomorrow needs to agree the immediate appointment of a wholly independent forum with phone hotline so that all the allegations can be channelled correctly and avoid any allegations about parties burying complaints and whips using information for party advantage

    I haven't seen the ST but the BBC report doesn't say it was "extreme" porn, even if true. Was this in the ST or did you add it yourself for dramatic effect?
    That comment is unfair.

    It was reported as extreme in various media outlets last night but not illegal. Indeed there were several references to it on last nights thread
    The phrase “Extreme Pornography” was used in more recent legislation and has a specific meaning. there’s no suggestion that what may have been found on the computer meets this definition, a definition that didn’t even exist at the time of the raid in 2008.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    edited November 2017
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. B2, I do wonder, though, about 'extreme'. 'Illegal' would be a more useful and less subjective term.

    Some people are very straitlaced, others rather more liberal-minded. One man's extremity is another man's delight. Ahem.

    I did wonder why extreme was used so widely last night in the media as it is irrelevant if it is legal.

    However, not good that I should be accused of adding extreme to the story for 'dramatic effect'
    Asking isn't accusing (somewhat topical right now).

    I agree it's not a helpful term and quite possibly a journalist or even the policeman at the heart of the story added it for effect. We all know it's possible to click a link too quickly, such as from a spam email, and arrive at an inappropriate site. Even if you shut it down straight away it can leave some sort of a trace on your computer. This is the most innocent explanation, with having folders of pictures and videos filed away that most people would see as 'extreme' being at the other end of the legal possibilities. The story doesn't really give much of a clue as to what the accusation is.

    I do remember speaking to an IT officer of a local council a few years ago (not my own), and he said that pretty much every device that came back from their councillors had some evidence of porn use on it.
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 450
    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.

    I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
    I expect most Leave voters care little for Parliament and those in it, especially given that it was Parliament that was keeping us in the EU.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    Anna Soubry on Marr angrily denouncing 'trial by the newspapers'. Also admits she contacted no 10 over Jane Merrick
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. B2, I do wonder, though, about 'extreme'. 'Illegal' would be a more useful and less subjective term.

    Some people are very straitlaced, others rather more liberal-minded. One man's extremity is another man's delight. Ahem.

    I did wonder why extreme was used so widely last night in the media as it is irrelevant if it is legal.

    However, not good that I should be accused of adding extreme to the story for 'dramatic effect'
    Is it not reference to the government's attempts to make 'extreme' porn unlawful, and therefore an attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    AlsoIndigo said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. B2, I do wonder, though, about 'extreme'. 'Illegal' would be a more useful and less subjective term.

    Some people are very straitlaced, others rather more liberal-minded. One man's extremity is another man's delight. Ahem.

    I did wonder why extreme was used so widely last night in the media as it is irrelevant if it is legal.

    However, not good that I should be accused of adding extreme to the story for 'dramatic effect'
    Is it not reference to the government's attempts to make 'extreme' porn unlawful, and therefore an attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy ?
    I do not know who first used the expression but it was widely used last night, particularly in the on line media
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited November 2017
    houndtang said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.

    I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
    I expect most Leave voters care little for Parliament and those in it, especially given that it was Parliament that was keeping us in the EU.
    You mean aside from parliament having voted by clear, nay overwhelming, majority for us to activate Article 50 ?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    Sandpit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Sandpit said:

    dogsbrexit said:

    Sandpit said:

    ....cting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
    Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.

    I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
    That's a fair point. But it's one the government could and should have made in and to parliament, with the aim of facing down the vote. It should not simply treat parliament with disdain when it votes for something the government does not like.
    I’d agree with you, except that there are several routes and procedures open to Mr Starmer if he wishes to view the documents. What’s a nakedly-obvious attempt to use a 200-year old procedure never before used by an Opposition to embarrass the government really doesn’t come into that category.

    As Mr Dancer said more eloquently than I upthread, Starmer acts like he’s batting for the other side - the negotiations are between the UK and EU, not between Conservative and Labour.
    After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    Recidivist said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    What should the government have done?

    What should the Opposition do?

    A series of Pyrrhic victories do not win a war.

    Why not? They are still victories, just costly ones.
    A series of very Pyrrhic victories won the American Civil War - Cold Harbour springs to mind.
    Passchendale would be another.

    Though there are plenty of losing sides that had Pyyrhic victories too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    AlsoIndigo said:

    houndtang said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.

    I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
    I expect most Leave voters care little for Parliament and those in it, especially given that it was Parliament that was keeping us in the EU.
    You mean aside from parliament having voted by clear, nay overwhelming, majority for us to activate Article 50 ?
    Indeed so. Good to see you on here again, been a long time!
  • LordWakefieldLordWakefield Posts: 144
    https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/926767308021710853
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,065
    edited November 2017
    Mr. Doethur/Dr. Foxinsox, then they're not Pyrrhic.

    A Pyrrhic victory is one that either costs more than the victory gained, or incurs such heavy losses the battlefield victory leads to defeat in the war.

    Mr. B2, I have some sympathy with that view. However, given the behaviour of Labour, most especially Starmer, this is probably something May got right as I suspect anything whispered to Starmer would mysteriously end up in Barnier's hands.

    Edited extra bit: to add to the Pyrrhic point: it's a victory that isn't worth having.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,065
    edited November 2017
    Lord Wakefield, interesting choice of having an attractive woman assaulting men. Which makes violence ok, of course.

    The idea that either politically motivated violence is a good thing or that women assaulting men is acceptable is utterly repugnant.

    Edited extra bit: and welcome back, Mr. Indigo and Mr. Fluffy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,271
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The story of Damien Green and extreme porn on his computer does concern me. I do not understand why this has been put in the public domain by an ex police officer who seems to have an agenda against Green.

    I did think he should stand down pending the investigations into him as he is DPM but I can understand why he is furiously defending himself over what seems a revenge story so I am content to await the report on his behaviour in due course.

    Looking at porn on a business computer is usually a disciplinary matter but what goes on in anyone's home is nothing to do with anyone unless it is illegal porn

    The meeting between TM and party leaders tomorrow needs to agree the immediate appointment of a wholly independent forum with phone hotline so that all the allegations can be channelled correctly and avoid any allegations about parties burying complaints and whips using information for party advantage

    The headline in the Sunday Times is "Police: We found porn on deputy PM's computers"

    Who is the source in the police? "A former police chief", Bob Quick, previously discredited:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5129561/Bob-Quick-resigns-over-terror-blunder.html

    and harbouring a well-known grudge against the Conservtives:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3900348/Metropolitan-police-terror-chief-Bob-Quick-issues-unreserved-apology-to-Tories.html

    who was at the heart of the original raid. A raid about which there were huge qualms at the time. (The Met's response to today's story was "Not prepared to discuss." The Sunday Times also informs us the current head of the Met, Cressida Dick, was part of the team of senior officers who worked on that raid. So no surprise there then!)

    What type of porn - was it illegal? No, or he would be long gone. No criminal offences were involved we are told. But the same "former police chief" says that it was of an "extreme pornographic nature". Well, come on, Bob, how was it extreme - yet legal?

    Was he Deputy PM at the time the porn was found? No. He wasn't even in Government at the time.

    Computers - plural. How many, and who else had access to these computers, plural?

    This story falls below the standard I would expect of the paper that used to give us Insight.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,196
    There is no doubt in my mind these reports should be released but redacting them ensures any information in them does not compromise negotiations with the EU.

    There are also clear suspicions in Government that Remainer MPs are trying to stop or undermine Brexit through Parliament.

    The fact that Nick Clegg is hosting a £2000 a table 'Stop Brexit' dinner next month to be addressed by Chuka Umunna and Anna Soubry does not ease those suspicions.
    https://order-order.com/2017/11/02/clegg-hosting-christmas-dinner-for-remain-elite-at-5-star-knightsbridge-hotel/
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Doethur/Dr. Foxinsox, then they're not Pyrrhic.

    A Pyrrhic victory is one that either costs more than the victory gained, or incurs such heavy losses the battlefield victory leads to defeat in the war.

    Mr. B2, I have some sympathy with that view. However, given the behaviour of Labour, most especially Starmer, this is probably something May got right as I suspect anything whispered to Starmer would mysteriously end up in Barnier's hands.

    Nevertheless as someone with reasonable experience of opposition politics, I suggest you can't expect an opposition politician to do anything other than try to pull apart whatever the government is doing, unless they have been meaningfully and genuinely consulted on the matter beforehand. You're right that not everyone can be trusted if so involved, but nevertheless I think it would have been more mature and sensible for May to have taken the high ground and formed some sort of cross-party arrangement straight after the election.

    As with most of May's actions, she was of course prevented from doing so for fear of the headbangers on the benches behind her.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,266
    Behind all of this political posturing there remains a simple truth. Our government are under the delusion that No Deal - a 'fuck the EU off to the WTO' Brexit is viable or perhaps even desirable.

    It is not viable. Business understand the catastrophe that awaits us in 2019. It cannot wait for a last minute deal and will start pulling out investment in the hope of surviving the crash next year. The government apparently also knows it would be a catastrophe, and has detailed assessments of the impact a no deal Brexit would have on the various sectors that make up the economy.

    It claims we can't see them 'Because negotiations' - as if the EU have no idea what no deal means and publication would "tip them off". They know. But there are many voters and some newspapers who apparently dont know, and they need to be warned of what is to come. So we need to see the analysis whilst there is still time to avoid what is written.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    MarqueeMark said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    The story of Damien Green and extreme porn on his computer does concern me. I do not understand why this has been put in the public domain by an ex police officer who seems to have an agenda against Green.

    I did think he should stand down pending the investigations into him as he is DPM but I can understand why he is furiously defending himself over what seems a revenge story so I am content to await the report on his behaviour in due course.

    Looking at porn on a business computer is usually a disciplinary matter but what goes on in anyone's home is nothing to do with anyone unless it is illegal porn

    The meeting between TM and party leaders tomorrow needs to agree the immediate appointment of a wholly independent forum with phone hotline so that all the allegations can be channelled correctly and avoid any allegations about parties burying complaints and whips using information for party advantage

    The headline in the Sunday Times is "Police: We found porn on deputy PM's computers"

    Who is the source in the police? "A former police chief", Bob Quick, previously discredited:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5129561/Bob-Quick-resigns-over-terror-blunder.html

    and harbouring a well-known grudge against the Conservtives:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3900348/Metropolitan-police-terror-chief-Bob-Quick-issues-unreserved-apology-to-Tories.html

    who was at the heart of the original raid. A raid about which there were huge qualms at the time. (The Met's response to today's story was "Not prepared to discuss." The Sunday Times also informs us the current head of the Met, Cressida Dick, was part of the team of senior officers who worked on that raid. So no surprise there then!)

    What type of porn - was it illegal? No, or he would be long gone. No criminal offences were involved we are told. But the same "former police chief" says that it was of an "extreme pornographic nature". Well, come on, Bob, how was it extreme - yet legal?

    Was he Deputy PM at the time the porn was found? No. He wasn't even in Government at the time.

    Computers - plural. How many, and who else had access to these computers, plural?

    This story falls below the standard I would expect of the paper that used to give us Insight.
    Agree with this and Anna Soubry comment of 'trial by newspapers' on Marr just now seems very succinct
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    edited November 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Sandpit said:

    dogsbrexit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Welcome to PB. I’ve no problem at all with the relevant documents being made available to the Brexit committee, or to opposition politicians under Privy Council terms - processes which were designed to allow this sort of information to be seen by those on all sides with an interest in the subject.

    I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
    That's a fair point. But it's one the government could and should have made in and to parliament, with the aim of facing down the vote. It should not simply treat parliament with disdain when it votes for something the government does not like.
    I’d agree with you, except that there are several routes and procedures open to Mr Starmer if he wishes to view the documents. What’s a nakedly-obvious attempt to use a 200-year old procedure never before used by an Opposition to embarrass the government really doesn’t come into that category.

    As Mr Dancer said more eloquently than I upthread, Starmer acts like he’s batting for the other side - the negotiations are between the UK and EU, not between Conservative and Labour.
    After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
    My understanding was that prior to the A50 bill, attempts were made to involve opposition parties, but they made it clear to Mrs May and Mr Davis that their job was to oppose the government rather than engage constructively with the talks. As I remember it, things said to Starmer’s team quickly found themselves in the Evening Standard or on C4 News.

    Personally I’d welcome cross-party involvement in the Brexit talks, given the complexity and timescale. Providing that those involved wish to be constructive rather than undermine the talks. Calls from the likes of Mandleson to get involved were rightly treated with extreme suspicion by the government.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    Sandpit said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    houndtang said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.

    I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
    I expect most Leave voters care little for Parliament and those in it, especially given that it was Parliament that was keeping us in the EU.
    You mean aside from parliament having voted by clear, nay overwhelming, majority for us to activate Article 50 ?
    Indeed so. Good to see you on here again, been a long time!
    A new girlfriend (and all the attendant activities like trying to get marginally in shape, and showing the necessary interest in her pastimes) has been taking up a lot of time ;) She is out for the afternoon so I am getting to catch up on some browsing!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,196
    edited November 2017
    Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu on Marr now
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    Auntie-Bev:

    I crossed South-Quays minutes before my bog-trotters cousins let their truck-bomb off*: The message was sent very quickly back to Tralee that this was not acceptable. You can wrap yourself in the TriColour blood-banner: I will stand for the will of the people.

    * Outside Midlands Bank. Facing traffic.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,065
    Mr. B2, criticism of the Government's competence is one thing, trying to undermine the UK in a very serious negotiation is an entirely different kettle of monkeys.

    I'd like to believe that a sensible cross-party approach could have been adopted, but I have no confidence Corbyn is interested in the national interest of the UK, and no confidence Starmer would not see this as a weapon in a Con-Lab contest rather than part of a UK-EU negotiation.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,056
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Behind all of this political posturing there remains a simple truth. Our government are under the delusion that No Deal - a 'fuck the EU off to the WTO' Brexit is viable or perhaps even desirable.

    It is not viable. Business understand the catastrophe that awaits us in 2019. It cannot wait for a last minute deal and will start pulling out investment in the hope of surviving the crash next year. The government apparently also knows it would be a catastrophe, and has detailed assessments of the impact a no deal Brexit would have on the various sectors that make up the economy.

    It claims we can't see them 'Because negotiations' - as if the EU have no idea what no deal means and publication would "tip them off". They know. But there are many voters and some newspapers who apparently dont know, and they need to be warned of what is to come. So we need to see the analysis whilst there is still time to avoid what is written.

    I do not think TM is a no deal advocate and I am more than ever confident a deal will happen that will largely satisfy the majority, but not the two extremes of the argument
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,523
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Guardian reporting another inicident with Fallon... suggestion is this one was the proverbial straw...

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/michael-fallon-defence-secretary-sexual-harassment

    The allegations are getting more serious against Fallon, but it’s all still minor in the grand scheme of things, and again historic. I can’t believe there isn’t stuff that’s both more serious and more recent, to force out a Cabinet minister.
    I reckon this is the Fallon mystery solved.

    I heard Jane Merrick interviewed on R4 last Sunday, when she gave a detailed description of how as a 29 year old she had been lunged at by an MP, who had tried to kiss her after a lunch. She didn't name the MP, but, even if other journalists didn't already know (and I bet at least a few did), they would have been asking around. Fallon would have known it was a ticking bomb under himself; today a week later the story is public.
    It's a good job I never decided to pursue a career as an MP.

    In my twenties, when I was single, I "lunged" at a few girls. Sometimes that resulted in a relationship. Other times I misread the signs, I apologised and we moved on.

    I also (like virtually everyone else, even if they don't admit it) have looked at porn on my home PC. But not on my work PC, I hasten to add.

    Do the public want Saints as politicians, or do they want people with "real-world" experience, or, as I suspect, both at the same time?
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    IanB2 said:


    After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)

    Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.

    I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.

    Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.

    As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    edited November 2017
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Sandpit said:

    dogsbrexit said:

    Sandpit said:

    I do have an objection to trying to force them to be publicly published, which has the effect of sending our team into the negotiations with one hand behind our back and all our cards face up on the table. The government’s reaction to this is clearly going to be to publish something containing a lot of black marker pen, and probably encourage them to communicate differently behind the scenes, in order to avoid future disclosure of our position to those on the other side of the negotiating table.
    That's a fair point. But it's one the government could and should have made in and to parliament, with the aim of facing down the vote. It should not simply treat parliament with disdain when it votes for something the government does not like.
    I’d agree with you, except that there are several routes and procedures open to Mr Starmer if he wishes to view the documents. What’s a nakedly-obvious attempt to use a 200-year old procedure never before used by an Opposition to embarrass the government really doesn’t come into that category.

    As Mr Dancer said more eloquently than I upthread, Starmer acts like he’s batting for the other side - the negotiations are between the UK and EU, not between Conservative and Labour.
    After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)
    My understanding was that prior to the A50 bill, attempts were made to involve opposition parties, but they made it clear to Mrs May and Mr Davis that their job was to oppose the government rather than engage constructively with the talks. As I remember it, things said to Starmer’s team quickly found themselves in the Evening Standard or on C4 News.

    Personally I’d welcome cross-party involvement in the Brexit talks, given the complexity and timescale.
    Possibly. It is of course quite reasonable for an opposition to decline involvement and say they simply want to oppose. Most Labour MPs don't actually believe in Brexit, after all, whatever meaningless spin is currently their party line.

    May might nevertheless have made a public offer and formal proposal that Labour may have found difficult to decline.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    IanB2 said:

    You're right that not everyone can be trusted if so involved, but nevertheless I think it would have been more mature and sensible for May to have taken the high ground and formed some sort of cross-party arrangement straight after the election.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exiting_the_European_Union_Select_Committee ?

  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,081
    dogsbrexit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.
    What Starmer was trying to do with his motion last week was petty Parliamentary games, in an attempt to prejudice the negotiations that the British government is undertaking with the EU by forcing them to put their cards up on the table.

    The negotiation documents are secret and should remain so.

    On the contrary, it is the government which is playing games, in an effort to keep parliament in the dark. Given that the EU holds all the aces, controls the process, can make a "take it or leave it" offer or walk away at any time, and we'll still be out of the EU, it's difficult to see how the information in these documents can possibly be so intrinsically secret, sensitive, or prejudicial to the negotiations. The Brexit scrutiny select committee cannot do its job effectively, or properly, if material information is withheld. It should see, in confidence, the full unexpurgated reports. The extent to which the documentation may need redacting before any further disclosure, should then be agreed. There are better ways of hiding bad news. Who said that we are leaving the EU for economic reasons? Of course, the government will seek to redact the documentation to the point of rendering it meaningless, before disclosure to the Brexit scrutiny committee. Consistent with its policy of bypassing Parliament.
    I agree that this has precious little to do with its effect on the negotiations and is aimed at bypassing parliament. (What price sovereignty now?)

    However I think what really lies behind the attempt at secrecy is a desperation to keep the wider public in the dark about the consequences of Brexit. Leavers are scurrying to push ahead before public opinion turns against them. Most know they are skating on very thin ice.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    daodao said:

    IanB2 said:


    After the election outcome the Tories had the opportunity to go for some cross-party arrangements to oversee the negotiations (indeed there were calls from various sides for such), but instead they have kept everything to themselves, avoiding as best they can anyone outside government. A minority government has a thin claim to represent the interests of the whole country, or even most of it (indeed under our system even majority governments don't do so)

    Messing around while the clock ticks is unhelpful. The UK will be out of the EU on 29/3/19, deal or no deal, and dilly-dallying, as the Tory minority government is now doing, doesn't help the chances of getting any reasonable deal.

    I expect that the EU doesn't give a damn, as the UK's membership was a hindrance to creating a federal United States of Europe with common defence, financial and foreign policies, including universal adoption of the Euro, European armed forces (to replace the obsolescent NATO) and a lingua franca that is purely European (German is the obvious choice). On the international stage, it should be the EU that has the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, replacing France and the UK.

    Eventually, a humiliated impoverished England will probably beg to rejoin, without any opt-outs.

    As for Damian Green, if he had any integrity he should have gone by now.
    I agree, except on the language - I think English has such global traction now that there is little chance of French or German mathching its status, spread or currency, even within Europe.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,168
    edited November 2017
    AlsoIndigo said:

    IanB2 said:

    You're right that not everyone can be trusted if so involved, but nevertheless I think it would have been more mature and sensible for May to have taken the high ground and formed some sort of cross-party arrangement straight after the election.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exiting_the_European_Union_Select_Committee ?

    But that is what a local council would call a scrutiny committee. There is a big difference between being involved in scrutiny of the executive - which is already part of an opposition's core role - and being involved in shaping, or at least being consulted on, decision making by the executive.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,904
    AlsoIndigo said:

    Sandpit said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    houndtang said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ”Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in conversation) The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament.” Dicey 1885 quoted in Wikipedia. Shenanigans between the govt and the commons have nothing to do with parliamentary sovereignty in this sense. Leavers may be making this mistake but I'd like to see evidence that they are; without it I am inclined to see here another example of remainer strawmanning.

    I agree with you. Remainers are using the phrase in irony because it was used by Leave campaigners before the referendum.
    I expect most Leave voters care little for Parliament and those in it, especially given that it was Parliament that was keeping us in the EU.
    You mean aside from parliament having voted by clear, nay overwhelming, majority for us to activate Article 50 ?
    Indeed so. Good to see you on here again, been a long time!
    A new girlfriend (and all the attendant activities like trying to get marginally in shape, and showing the necessary interest in her pastimes) has been taking up a lot of time ;) She is out for the afternoon so I am getting to catch up on some browsing!
    Good to hear, sounds fun ;)

    I’m off out for the afternoon too, laters.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    IanB2 said:

    Possibly. It is of course quite reasonable for an opposition to decline involvement and say they simply want to oppose. Most Labour MPs don't actually believe in Brexit, after all, whatever meaningless spin is currently their party line.

    and yet all but 47 Labour MPs voted to activate Article 50 ?
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025