I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
Dominic Grieve is the Prime Minister, a case study:
1) He commands the confidence of the majority of the house 2) He sets the timetabling of government business 3) He is shaping the narrative into the runup to the meaningful vote 4) He is building a cross-party consensus
Q.E.D.
The hard leave fanatics should look at him and realise how much more effective they should have been.
Of course we haven't reached the end of all this yet...
Quick primer on 300 years of Parliamentary convention for Brexiteers a bit confused by this.
The speaker is not NEUTRAL. The speaker in not IMPARTIAL.
The speaker should be non-partisan. The speaker should stand up for the right of Parliament to Take Back Control from an overbearing executive.
The fact that the Brexit Buccaneers are howling with impotent, gammony rage because the wrong sort of control has been taken back is, of course, evidence that Bercow has done his job beautifully.
If the Speaker is not impartial, he is a partisan. We have a speaker who is anti-Brexit and anti-Conservative.
If the Speaker is a partisan, then governments should whip their MP's to get the Speaker they want.
I must be imagining his standing for several elections as a Tory MP. It’s weird, this Brexit lark, it leads to paranoid delusions.
Theresa May calling an early General Election to secure a majority for her Brexit position. What could go wrong ?
She called the previous election because she was concerned that Brexit implementation would be blocked by Parliament. She can run on the same message, this time with conclusive proof.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
Theresa May calling an early General Election to secure a majority for her Brexit position. What could go wrong ?
She called the previous election because she was concerned that Brexit implementation would be blocked by Parliament. She can run on the same message, this time with conclusive proof.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Theresa May calling an early General Election to secure a majority for her Brexit position. What could go wrong ?
She called the previous election because she was concerned that Brexit implementation would be blocked by Parliament. She can run on the same message, this time with conclusive proof.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
Chortle. Bring it on.
You wouldn’t like the result. I would expect a Tory majority of 10-30 seats on 40% of the vote.
Quick primer on 300 years of Parliamentary convention for Brexiteers a bit confused by this.
The speaker is not NEUTRAL. The speaker in not IMPARTIAL.
The speaker should be non-partisan. The speaker should stand up for the right of Parliament to Take Back Control from an overbearing executive.
The fact that the Brexit Buccaneers are howling with impotent, gammony rage because the wrong sort of control has been taken back is, of course, evidence that Bercow has done his job beautifully.
If the Speaker is not impartial, he is a partisan. We have a speaker who is anti-Brexit and anti-Conservative.
If the Speaker is a partisan, then governments should whip their MP's to get the Speaker they want.
He must feel pretty silly about all those years he spent as a Conservative MP.
I mean, if he were still a Tory he'd obviously be square in the middle of the Soubry/Grieve/Clark camp, and his actions are supported by the same people.
Bercow is showing a shameful pro-Tory bias.
Yes, by helping Remain Tories he’s proving that #FBPE is purely an anti-Corbyn plot designed to frustrate the implementation of socialism.
Theresa May calling an early General Election to secure a majority for her Brexit position. What could go wrong ?
She called the previous election because she was concerned that Brexit implementation would be blocked by Parliament. She can run on the same message, this time with conclusive proof.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
Chortle. Bring it on.
You wouldn’t like the result. I would expect a Tory majority of 10-30 seats on 40% of the vote.
Theresa May calling an early General Election to secure a majority for her Brexit position. What could go wrong ?
She called the previous election because she was concerned that Brexit implementation would be blocked by Parliament. She can run on the same message, this time with conclusive proof.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
Chortle. Bring it on.
You wouldn’t like the result. I would expect a Tory majority of 10-30 seats on 40% of the vote.
Theresa May calling an early General Election to secure a majority for her Brexit position. What could go wrong ?
She called the previous election because she was concerned that Brexit implementation would be blocked by Parliament. She can run on the same message, this time with conclusive proof.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
Chortle. Bring it on.
You wouldn’t like the result. I would expect a Tory majority of 10-30 seats on 40% of the vote.
I expect Chaos with Ed Miliband.
Did you VOTE for chaos with Ed Miliband?
I think Royal Blue was sensible and opted for stability.
Theresa May calling an early General Election to secure a majority for her Brexit position. What could go wrong ?
She called the previous election because she was concerned that Brexit implementation would be blocked by Parliament. She can run on the same message, this time with conclusive proof.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
Chortle. Bring it on.
You wouldn’t like the result. I would expect a Tory majority of 10-30 seats on 40% of the vote.
Hubris. Anti-Tory Brexit parties won over 17 million votes last time. The theory that a pure Brexit party unifying the right would dominate under FPTP has been tested to destruction.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
London...
Fake news.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down thst just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
London...
Fake news.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
We have had 3 knife incidents in Epping in just over a week from London overspill and a 14 year old boy was murdered in Waltham Forest this week and there were serial stabbings in Mayfair at a New Year Party.
Khan has got to get a grip otherwise London will soon need a Giuliani
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Can people please stop pretending things aren't possible? The markets know perfectly well that Deal is a possible outcome, and there are several distinct plausible paths that end up there.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down thst just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Snip
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
London...
Fake news.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
We have had 3 knife incidents in Epping in just over a week from London overspill and a 14 year old boy was murdered in Waltham Forest this week and there were serial stabbings in Mayfair at a New Year Party.
Khan has got to get a grip otherwise London will soon need a Giuliani
Again, the murder rate in London (Epping is not in London nor under Khan’s jurisdiction) has barely changed in two decades. We need to find a way of tackling knife crime. But moral panic and hyperbole won’t do it.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
This is what I think is causing AOC derangement syndrome. Republicans have managed to keep socialist ideas suppressed mostly by keeping left wing politicians totally cowed and too scared to express them. When they're actually expressed, they're sometimes damn popular in the US too.
AOC is *unashamedly* socialist, and Republicans cannot understand why their traditional shaming tactics don't work on her and it makes them furious. And these DANGEROUS UNAMERICAN IDEAS like paying people a decent wage and letting everyone have healthcare appears to be catching on...
Of course even for much of the Reagan years the US had a top income tax rate of 50%, higher under Carter and LBJ won a landslide with his Medicare and Medicaid plans and FDR with his New Deal. America is not historically as strongly capitalist as has been made out, where the right is stronger is on issues like immigration and national security and law and order, on economics though it is losing ground
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
Snip
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
I think you are probably oversimplifying. Franchising of the railway and water is so far removed from any reasonable notion of market capitalism your argument doesn’t follow. I challenge you to pick which company the water from your tap in Epping Forest is supplied by.
Rail privatisation needed more than company on each line competing to attract passengers to work that was the problem, it was really still nationalisation in all but name with companies with the franchise having a monopoly
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
Remainers could also go LD unless Corbyn commits to EUref2
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
Don't forget the ~4m Leave voters who backed Labour in 2017.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
This is what I think is causing AOC derangement syndrome. Republicans have managed to keep socialist ideas suppressed mostly by keeping left wing politicians totally cowed and too scared to express them. When they're actually expressed, they're sometimes damn popular in the US too.
AOC is *unashamedly* socialist, and Republicans cannot understand why their traditional shaming tactics don't work on her and it makes them furious. And these DANGEROUS UNAMERICAN IDEAS like paying people a decent wage and letting everyone have healthcare appears to be catching on...
The Trump-Putin love in means the traditional geopolitical scare tactics against ‘socialism’ no longer register either.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't thin
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down thst just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Snip
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
London...
Fake news.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
We have had 3 knife inrip otherwise London will soon need a Giuliani
Again, the murder rate in London (Epping is not in London nor under Khan’s jurisdiction) has barely changed in two decades. We need to find a way of tackling knife crime. But moral panic and hyperbole won’t do it.
Epping is at the end of the tube line and borders London boroughs like Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Enfield so gets the overspill effect of London crime.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
Remainers could also go LD unless Corbyn commits to EUref2
Anti-Brexit tactical voting would be constituency by constituency. I think party manifestos would be secondary and individual candidates would be expected to state their positon.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
The Tory Party needs to govern, or hand over to Labour. An election forces the issue.
It also gives the best chance for Brexit, even if overall support has diminished.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
Remainers could also go LD unless Corbyn commits to EUref2
I notice that a lot of media reports that compare to the historic rates start their charts at 2003, which was anomalously high and creates the impression of a steady decline in the early 2000s rather than an oscillation.
Note also that the population of London has risen substantially: 6.89m in 1991, 7.17m in 2001, 8.17m in 2011, estimated 8.83m today. That's an 8% rise in 8 years, more than the population of Sheffield, or the boroughs of Manchester or Liverpool! And up 28% since 1991, so in terms of homicide rate, the 130 of 2018 would be equivalent to 101 in 1991.
UK overall homicide rate of 1.20 per 100,000 is one of the lowest in the world, broadly comparable to France, Germany and Sweden (worth using the "sort" button on this table). The rate in London is higher than the UK overall, but it's still only about 1.5. That's about as bad as England and Wales overall in the early 2000s (see Fig 1 here) which in turn was the worst period since at least 1970. (Looking back at some more data, since at least 1946.) The rate in London in between 1991 and 2009 hovered up and down between 1.9 and 2.7.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't thin
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down thst just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Snip
Snip
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
London...
Fake news.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
We have had 3 knife inrip otherwise London will soon need a Giuliani
Again, the murder rate in London (Epping is not in London nor under Khan’s jurisdiction) has barely changed in two decades. We need to find a way of tackling knife crime. But moral panic and hyperbole won’t do it.
Epping is at the end of the tube line and borders London boroughs like Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Enfield so gets the overspill effect of London crime.
The trend is clear
Single data point?
The trend is flat. There has been no notable shift in the rate for 20 years.
As for Epping, how Khan can be held responsible for a town that is not even in his jurisdiction isn’t at all clear.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
Don't forget the ~4m Leave voters who backed Labour in 2017.
Yup, although IIUC (I think this was in one of the Kieran Pedley podcasts) they tend not to be as heavily motivated by Brexit as Tory leavers.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
Snip
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
I think you are probably oversimplifying. Franchising of the railway and water is so far removed from any reasonable notion of market capitalism your argument doesn’t follow. I challenge you to pick which company the water from your tap in Epping Forest is supplied by.
Rail privatisation needed more than company on each line competing to attract passengers to work that was the problem, it was really still nationalisation in all but name with companies with the franchise having a monopoly
Indeed. But it’s not a sector that lends itself to privatisation. See also, policing, defence, fire, healthcare, water.
Its botched privatisation in the dying days of the exhausted Major government has led to the enduring popularity of nationalisation today.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't thin
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down thst just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Snip
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
London...
Fake news.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
We have had 3 knife inrip otherwise London will soon need a Giuliani
Again, the murder rate in London (Epping is not in London nor under Khan’s jurisdiction) has barely changed in two decades. We need to find a way of tackling knife crime. But moral panic and hyperbole won’t do it.
Epping is at the end of the tube line and borders London boroughs like Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Enfield so gets the overspill effect of London crime.
The trend is clear
It's interesting how serious crime in London seems to be shifting eastwards. For instance there have been hardly any homicides in Brent recently which used to be one of the worst areas about 15 years ago, especially in the Harlesden / Stonebridge Park area. At the same time places like Redbridge and Waltham Forest seem to be getting worse.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
In the north, many of your so-called ‘anti deal’ brigade would still vote Labour. The Labour brand is still a very strong instinctive draw for many.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
This is what I think is causing AOC derangement syndrome. Republicans have managed to keep socialist ideas suppressed mostly by keeping left wing politicians totally cowed and too scared to express them. When they're actually expressed, they're sometimes damn popular in the US too.
AOC is *unashamedly* socialist, and Republicans cannot understand why their traditional shaming tactics don't work on her and it makes them furious. And these DANGEROUS UNAMERICAN IDEAS like paying people a decent wage and letting everyone have healthcare appears to be catching on...
Of course even for much of the Reagan years the US had a top income tax rate of 50%, higher under Carter and LBJ won a landslide with his Medicare and Medicaid plans and FDR with his New Deal. America is not historically as strongly capitalist as has been made out, where the right is stronger is on issues like immigration and national security and law and order, on economics though it is losing ground
The trend is flat. There has been no notable shift in the rate for 20 years.
As for Epping, how Khan can be held responsible for a town that is not even in his jurisdiction isn’t at all clear.
A mayor who was serious about securing London would annex Essex, and possibly parts of Hertfordshire.
All the Home Counties would be wise, giving London the biggest tax base of any city in the world, control over five major international airports, the Chunnel, and seaports on both the Channel and North Sea. Forward!
The thing about this is, if all these ex-ministers are looking at No Deal and thinking "oh jesus this is going to be an epic shitshow, we absolutely have to stop this happening", the same is probably true of *current* ministers, ie the cabinet.
I notice that a lot of media reports that compare to the historic rates start their charts at 2003, which was anomalously high and creates the impression of a steady decline in the early 2000s rather than an oscillation.
Note also that the population of London has risen substantially: 6.89m in 1991, 7.17m in 2001, 8.17m in 2011, estimated 8.83m today. That's an 8% rise in 8 years, more than the population of Sheffield, or the boroughs of Manchester or Liverpool! And up 28% since 1991, so in terms of homicide rate, the 130 of 2018 would be equivalent to 101 in 1991.
UK overall homicide rate of 1.20 per 100,000 is one of the lowest in the world, broadly comparable to France, Germany and Sweden (worth using the "sort" button on this table). The rate in London is higher than the UK overall, but it's still only about 1.5. That's about as bad as England and Wales overall in the early 2000s (see Fig 1 here) which in turn was the worst period since at least 1970. (Looking back at some more data, since at least 1946.) The rate in London in between 1991 and 2009 hovered up and down between 1.9 and 2.7.
I looked at this and thinking that well there have been medical advances and also our medics have been trauma trained in Afghanistan, so the survival rate may be higher than in the past. So I looked at or tried to look at knife crime in London. Knife crime in London per amount of people is 2.5x anywhere else in the UK. I could not find specific knife crime stats for London in terms of absolutes just per capita, but overall in the UK it has more than doubled since 2014 and London as above is well above the stats. In London it is disproportionately, young black men and ethnic minorities affected. I could not draw a conclusion but the data must be out there somewhere.
The thing about this is, if all these ex-ministers are looking at No Deal and thinking "oh jesus this is going to be an epic shitshow, we absolutely have to stop this happening", the same is probably true of *current* ministers, ie the cabinet.
The cabinet has the real info on the preparations. The Speccie has reported from T Mays bunker that the current view is no deal will not be WWIII but more millennium bug.
The thing about this is, if all these ex-ministers are looking at No Deal and thinking "oh jesus this is going to be an epic shitshow, we absolutely have to stop this happening", the same is probably true of *current* ministers, ie the cabinet.
The cabinet has the real info on the preparations. The Speccie has reported from T Mays bunker that the current view is no deal will not be WWIII but more millennium bug.
Interesting. Statistically no change in the long period up to 2008, then a sudden drop of 20%, which has persisted to the present day.
As someone said earlier, it could be that around 50 people each year are now saved by surgical/medical techniques that weren't available until around 10 years ago, (which is an excellent state of affairs).
The thing about this is, if all these ex-ministers are looking at No Deal and thinking "oh jesus this is going to be an epic shitshow, we absolutely have to stop this happening", the same is probably true of *current* ministers, ie the cabinet.
The cabinet has the real info on the preparations. The Speccie has reported from T Mays bunker that the current view is no deal will not be WWIII but more millennium bug.
Brexit is a little bit like the millennium bug.
But here's the thing. The millennium bug caused almost no problems because tens of billions of pounds was spent over half a decade in preparatory work.
This is a bit like if we'd only discovered the millennium bug in mid October 1999...
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
Interesting. Statistically no change in the long period up to 2008, then a sudden drop of 20%, which has persisted to the present day.
As someone said earlier, it could be that around 50 people each year are now saved by surgical/medical techniques that weren't available until around 10 years ago, (which is an excellent state of affairs).
I don't think that's likely to be anywhere near the number. If you look at the murders from 2002, then only about two dozen (23 / 189) even made it to hospital, the rest were well dead when the police and/or ambulance arrived.
If we assume a third of these wouldn't die now - and even that seems pretty optimistic - it means 7 or 8 out of a reduction of 70-odd come from better medical care.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
Because he's more visible than the no-name PCCs elsewhere. Boris wasn't critisied as much for murder rates because they were at an historic low when he was in charge. Now they are going up again, people are rightly making it an issue.
After realising the dancing thing backfired the usual left baiting critics have moved onto slightly darker means with AOC, or maybe the idea was a general build up she is some kind of wild party girl not to be trusted.
Not surprising to see the Daily Mail up to its usual tricks either.
Massive fan of her myself just because of who she is and what she says, a breath of fresh air in politics much like Bernie or Corbyn. That she has all the right sort of people trying to smear her is a bonus.
The thing about this is, if all these ex-ministers are looking at No Deal and thinking "oh jesus this is going to be an epic shitshow, we absolutely have to stop this happening", the same is probably true of *current* ministers, ie the cabinet.
The cabinet has the real info on the preparations. The Speccie has reported from T Mays bunker that the current view is no deal will not be WWIII but more millennium bug.
Brexit is a little bit like the millennium bug.
But here's the thing. The millennium bug caused almost no problems because tens of billions of pounds was spent over half a decade in preparatory work.
This is a bit like if we'd only discovered the millennium bug in mid October 1999...
Even if you spent billions over half a decade you couldn't make the overnight imposition of tariff and non-tariff barriers be a non-event.
But here's the thing. The millennium bug caused almost no problems because tens of billions of pounds was spent over half a decade in preparatory work.
$300 billion across the world, apparently. A relatively simple problem too, just a widespread one - whereas Brexit has all manner of different facets and consequences, some of which we might not realise until well afterwards.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, aesolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't thin
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down thst just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Snip
Snip
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
London...
Fake news.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
We have had 3 knife inrip otherwise London will soon need a Giuliani
Epping is at the end of the tube line and borders London boroughs like Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Enfield so gets
Single data point?
The trend is flat. There has been no notable shift in the rate for 20 years.
As for Epping, how Khan can be held responsible for a town that is not even in his jurisdiction isn’t at all clear.
The London Oystercard area extends to stations including Amersham, Chesham, Watford, Elstree und Borehamwood, Hertford East (but not North, weirdly), Broxbourne, Epping, Chigwell, Shenfield, Grays, Dartford, Swanley, Upper Warlingham, Caterham, Gatwick Aiport, Epsom Downs, Tattenham Corner, Ewell East and West, and Hampton Court.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
Because he's more visible than the no-name PCCs elsewhere. Boris wasn't critisied as much for murder rates because they were at an historic low when he was in charge. Now they are going up again, people are rightly making it an issue.
I'd accept the argument that Khan is higher profile than any other PCC and that personifying London government in a single individual was one of the main points of creating the Mayorality. However we should only fairly judge Khan on the powers he has and the ' PCC ' powers + a less restricted precept certainly doesn't cover the whole responsibility for " Crime ".
Compare and contrast Khan's treatment with the direct comparator Andy Burnham who is the other Mayor who has assumed PCC powers. But then Burnham is white and there is no political capital to be made from " othering " a northern city.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
Because he's more visible than the no-name PCCs elsewhere. Boris wasn't critisied as much for murder rates because they were at an historic low when he was in charge. Now they are going up again, people are rightly making it an issue.
I'd accept the argument that Khan is higher profile than any other PCC and that personifying London government in a single individual was one of the main points of creating the Mayorality. However we should only fairly judge Khan on the powers he has and the ' PCC ' powers + a less restricted precept certainly doesn't cover the whole responsibility for " Crime ".
Compare and contrast Khan's treatment with the direct comparator Andy Burnham who is the other Mayor who has assumed PCC powers. But then Burnham is white and there is no political capital to be made from " othering " a northern city.
Are you suggesting that Burnham has been free from criticism?
After realising the dancing thing backfired the usual left baiting critics have moved onto slightly darker means with AOC, or maybe the idea was a general build up she is some kind of wild party girl not to be trusted.
Not surprising to see the Daily Mail up to its usual tricks either.
Massive fan of her myself just because of who she is and what she says, a breath of fresh air in politics much like Bernie or Corbyn. That she has all the right sort of people trying to smear her is a bonus.
The best part of this story is that the fake photos were conclusively debunked by a foot fetishist.
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
Agreed.
That Ken Clarke, whose position on Brexit seems to me entirely honourable, apparently supports the Speaker’s position on this matter, reinforces that.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Can people please stop pretending things aren't possible? The markets know perfectly well that Deal is a possible outcome, and there are several distinct plausible paths that end up there.
Even the unicorn options are technically possible but politically unfeasable. Deal is one degree more possible but just as politically unfeasable.
The only suggested paths to it being approved I've seen involve mass conversions to it from Tories and Labour, mass abstentions, or winning in a referendum. Only the last looks remotely possible and with so little political support behind it? Colour me sceptical. I'm not sure which paths you think are plausible as I cannot see one.
The thing about this is, if all these ex-ministers are looking at No Deal and thinking "oh jesus this is going to be an epic shitshow, we absolutely have to stop this happening", the same is probably true of *current* ministers, ie the cabinet.
But they don't think that since we are repeatedly told these rebels would never bring down the gov if that's what it took to stop no deal yet they also want to stop preparation no no deal. They deeply dislike it but accept it over Corbyn supposedly so their crocodile tears only go so far .
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
Agreed.
That Ken Clarke, whose position on Brexit seems to me entirely honourable, apparently supports the Speaker’s position on this matter, reinforces that.
Does Bercow own the car his wife drives? Is it in his or her name? I think we have a right to know.
Yes, Bercows explanation was pretty flippant about reasoning and future implication, which is poor way of making a change even if the change is justifiable. But it's done and he's in situ for the foreseeable future so it hardly matters. Criticism won't stop him doing something like it again.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Yes, Bercows explanation was pretty flippant about reasoning and future implication, which is poor way of making a change even if the change is justifiable. But it's done and he's in situ for the foreseeable future so it hardly matters. Criticism won't stop him doing something like it again.
Something will eventually happen and Bercow will go however unwillingly. He's been living in the last chance salon for some time.
Interesting. Statistically no change in the long period up to 2008, then a sudden drop of 20%, which has persisted to the present day.
As someone said earlier, it could be that around 50 people each year are now saved by surgical/medical techniques that weren't available until around 10 years ago, (which is an excellent state of affairs).
I think new rules on stop and search were introduced in England in 2007? Could that have reduced the number of weapons carried?
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
I could accept that more if Bercows responses had not seemed to indicate he paid a lot less thought than that in terms of, whatever the merits of the decision, what it might mean for future business. It's not a clear cut thing and it may be ok but he personally seems to have been winging it for rather obvious personal reasons. The mutual hatred between him and the government doesn't help his defence or the government's attacks of course, since we cannot take either at face value (does anyone actually believe his decisions are not motivated in part by that hatred, and likewise the criticisms of him? Dont make me laugh), and respectable people are falling on both sides of it.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave. Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
Even the unicorn options are technically possible but politically unfeasable. Deal is one degree more possible but just as politically unfeasable.
The only suggested paths to it being approved I've seen involve mass conversions to it from Tories and Labour, mass abstentions, or winning in a referendum. Only the last looks remotely possible and with so little political support behind it? Colour me sceptical. I'm not sure which paths you think are plausible as I cannot see one.
All three of those are plausible. I'm not saying *likely*, but they're definitely plausible.
If the Leave hard-liners really believed they'd lose Brexit unless they voted for the deal, they'd probably suck it up and vote for it. There would be some rebels from the Remain end but Leave votes and/or abstentions from the opposition could be enough to cover it.
Conversely if Remain enthusiasts really believed the alternative was No Deal, a lot of them would probably ultimately suck it up.
A Deal-Remain referendum is not only plausible but the *obvious* way out of the treacle - the votes are almost certainly there, and the prospects for TMay's career look pretty reasonable. I think Remain would be odds-on in such a referendum, but not overwhelmingly so, it could easily go the other way.
Finally, the path you missed is that there could be a general election which would result in different parliamentary arithmetic, and a different narrative, if TMay had just won with this specific deal in her manifesto. Alternatively, if Jeremy Corbyn won and showed up in Brussels asking for his unicorn there's a reasonable chance that the EU would politely tell him to fuck off, and we'd end up back with the same deal, and even less interest in No Deal than the current parliament.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave. Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
So much for always being sovereign. Not even bothering attempting to leave would be the ultimate stitch up.
The fact he is willing to accept the deal rather than try to engineer Remain (or a No Deal) as many are doing shows his quality.
More like lack of it , a sheeple being herded into the pen , lacking the intelligence to think for himself and have some principles. Just do as ordered and keep taking the cash.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave. Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
So much for always being sovereign. Not even bothering attempting to leave would be the ultimate stitch up.
And the ultimate contempt for the electorate.
Why not scrap universal suffrage and force people to take an iq test before being allowed to vote while we're at it. Or limit the franchise to people who read The Guardian.
Remainers may think "your average Leaver in the street" quite thick, but how thick do you have to be to believe that the largest mandate in UK electoral history could simply be ignored and overruled without dire consequences for our democracy?
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave. Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
So much for always being sovereign. Not even bothering attempting to leave would be the ultimate stitch up.
And the ultimate contempt for the electorate.
Why not scrap universal suffrage and force people to take an iq test before being allowed to vote while we're at it. Or limit the franchise to people who read The Guardian.
Remainers may think "your average Leaver in the street" quite thick, but how thick do you have to be to believe that the largest mandate in UK electoral history could simply be ignored and overruled without dire consequences for our democracy?
There is genuine reason to believe that "Will of the People" no longer exists, hence the need for a #peoplesvote. Leavers have nothing to fear from it if the people genuinely still want Brexit.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
You describing London
Even London isn't that bad. A lot of the world is astonishingly violent.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
Bercow is a hero , standing up to the evil witch from the south.
Clerks should be listened to carefully in such matters. Nature of the job is you may be ignored or overruled but the people who look after the procedures tend to have reasonable opinions on them.
There is genuine reason to believe that "Will of the People" no longer exists, hence the need for a #peoplesvote. Leavers have nothing to fear from it if the people genuinely still want Brexit.
I'm all for a second vote, but the typical gap is about 40 years.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
You describing London
Even London isn't that bad. A lot of the world is astonishingly violent.
Certainly places that make UK numbers show us as Shangri La
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
A decent point. Which rather speaks to his probable motivations. Others have done a better job justifying the call he made than he has, so at best it's a right call for wrong reasons situation perhaps.
Comments
A pleasant night and pleasant dreams to all.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/englanders-greasy-fish-and-chips-blamed-for-64-meter-long-fatberg/
Yet again.
It would also eliminate the pro-Euro Tory rebels, as they will not be reselected as candidates.
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down.
Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Odd.
May your dreams not involve Brexit.
I think Royal Blue was sensible and opted for stability.
More fool you.
The murder rate in London has barely changed in two decades.
Khan has got to get a grip otherwise London will soon need a Giuliani
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43610936.
Epping is at the end of the tube line and borders London boroughs like Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Enfield so gets the overspill effect of London crime.
The trend is clear
It also gives the best chance for Brexit, even if overall support has diminished.
1990 184
1991 184
1992 175
1993 160
1994 169
1995 167
1996 139
1997 190
1998 159
1999 146
2000 171
2001 190
2002 189
2003 221
2004 194
2005 165
2006 174
2007 163
2008 154
2009 129
2010 124
2011 118
2012 104
2013 107
2014 94
2015 119
2016 110
2017 116
2018 130
I notice that a lot of media reports that compare to the historic rates start their charts at 2003, which was anomalously high and creates the impression of a steady decline in the early 2000s rather than an oscillation.
Note also that the population of London has risen substantially: 6.89m in 1991, 7.17m in 2001, 8.17m in 2011, estimated 8.83m today. That's an 8% rise in 8 years, more than the population of Sheffield, or the boroughs of Manchester or Liverpool! And up 28% since 1991, so in terms of homicide rate, the 130 of 2018 would be equivalent to 101 in 1991.
UK overall homicide rate of 1.20 per 100,000 is one of the lowest in the world, broadly comparable to France, Germany and Sweden (worth using the "sort" button on this table). The rate in London is higher than the UK overall, but it's still only about 1.5. That's about as bad as England and Wales overall in the early 2000s (see Fig 1 here) which in turn was the worst period since at least 1970. (Looking back at some more data, since at least 1946.) The rate in London in between 1991 and 2009 hovered up and down between 1.9 and 2.7.
The trend is flat. There has been no notable shift in the rate for 20 years.
As for Epping, how Khan can be held responsible for a town that is not even in his jurisdiction isn’t at all clear.
Its botched privatisation in the dying days of the exhausted Major government has led to the enduring popularity of nationalisation today.
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
In the north, many of your so-called ‘anti deal’ brigade would still vote Labour. The Labour brand is still a very strong instinctive draw for many.
KLOBUCHAR
https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/jan/09/former-vice-president-mondale-encouraging-klobuchar-to-run-for-president/
https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success#t-385003
So I looked at or tried to look at knife crime in London.
Knife crime in London per amount of people is 2.5x anywhere else in the UK.
I could not find specific knife crime stats for London in terms of absolutes just per capita, but overall in the UK it has more than doubled since 2014 and London as above is well above the stats.
In London it is disproportionately, young black men and ethnic minorities affected.
I could not draw a conclusion but the data must be out there somewhere.
But here's the thing. The millennium bug caused almost no problems because tens of billions of pounds was spent over half a decade in preparatory work.
This is a bit like if we'd only discovered the millennium bug in mid October 1999...
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
If we assume a third of these wouldn't die now - and even that seems pretty optimistic - it means 7 or 8 out of a reduction of 70-odd come from better medical care.
Not surprising to see the Daily Mail up to its usual tricks either.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1083178169044213761
Massive fan of her myself just because of who she is and what she says, a breath of fresh air in politics much like Bernie or Corbyn. That she has all the right sort of people trying to smear her is a bonus.
"People older than 65 share the most fake news, a new study finds (and the finding holds true across party lines)"
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/9/18174631/old-people-fake-news-facebook-share-nyu-princeton
Compare and contrast Khan's treatment with the direct comparator Andy Burnham who is the other Mayor who has assumed PCC powers. But then Burnham is white and there is no political capital to be made from " othering " a northern city.
That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/grammars-are-vital-for-social-mobility-s7r9mcsd3
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
That Ken Clarke, whose position on Brexit seems to me entirely honourable, apparently supports the Speaker’s position on this matter, reinforces that.
The only suggested paths to it being approved I've seen involve mass conversions to it from Tories and Labour, mass abstentions, or winning in a referendum. Only the last looks remotely possible and with so little political support behind it? Colour me sceptical. I'm not sure which paths you think are plausible as I cannot see one.
So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave.
Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
If the Leave hard-liners really believed they'd lose Brexit unless they voted for the deal, they'd probably suck it up and vote for it. There would be some rebels from the Remain end but Leave votes and/or abstentions from the opposition could be enough to cover it.
Conversely if Remain enthusiasts really believed the alternative was No Deal, a lot of them would probably ultimately suck it up.
A Deal-Remain referendum is not only plausible but the *obvious* way out of the treacle - the votes are almost certainly there, and the prospects for TMay's career look pretty reasonable. I think Remain would be odds-on in such a referendum, but not overwhelmingly so, it could easily go the other way.
Finally, the path you missed is that there could be a general election which would result in different parliamentary arithmetic, and a different narrative, if TMay had just won with this specific deal in her manifesto. Alternatively, if Jeremy Corbyn won and showed up in Brussels asking for his unicorn there's a reasonable chance that the EU would politely tell him to fuck off, and we'd end up back with the same deal, and even less interest in No Deal than the current parliament.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
Why not scrap universal suffrage and force people to take an iq test before being allowed to vote while we're at it. Or limit the franchise to people who read The Guardian.
Remainers may think "your average Leaver in the street" quite thick, but how thick do you have to be to believe that the largest mandate in UK electoral history could simply be ignored and overruled without dire consequences for our democracy?
*cough* I have worked as a clerk*cough*