Even though I like his politics Brown just doesn't look like a POTUS in the way that KLOBUCHAR and especially Harris do. This probably matters more than it should.
Didn't stop Trump.
The Democrats could be about to make the same mistake the Republicans made last time - to have too many candidates and allow a couple of big personalities to dominate the early debates and set the scene for the nomination.
They need to agree on no more than half a dozen nominations, but everyone wants the job and thinks they’re in with a chance against Trump.
The field will thin out very quickly, I think.
The Democrats don't have anything like a Trump (even if Avenatti were running, he wouldn't be in with a chance) - and if one of the field proves to be a standout performer on the hustings, that would be a positive, not a negative.
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
Every tory has a foul blackness in their hearts. Hence their attraction to morally abhorrent phenomena like fox hunting, spending 100bn on nuclear weapons while making disabled people pay to park at hospitals and putting Chris Grayling in charge of things.
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
Every tory has a foul blackness in their hearts. Hence their attraction to morally abhorrent phenomena like fox hunting, spending 100bn on nuclear weapons while making disabled people pay to park at hospitals and putting Chris Grayling in charge of things.
The last does show a positively satanic sense of humour.
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
Every tory has a foul blackness in their hearts. Hence their attraction to morally abhorrent phenomena like fox hunting, spending 100bn on nuclear weapons while making disabled people pay to park at hospitals and putting Chris Grayling in charge of things.
Every tory has a foul blackness in their hearts
so not only do Tories actually have a heart, they have several of them.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
Whereas Labour leaders report directly to the Kremlin and their families sold us out during the war, and Labour voters are terminally stupid or have been bribed. Or so we've been told.
As an aside, I recently realised that teaching Roman numerals is part of the primary schools *Maths* curriculum. Gove was truly an insane Education Secretary.
I can’t remember the Roman numerals for 51, 6, and 500.
I am LIVID.
But you do know them for 50, 4 and 499
Actually, the Romans wrote 4 as IIII. IV is a Victorian convention, as is ID.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
Whereas Labour leaders report directly to the Kremlin and their families sold us out during the war, and Labour voters are terminally stupid or have been bribed. Or so we've been told.
I though it was Leave leaders that reported directly to Putin at the Kremlin, and Leave voters that are terminally stupid. And racist. Or so we've been told.
Our parliamentarians spend there time debating Brexit, discussing why they are not debating Brexit, listening to statements on Brexit and now debating whether or not they have confidence in the government.
Nothing else.
If it wasn't for Brexit, what would they be doing all day? The government appears to be doing nothing else.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
I'd say the Conservatives in the UK are much better than the conservatives in many other countries. When you look at the racism, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-democracy that the right espouses in other western countries, Britain is fortunate to have the Tories.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
It's the way you tell 'em Charles!
I love crazy obsessives but I think the Tory party have overdone it
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Dzień dobry, panie Morris Dancer,
Nothing like watching the fourth estate trying to spin out 'hard to predict' into six hours of content on 18 channels...
I think your prediction is spot on. My only problem is whether the EU will extend A50 until July (they've said that's a possibility, but needs a unanimous vote, and in one or two EU countries patience is wearing thin. This is different to the ECJ ruling that we could unilaterally withdraw A50 at any point).
The biggest tragedy in all of this (aside from the genuine levels of anxiety caused to my friends and other EU citizens living in the UK) is that another referendum is the last thing we need. Talk about picking a particularly nasty scab: personally, I want Brexit to be cancelled ASAP and get on with my comfortable middle class, pre-European life. But I also recognise the level of anti-EU support in this country.
Most remainers have no idea of the level of anti-EU sentiment that exists, and the bitterness and resentment that will overwhelm us once again. And for all the thousands that marched, many are EU citizens that will not be allowed to vote.
I would rather have No Deal and handle the economic fall-out and international humbling we'd face rather than have to go through another Referendum.
Our parliamentarians spend there time debating Brexit, discussing why they are not debating Brexit, listening to statements on Brexit and now debating whether or not they have confidence in the government.
Nothing else.
If it wasn't for Brexit, what would they be doing all day? The government appears to be doing nothing else.
For the past 2 years day to day government has ground to a halt unless disaster forces it on to the agenda (see the "migrant" crisis, windrush).,,,
Even though I like his politics Brown just doesn't look like a POTUS in the way that KLOBUCHAR and especially Harris do. This probably matters more than it should.
I think a bigger problem for him is his age. He's not exactly old at 66, but has yet to establish himself on a national stage, and it is a crowded field with far more established veterans.
Our parliamentarians spend there time debating Brexit, discussing why they are not debating Brexit, listening to statements on Brexit and now debating whether or not they have confidence in the government.
Nothing else.
If it wasn't for Brexit, what would they be doing all day? The government appears to be doing nothing else.
For the past 2 years day to day government has ground to a halt unless disaster forces it on to the agenda (see the "migrant" crisis, windrush).,,,
the biggest cost of Brexit has been the opportunity cost of our politicians doing next to bugger all
Masterful understatement in the last sentence there Mike.
For me, May should resign today. I agreed with every word of her speech yesterday and thought it was one of her better ones but in terms of getting a consensus she is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
The government now actually needs to do some real work preparing for a no deal Brexit. There are a lot of things needing done including legislation to ensure that our legal system remains rational, guaranteeing the status of EU residents unilaterally and working on mini-deals to solve immediate problems. They should also, in my view, be clear that the UK will pay its obligations as set out in the WA whether we sign it or not.
The government under a new leader can try to find a way forward in the Commons but I really don't expect any success at all. The gesture, very belatedly, needs to be made, however.
If I was a Tory MP right now I would be gutted about what has happened to my party and I would be spending time trying to persuade Rory the Tory to be a candidate.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
I am reminded of the coalition discussions I led on my council when we held the balance. Despite agreeing with more of Labour's objectives, they were impossible to deal with; like Burgon they simply viewed it as somehow our responsibility to vote with them and couldn't really comprehend why we would need them to address some of our priorities. And they used their tortuous internal processes to make any sort of progress difficult. Whereas the Tories, despite our greater disagreements, were able and willing to do a deal, and it stuck for the whole four year term.
Interesting dynamic. Practically every cllr I've ever come across has been pretty pragmatic about things, it must be very frustrating to have that situation.
As you say the expectation one side must do something, must, can really mess with things. Even some very sensible people who I won't name once described lds voting for a Id in a by election on here as a betrayal, because labour hoped to win it over the Tories..
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The funny thing is, if she'd accepted the idea of a referendum to confirm the deal, and held it first, with the meaningful vote to follow, it might just have got through.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
I would rather have ... the economic fall-out and international humbling we'd face.
The sort of thing easy to say but difficult to mean.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The funny thing is, if she'd accepted the idea of a referendum to confirm the deal, and held it first, with the meaningful vote to follow, it might just have got through.
Possibly. But the politics were such shed not have the numbers to pass a referendum on that.
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
Every tory has a foul blackness in their hearts. Hence their attraction to morally abhorrent phenomena like fox hunting, spending 100bn on nuclear weapons while making disabled people pay to park at hospitals and putting Chris Grayling in charge of things.
The foxhunting community took the lefties seriously when Labour advocated owls for everyone. Yet to see the nation follow suit.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
Maybe, maybe not. I spent a long time in industrial relations and rarely did the union manage to get any deal through first time; it was always the 'renegotiated' deal that got through the executive and then sailed through the ballot. Sensible management negotiators kept a few things back for this final stage.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The funny thing is, if she'd accepted the idea of a referendum to confirm the deal, and held it first, with the meaningful vote to follow, it might just have got through.
Possibly. But the politics were such shed not have the numbers to pass a referendum on that.
She could have done it last Feb, with the options being only to accept her deal or send her back to the drawing board.
Mr. Sandpit, I do feel some sympathy for the EU in this situation. They can't go much further, and had a deal sorted out. But May's utter cackhandedness means she's agreed something the Commons just won't back.
Meanwhile, Varadkar's intention to prevent a hard border may see one imposed.
Anyway, time to check the markets for the confidence vote.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The funny thing is, if she'd accepted the idea of a referendum to confirm the deal, and held it first, with the meaningful vote to follow, it might just have got through.
Possibly. But the politics were such shed not have the numbers to pass a referendum on that.
I'm thinking - if she had accepted it some time ago, or even right at the start of the process - before the deal actually materialised.
They still don’t understand that MPs won’t be persuaded by a political declaration, if the legal treaty remains unchanged from the current version.
I think they understand. But not bending at all until now (not that I think they will) it has assisted in Mps getting more and more firm in their anti deal positions. Thus making it more embarrassing to pass it than delay or cancel it.
It's part of the all or nothing strategy from the EU, we remain or No deal, so let's wait until the deal is dead before we hint at tweaks, that way it's too late but it looks like we were reasonable.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The funny thing is, if she'd accepted the idea of a referendum to confirm the deal, and held it first, with the meaningful vote to follow, it might just have got through.
Possibly. But the politics were such shed not have the numbers to pass a referendum on that.
She could have done it last Feb, with the options being only to accept her deal or send her back to the drawing board.
I still don't think her party would have allowed that.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Even for a politician like May, who is a complete moral void, pivoting to a #peoplesvote with a straight face is going to be difficult given the amount of time she's taken a shit on the idea.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
I would rather have ... the economic fall-out and international humbling we'd face.
The sort of thing easy to say but difficult to mean.
But bookseller is right on these two matters:
"Most remainers have no idea of the level of anti-EU sentiment that exists, and the bitterness and resentment that will overwhelm us once again."
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
Maybe, maybe not. I spent a long time in industrial relations and rarely did the union manage to get any deal through first time; it was always the 'renegotiated' deal that got through the executive and then sailed through the ballot. Sensible management negotiators kept a few things back for this final stage.
But we arent dealing with the sensible we're dealing with politicians. Our mps just said screw you to the deal in such clear terms that nothing less than fundamental revision could make them justify changing position. The EU might have some tweaks, But its too late, it's like being worried about someone's headache after their legs were blown off.
Parliament, having promised the referendum result would be implemented, and having both major parties put it into their election manifesto, you'd expect MPs to honour their promises. But as we expected, it meant nothing.
How would a second referendum not be a clear breach of faith? Yes, MPs might say they are not mere representatives, they are far too important for that. But nearly 250 years ago there was a 'Boston tea party' on the claim … no taxation without representation. Perhaps a re-enactment in the original Boston is in order?
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
Parliament, having promised the referendum result would be implemented, and having both major parties put it into their election manifesto, you'd expect MPs to honour their promises. But as we expected, it meant nothing.
How would a second referendum not be a clear breach of faith? Yes, MPs might say they are not mere representatives, they are far too important for that. But nearly 250 years ago there was a 'Boston tea party' on the claim … no taxation without representation. Perhaps a re-enactment in the original Boston is in order?
Wouldn't get much of a write-up in the Islington Gazette.
When the HoC has proven itself unable to come up with a solution what do you suggest the way forward is.
Remember, what is possible, not what exists in the fantasy la-la land of Bill Cash's fevered imagination.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
It would be absurd for Parliament to offer a public vote on something it had just overwhelmingly rejected, and would be seen (rightly) as loading the dice in favour of Remain.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
It would be absurd for Parliament to offer a public vote on something it had just overwhelmingly rejected, and would be seen (rightly) as loading the dice in favour of Remain.
indeed. But what does go up against remain? Parliament has in essence indicated nothing but remain or unicorns is acceptable to them. They dont have the guts to just remain so will probably try for unicorns or remain by the back door e.g. let's revoke in order to figure out what we want, oh whoops we've remained.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
Maybe, maybe not. I spent a long time in industrial relations and rarely did the union manage to get any deal through first time; it was always the 'renegotiated' deal that got through the executive and then sailed through the ballot. Sensible management negotiators kept a few things back for this final stage.
But we arent dealing with the sensible we're dealing with politicians. Our mps just said screw you to the deal in such clear terms that nothing less than fundamental revision could make them justify changing position. The EU might have some tweaks, But its too late, it's like being worried about someone's headache after their legs were blown off.
You might well be right. But I remember some fairly dramatic u-turns by union negotiators during my career. It seemed that the last meeting with all the strong language and table banging was needed so they'd be satisfied they had truly won everything they could. Just as the final concessions after the executive meeting were needed to satisfy the executive that they had added something to the outcome.
A lot of MPs have felt excluded and powerless as Brexit has proceeded, with May keeping things secret even from her closest colleagues. In better circumstances some concessions and involvement could have won a lot of them round. It's just a shame that May isn't the leader the current situation really needs.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The funny thing is, if she'd accepted the idea of a referendum to confirm the deal, and held it first, with the meaningful vote to follow, it might just have got through.
Possibly. But the politics were such shed not have the numbers to pass a referendum on that.
She could have done it last Feb, with the options being only to accept her deal or send her back to the drawing board.
I still don't think her party would have allowed that.
All the 118 would have voted against, apart from Continuity Remain, along with many of the 202. And Corbyn would still have opposed it.
Mr. Sandpit, I do feel some sympathy for the EU in this situation. They can't go much further, and had a deal sorted out. But May's utter cackhandedness means she's agreed something the Commons just won't back.
Meanwhile, Varadkar's intention to prevent a hard border may see one imposed.
Anyway, time to check the markets for the confidence vote.
I agree that we should never have agreed to the clear bad faith of the EU in the negotiations, but we are where we are, and both sides are going to have to compromise, and quickly, if there’s to be a deal acceptable to everyone in the next few weeks.
Of all the people who have screwed up, perhaps the biggest failure is that of Leo Varadkar. So is he now going to build a border, and if he isn’t then why do we need the backstop in the first place because we’re not going to build a border either.
Last odds on the VoNC were 1.03 to fail. Sounds like value to get a 3% return in 12 hours. Some of us got 1.06 last night thanks to a tip on here.
The problem for leavers is simple. There is no agreement on the purpose of Brexit, and consequently no consensus on what form it should take. The result is it can't be done. They should be honest and admit it so we can all get on with the important stuff.
Simple, the purpose of Brexit is to leave the EU.
You won’t even get consensus on that. To many, if the EU is still standing at the end of the process then it has gone wrong. Therefore to the extent that leaving the EU implies there will still be an EU and we will have some kind of relationship with it, it’s not Brexit.
I suspect they want to leave it and for it to cease to exist. They aren't mutually exclusive.
If you listen to Farage's old speeches, that is both what they wanted and believed. They were sure that if the UK led the way, others would follow and the EU would fall away.
Whereas the reality is that the mess they are making of Brexit has made the EU stronger and poured a mass of cold water over anti-EU stirrings elsewhere; the right wingers in France and Italy have gone quiet about any aspiration to be outside the EU.
Much as I disagree with the desire to destroy the EU, the idea that anti EU sentiment has dropped since the referendum.is clearly wrong. Poland, Italy and Hungary are all becoming increasingly anti EU. It may not be at the level of yet wanting to Leave but anti EU sentiment is definitely on the rise.
Public support for the EU across Europe is mostly at record highs. Politicians like Le Pen and the Italian 5S who used to talk about leaving the EU have tacked away from it. They are all looking at the fiasco we have brought down upon ourselves and staying well clear.
Not according to the Eurobarometer polls it isn't.
Masterful understatement in the last sentence there Mike.
For me, May should resign today. I agreed with every word of her speech yesterday and thought it was one of her better ones but in terms of getting a consensus she is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
The government now actually needs to do some real work preparing for a no deal Brexit. There are a lot of things needing done including legislation to ensure that our legal system remains rational, guaranteeing the status of EU residents unilaterally and working on mini-deals to solve immediate problems. They should also, in my view, be clear that the UK will pay its obligations as set out in the WA whether we sign it or not.
The government under a new leader can try to find a way forward in the Commons but I really don't expect any success at all. The gesture, very belatedly, needs to be made, however.
If I was a Tory MP right now I would be gutted about what has happened to my party and I would be spending time trying to persuade Rory the Tory to be a candidate.
I agree with all of that, save that 118 Tory MP's are delighted with what they have done.
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
Indies are one thing.
But If a single Lab MP votes for May in this one, then the whole explosive row will suddenly pivot and be on Labour divisions.
MPs were against Leave, so it's hardly surprising they show their true colours. Sorry, it's too difficult for us, you'll have to vote for what we want.
You mean the vote made it more likely? Not that a tweet by a former Lib Dem MEP made it more likely.
I may have wrongly assumed that Verhofstadt was indicating this is the likely EU stance. We'll find out soon enough.
Sorry - you're right - Verhofstadt said the part about not beyond the Euro-elections as well as the first bit.
The euro elections are a bit of an issue certainly. However, there's no chance of a referendum being in place before then.
So, looks like revoke is the only option. Unless somekind of EFTA /Norway deal, which noone is fully pushing...
It also fails the remainer test - only anoraks know those options, and having spent 2 years saying people did not know what they were doing or what leave meant and that was unacceptable, how do they justify springing some late option the public haven't been considering for months?
MPs were against Leave, so it's hardly surprising they show their true colours. Sorry, it's too difficult for us, you'll have to vote for what we want.
Nick Robinson saying the two most remarkable things about yesterday were the two groups of demonstrators outside parliament, who spent the whole day shouting at each other then both celebrated together when the deal went down. And a PM who suffered the biggest ever vote loss in parliament yet looks likely to receive its confidence later today.
Our parliamentarians spend there time debating Brexit, discussing why they are not debating Brexit, listening to statements on Brexit and now debating whether or not they have confidence in the government.
Nothing else.
If it wasn't for Brexit, what would they be doing all day? The government appears to be doing nothing else.
For the past 2 years day to day government has ground to a halt unless disaster forces it on to the agenda (see the "migrant" crisis, windrush).,,,
the biggest cost of Brexit has been the opportunity cost of our politicians doing next to bugger all
Cost? Seems like the biggest benefit to date for me.
By having Brexit keep the politicians busy its prevented them meddling with other issues I agree. That's a good thing.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
It would be absurd for Parliament to offer a public vote on something it had just overwhelmingly rejected, and would be seen (rightly) as loading the dice in favour of Remain.
indeed. But what does go up against remain? Parliament has in essence indicated nothing but remain or unicorns is acceptable to them. They dont have the guts to just remain so will probably try for unicorns or remain by the back door e.g. let's revoke in order to figure out what we want, oh whoops we've remained.
There is nothing you could put up against Remain a referendum.
MPs were against Leave, so it's hardly surprising they show their true colours. Sorry, it's too difficult for us, you'll have to vote for what we want.
The deal was to leave. MPs or rather those that voted against the deal wanted something completely different (fall of the govt, fall of the EU, a free Scotland). See how undefined differences of opinion work out? Not all that well, usually.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
Whereas Labour leaders report directly to the Kremlin and their families sold us out during the war, and Labour voters are terminally stupid or have been bribed. Or so we've been told.
There’s a difference between criticising an individual such as Corbyn for his actions (whether you think that is justified or not) and condemning an entire group for a non-specific charge “enemy of decency”
And I don’t recall any significant Conservative (let’s say MP as a cut off because I’m sure you can find a parish councillor from Little Bighorn or somewhere) criticising Labour voters in the manner you suggest
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
It would be absurd for Parliament to offer a public vote on something it had just overwhelmingly rejected, and would be seen (rightly) as loading the dice in favour of Remain.
indeed. But what does go up against remain? Parliament has in essence indicated nothing but remain or unicorns is acceptable to them. They dont have the guts to just remain so will probably try for unicorns or remain by the back door e.g. let's revoke in order to figure out what we want, oh whoops we've remained.
There is nothing you could put up against Remain a referendum.
It would have to be Revoke Yes or No.
That would be an interesting way of phrasing a Remain v No-Deal choice.
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
It would be absurd for Parliament to offer a public vote on something it had just overwhelmingly rejected, and would be seen (rightly) as loading the dice in favour of Remain.
indeed. But what does go up against remain? Parliament has in essence indicated nothing but remain or unicorns is acceptable to them. They dont have the guts to just remain so will probably try for unicorns or remain by the back door e.g. let's revoke in order to figure out what we want, oh whoops we've remained.
There is nothing you could put up against Remain a referendum.
It would have to be Revoke Yes or No.
But while I'd expect it to win that would mean no deal if it didn't. Unless all mos really are liars they cannot permit that.
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
The MP totals add up to 642. I think you've included the deputies but not the Speaker. So you need to take two Labour MPs off the total, bringing it down to 254. The two tellers won't vote, bringing it down to 252. So assuming the Conservatives and the DUP do as expected, your maximum is 311.
MPs to think about if you're playing that game:
Frank Field Lady Sylvia Hermon John Woodcock Stephen Lloyd Paul Flynn (who is, I understand, very ill)
Personally I'd expect every other MP outside the Conservatives and the DUP to back the motion.
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
The MP totals add up to 642. I think you've included the deputies but not the Speaker. So you need to take two Labour MPs off the total, bringing it down to 254. The two tellers won't vote, bringing it down to 252. So assuming the Conservatives and the DUP do as expected, your maximum is 311.
MPs to think about if you're playing that game:
Frank Field Lady Sylvia Hermon John Woodcock Stephen Lloyd Paul Flynn (who is, I understand, very ill)
Personally I'd expect every other MP outside the Conservatives and the DUP to back the motion.
I'd make 300-309 favourite.
Given the DUP and currently CON look like holding together there's no risk to them in voting against the gov here. It's not like they are fans of it.
Had an entertaining exchange with local angry Brexiteers on Facebook. They are demanding that our MP respect the referendum. They are also delighted that the deal was voted down (on the grounds that it didn't deliver against the referendum promise of leaving the EU).
My questions to them were two: 1. Mays deal was Brexit. We would have left the EU in March. When you claim her deal meant we wouldn't have left the EU in March what do you mean by "leave" and "EU" 2. You want our MP to deliver the referendum. You think Mays deal didn't deliver the referendum. He voted against it as you wished. Why did he vote wrong?
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
The MP totals add up to 642. I think you've included the deputies but not the Speaker. So you need to take two Labour MPs off the total, bringing it down to 254. The two tellers won't vote, bringing it down to 252. So assuming the Conservatives and the DUP do as expected, your maximum is 311.
MPs to think about if you're playing that game:
Frank Field Lady Sylvia Hermon John Woodcock Stephen Lloyd Paul Flynn (who is, I understand, very ill)
Personally I'd expect every other MP outside the Conservatives and the DUP to back the motion.
Are Sinn Fein on the shuttle from Belfast this morning?
A united Ireland would be within touching distance if they did it.
But they'd still lose wouldn't they? So why bother?
It was a semi-joke. 7 vs 10 DUP means it probably wouldn't matter.
But, it is then very close and as Alastair and Morris have been debating, only takes one or two more to switch for some wild personal reason, or cock-up pairng or whatever.
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
The MP totals add up to 642. I think you've included the deputies but not the Speaker. So you need to take two Labour MPs off the total, bringing it down to 254. The two tellers won't vote, bringing it down to 252. So assuming the Conservatives and the DUP do as expected, your maximum is 311.
MPs to think about if you're playing that game:
Frank Field Lady Sylvia Hermon John Woodcock Stephen Lloyd Paul Flynn (who is, I understand, very ill)
Personally I'd expect every other MP outside the Conservatives and the DUP to back the motion.
I'd make 300-309 favourite.
Do you think some Tories might break ranks.
Not on the first try. If no deal looks like happening? Yes. Otherwise they are hypocrits.
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
The MP totals add up to 642. I think you've included the deputies but not the Speaker. So you need to take two Labour MPs off the total, bringing it down to 254. The two tellers won't vote, bringing it down to 252. So assuming the Conservatives and the DUP do as expected, your maximum is 311.
MPs to think about if you're playing that game:
Frank Field Lady Sylvia Hermon John Woodcock Stephen Lloyd Paul Flynn (who is, I understand, very ill)
Personally I'd expect every other MP outside the Conservatives and the DUP to back the motion.
I'd make 300-309 favourite.
Do you think some Tories might break ranks.
No, but perhaps they should. This is a national emergency now.
Had an entertaining exchange with local angry Brexiteers on Facebook. They are demanding that our MP respect the referendum. They are also delighted that the deal was voted down (on the grounds that it didn't deliver against the referendum promise of leaving the EU).
My questions to them were two: 1. Mays deal was Brexit. We would have left the EU in March. When you claim her deal meant we wouldn't have left the EU in March what do you mean by "leave" and "EU" 2. You want our MP to deliver the referendum. You think Mays deal didn't deliver the referendum. He voted against it as you wished. Why did he vote wrong?
They seem confused...
It is the most bizarre turn of events that a deal which transparently *was* Brexit is being criticised as not being Brexit.
But of course you factored all this in when you voted Leave, right?
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
It would be absurd for Parliament to offer a public vote on something it had just overwhelmingly rejected, and would be seen (rightly) as loading the dice in favour of Remain.
indeed. But what does go up against remain? Parliament has in essence indicated nothing but remain or unicorns is acceptable to them. They dont have the guts to just remain so will probably try for unicorns or remain by the back door e.g. let's revoke in order to figure out what we want, oh whoops we've remained.
There is nothing you could put up against Remain a referendum...
Doesn't that rather suggest the futility of Brexit ?
Hmm. Betfair has 3.8 on 300-309 MPs backing the No Confidence motion. Favourite band is the one above, 310-319, at 1.47.
Commons numbers: Con 317 DUP 10
Lab 256 SNP 35 Lib Dems 11 Plaid 4 Green 1 Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
The MP totals add up to 642. I think you've included the deputies but not the Speaker. So you need to take two Labour MPs off the total, bringing it down to 254. The two tellers won't vote, bringing it down to 252. So assuming the Conservatives and the DUP do as expected, your maximum is 311.
MPs to think about if you're playing that game:
Frank Field Lady Sylvia Hermon John Woodcock Stephen Lloyd Paul Flynn (who is, I understand, very ill)
Personally I'd expect every other MP outside the Conservatives and the DUP to back the motion.
I'd make 300-309 favourite.
Do you think some Tories might break ranks.
Surely any Conservative voting no confidence in their own government could expect to be kicked out of the party?
They’ve been easy on the likes of Grieve and his shenanigans up until now, but voting down the government would surely be a step too far?
I was amused by the BBC waffle last night. Leaving aside James Landale's three minute segment during which he excitingly revealed things are a bit difficult to predict right now, Huw Edwards and Laura Kuenssberg suggesting the scale of the defeat was a shock was, er, wrong.
Sky's prediction in the morning had circa 198 voting for the deal, which was very close. Some handsome fellow or other also backed both the specific 10-seat band and the wider 50-seat band, on Betfair and Ladbrokes respectively, and I know many others here did likewise.
On predictions, here's something that might happen: May gets a tiny tinkering with the deal. Goes for a second vote with the threat of a referendum between her deal and Remain. Deal loses, second referendum occurs.
Despite agreeing that deal v Remain is the only realistic vote, it is hard to see the deal going to the people having been voted down twice, unless there is evidence of significant public support for it (which there isn't; the poll support is falling away).
The people will quickly abandon it now too, plenty won't want to back a loser. To even be considered again the deal needs tweaking. And if we could get that it would not have be whalloped quite so hard in the first place.
It would be absurd for Parliament to offer a public vote on something it had just overwhelmingly rejected, and would be seen (rightly) as loading the dice in favour of Remain.
Yes, but parliament would also overwhelmingly reject No Deal, which is the only other form of Leave that is available. It would be absurd to offer that too. Which just leaves Remain. It would be absurd to offer a referendum with only one choice.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
If there aren't any better politicians than current crop of incompetents and walking personality disorders governing us, we really are fucked. Which we probably are.
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
If there aren't any better politicians than current crop of incompetents and walking personality disorders governing us, we really are fucked. Which we probably are.
Thing is, you could be a politician. So could anyone here (some of course have). There are precisely zero barriers to entry to become an MP. So I really don't get why people criticise MPs. If you don't like it, get in there and sort it out!
The Conservatives are “the enemies of decency in this country” are they?
This is what fucks me off about so many on the left
You may disagree with their policies but, in the main, Conservatives are normal people doing what they think is right for the country. They are neither better or worse than any other politicians.
If there aren't any better politicians than current crop of incompetents and walking personality disorders governing us, we really are fucked. Which we probably are.
Thing is, you could be a politician. So could anyone here (some of course have). There are precisely zero barriers to entry to become an MP. So I really don't get why people criticise MPs. If you don't like it, get in there and sort it out!
The hoops you'd have to jump through to reach the point where you had a reasonable chance would put most sensible people off.
Comments
The Democrats don't have anything like a Trump (even if Avenatti were running, he wouldn't be in with a chance) - and if one of the field proves to be a standout performer on the hustings, that would be a positive, not a negative.
so not only do Tories actually have a heart, they have several of them.
I think it is in his interest to offer a deal in return for some concessions and crucially a GE ?
Corby doesn't want a bloody referendum, he wants an election.
An election just after Brexit is better, so he can make the election about social matters.
And better still, the Tories will still be banging on about Europe.
https://twitter.com/AndrewDuffEU/status/1085451819017478144
Jjuncker confesses to having imnposed toomuch austerity in the Euro crisis,Salvini tells him to dry his crocodile tears
https://www.lastampa.it/2019/01/16/economia/gi-le-banche-in-borsa-salvini-contro-la-bce-un-attacco-allitalia-a7TLF1ctza1h4Ldt7g3tkM/pagina.html
Nothing else.
If it wasn't for Brexit, what would they be doing all day? The government appears to be doing nothing else.
I love crazy obsessives but I think the Tory party have overdone it
Nothing like watching the fourth estate trying to spin out 'hard to predict' into six hours of content on 18 channels...
I think your prediction is spot on. My only problem is whether the EU will extend A50 until July (they've said that's a possibility, but needs a unanimous vote, and in one or two EU countries patience is wearing thin. This is different to the ECJ ruling that we could unilaterally withdraw A50 at any point).
The biggest tragedy in all of this (aside from the genuine levels of anxiety caused to my friends and other EU citizens living in the UK) is that another referendum is the last thing we need. Talk about picking a particularly nasty scab: personally, I want Brexit to be cancelled ASAP and get on with my comfortable middle class, pre-European life. But I also recognise the level of anti-EU support in this country.
Most remainers have no idea of the level of anti-EU sentiment that exists, and the bitterness and resentment that will overwhelm us once again. And for all the thousands that marched, many are EU citizens that will not be allowed to vote.
I would rather have No Deal and handle the economic fall-out and international humbling we'd face rather than have to go through another Referendum.
He's not exactly old at 66, but has yet to establish himself on a national stage, and it is a crowded field with far more established veterans.
The time for a change candidate is far more likely to be someone of a newer vintage.
The generational divide on display in yesterday's Senate AG confirmation hearing is of some salience to the Democratic electorate:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/15/democratic-senators-catch-william-barr-out-criminal-justice/
For me, May should resign today. I agreed with every word of her speech yesterday and thought it was one of her better ones but in terms of getting a consensus she is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
The government now actually needs to do some real work preparing for a no deal Brexit. There are a lot of things needing done including legislation to ensure that our legal system remains rational, guaranteeing the status of EU residents unilaterally and working on mini-deals to solve immediate problems. They should also, in my view, be clear that the UK will pay its obligations as set out in the WA whether we sign it or not.
The government under a new leader can try to find a way forward in the Commons but I really don't expect any success at all. The gesture, very belatedly, needs to be made, however.
If I was a Tory MP right now I would be gutted about what has happened to my party and I would be spending time trying to persuade Rory the Tory to be a candidate.
As you say the expectation one side must do something, must, can really mess with things. Even some very sensible people who I won't name once described lds voting for a Id in a by election on here as a betrayal, because labour hoped to win it over the Tories..
Meanwhile, Varadkar's intention to prevent a hard border may see one imposed.
Anyway, time to check the markets for the confidence vote.
It's part of the all or nothing strategy from the EU, we remain or No deal, so let's wait until the deal is dead before we hint at tweaks, that way it's too late but it looks like we were reasonable.
"Most remainers have no idea of the level of anti-EU sentiment that exists, and the bitterness and resentment that will overwhelm us once again."
How would a second referendum not be a clear breach of faith? Yes, MPs might say they are not mere representatives, they are far too important for that. But nearly 250 years ago there was a 'Boston tea party' on the claim … no taxation without representation. Perhaps a re-enactment in the original Boston is in order?
Commons numbers:
Con 317
DUP 10
Lab 256
SNP 35
Lib Dems 11
Plaid 4
Green 1
Independent 8
Not counted speaker/deputies, or Sinn Fein.
So a maximum non-Con/DUP turnout would be 315. But it only requires 6 to not back the motion for the 300-309 band to come off (assuming no angry blue backbenchers support it). I'm sure the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Green will all go for it. Which leaves 8 independents and 256 Labour MPs. Might the likes of Mann, Flint, Hoey, and some independents decide now is not the time for a General Election?
When the HoC has proven itself unable to come up with a solution what do you suggest the way forward is.
Remember, what is possible, not what exists in the fantasy la-la land of Bill Cash's fevered imagination.
But we'll see how things turn out.
A lot of MPs have felt excluded and powerless as Brexit has proceeded, with May keeping things secret even from her closest colleagues. In better circumstances some concessions and involvement could have won a lot of them round. It's just a shame that May isn't the leader the current situation really needs.
So, looks like revoke is the only option. Unless somekind of EFTA /Norway deal, which noone is fully pushing...
Of all the people who have screwed up, perhaps the biggest failure is that of Leo Varadkar. So is he now going to build a border, and if he isn’t then why do we need the backstop in the first place because we’re not going to build a border either.
Last odds on the VoNC were 1.03 to fail. Sounds like value to get a 3% return in 12 hours. Some of us got 1.06 last night thanks to a tip on here.
Are Sinn Fein on the shuttle from Belfast this morning?
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1085307317128712192
But If a single Lab MP votes for May in this one, then the whole explosive row will suddenly pivot and be on Labour divisions.
Plus they would be deselected by the weekend.
"Remember, what is possible"
MPs were against Leave, so it's hardly surprising they show their true colours. Sorry, it's too difficult for us, you'll have to vote for what we want.
By having Brexit keep the politicians busy its prevented them meddling with other issues I agree. That's a good thing.
It would have to be Revoke Yes or No.
Mr. B2, sounds almost like the Greens and Blues ahead of the Nika rebellion.
And I don’t recall any significant Conservative (let’s say MP as a cut off because I’m sure you can find a parish councillor from Little Bighorn or somewhere) criticising Labour voters in the manner you suggest
MPs to think about if you're playing that game:
Frank Field
Lady Sylvia Hermon
John Woodcock
Stephen Lloyd
Paul Flynn (who is, I understand, very ill)
Personally I'd expect every other MP outside the Conservatives and the DUP to back the motion.
I'd make 300-309 favourite.
Of course, we could go for an extension. To kick their collision point somewhere down the road.
But only if that nice Mr. Macron says so. Without wanting our fish.
Oh, and the Greeks not wanting their Marbles back.
Oh, and....
But the Immoveable Object has really enjoyed the past month. He's getting quite comfy now.
My questions to them were two:
1. Mays deal was Brexit. We would have left the EU in March. When you claim her deal meant we wouldn't have left the EU in March what do you mean by "leave" and "EU"
2. You want our MP to deliver the referendum. You think Mays deal didn't deliver the referendum. He voted against it as you wished. Why did he vote wrong?
They seem confused...
But, it is then very close and as Alastair and Morris have been debating, only takes one or two more to switch for some wild personal reason, or cock-up pairng or whatever.
Surely that wont be allowed/made to happen tonight?
But of course you factored all this in when you voted Leave, right?
They’ve been easy on the likes of Grieve and his shenanigans up until now, but voting down the government would surely be a step too far?
So where do we go from here?
Which we probably are.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1085261972063600641