Dr Phillip Lee MP: I've never understood why the Tories wanted to become the Brexit party...but someone somewhere thought embracing this turd was going to be a political bounty..
I was annoyed at the time, but really, they understood me better than I understood myself.
I enjoyed that side - I felt it was the ideal job, 4 days a week working on national policy, 3 days a week solving people's problems (and you really could solve about half of them, just by knowing the ropes) and understanding the issues that come up in everyday life. The former was intellectually satisfying and difficult, the latter was just nice, as half the time you could make individuals really happy by sorting out something that had been bugging them for weeks. I really miss it.
Sure, I can see a case for full-time legislators who mainly encounter voters in a political context like a public meeting and can concentrate undistracted on good legislation, but it would feel much more soulless, and perhaps would lose touch with what was actually going wrong. For instance, I found I kept getting child support problems coming up, so I worked out that the legislation, reasonable-looking as it was on paper, was really not working. By contrast, nobody ever complained about passport delays, so I assumed the passport system was working well.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
I've never understood why the Treason Act doesn't apply. "Adherence to the Queen's enemies, at home or abroad". It hanged Casement
We need a lawyer's opinion on this one. The existing treason statutes are very old: perhaps they are countermanded by the HRA or something like that? In any event, I would've thought that ministers would've started banging the drum of treason long before now if they believed current legislation would allow the charge to be brought. There certainly appears to be ample justification in a case like this.
Dr Phillip Lee MP: I've never understood why the Tories wanted to become the Brexit party...but someone somewhere thought embracing this turd was going to be a political bounty..
It was forced on them by Cameron's hubris and the resulting circumstances. Once they were obliged to legislate for the referendum they were always going to have to own the result.
Dr Phillip Lee MP: I've never understood why the Tories wanted to become the Brexit party...but someone somewhere thought embracing this turd was going to be a political bounty..
Replace the word Brexit with democracy and you get a far better idea of his views.
As a councillor I quite often got stuff that was really for the MP. More often than vice versa. But then we did make the effort to keep in touch with our residents.
I could see a lot of logic in a centrally-funded enquiries service that would direct queries to town/district/county councillor/MP as appropriate. Hardly anyone apart from us obsessives understands what each tier of government does (he says, having yet again spent part of the morning fending off stuff that really needs to go to our county councillor).
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
For me the issue here is what should be the main driver of a Home Secretary's decisions in these difficult matters. Should it be the law as guided by statute and precedent but tempered by practicality? Or should it be in response to what's on the front page of the tabloids and to promote one's prospects of becoming leader of the Conservative party?
Toughie.
Except in this case the two motives *might* coincide. He wants her locked out of the country and the law provides a perfectly workable instrument for achieving the aim.
Things only get sticky for Javid if he had good reason to believe that the Bangladeshi authorities would have a solid legal basis (and not just the motivation of their own convenience) to deny her right of citizenship. One way or the other, one imagines that the truth of this matter will out.
Dr Phillip Lee MP: I've never understood why the Tories wanted to become the Brexit party...but someone somewhere thought embracing this turd was going to be a political bounty..
It was forced on them by Cameron's hubris and the resulting circumstances. Once they were obliged to legislate for the referendum they were always going to have to own the result.
Perhaps one of Harriet Harman's other forgotten major strategic blunders as acting leader was not voting against it.
I was annoyed at the time, but really, they understood me better than I understood myself.
I enjoyed that side - I felt it was the ideal job, 4 days a week working on national policy, 3 days a week solving people's problems (and you really could solve about half of them, just by knowing the ropes) and understanding the issues that come up in everyday life. The former was intellectually satisfying and difficult, the latter was just nice, as half the time you could make individuals really happy by sorting out something that had been bugging them for weeks. I really miss it.
Sure, I can see a case for full-time legislators who mainly encounter voters in a political context like a public meeting and can concentrate undistracted on good legislation, but it would feel much more soulless, and perhaps would lose touch with what was actually going wrong. For instance, I found I kept getting child support problems coming up, so I worked out that the legislation, reasonable-looking as it was on paper, was really not working. By contrast, nobody ever complained about passport delays, so I assumed the passport system was working well.
Nick - not suggesting this will happen, but I guess it isn't impossible. You campaigning for Soubry in Broxtowe!
Please actually don't respond, other than to call me an idiot if you like. I guess you can see how one might mistakenly join the dots though
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
I've never understood why the Treason Act doesn't apply. "Adherence to the Queen's enemies, at home or abroad". It hanged Casement
We need a lawyer's opinion on this one. The existing treason statutes are very old: perhaps they are countermanded by the HRA or something like that? In any event, I would've thought that ministers would've started banging the drum of treason long before now if they believed current legislation would allow the charge to be brought. There certainly appears to be ample justification in a case like this.
I, too, wondered how on earth Ms Begum has not been adherent to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and why she just can't be charged with treason. The 1351 Act is still in force.
The taxi is on its way to his house with his suspension letter right now...
Apparently a complaint was made by Barry Gardiner MP that Hatton made an allegedly antisemitic tweet in 2012. Although I would have presumed that was why they let him back in.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
I've never understood why the Treason Act doesn't apply. "Adherence to the Queen's enemies, at home or abroad". It hanged Casement
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I was annoyed at the time, but really, they understood me better than I understood myself.
I enjoyed that side - I felt it was the ideal job, 4 days a week working on national policy, 3 days a week solving people's problems (and you really could solve about half of them, just by knowing the ropes) and understanding the issues that come up in everyday life. The former was intellectually satisfying and difficult, the latter was just nice, as half the time you could make individuals really happy by sorting out something that had been bugging them for weeks. I really miss it.
Sure, I can see a case for full-time legislators who mainly encounter voters in a political context like a public meeting and can concentrate undistracted on good legislation, but it would feel much more soulless, and perhaps would lose touch with what was actually going wrong. For instance, I found I kept getting child support problems coming up, so I worked out that the legislation, reasonable-looking as it was on paper, was really not working. By contrast, nobody ever complained about passport delays, so I assumed the passport system was working well.
With email the amount of contact MPs get from constituents has increased hugely, and my impression was that most of it was simply forwarded to a relevant official by one of the MPs minions and then the reply from the official simply forwarded back to the resident. Hopefully a decent MP will ask their staff for a summary of the issues that have come through the office, but rarely in my experience did an MP seem to have added very much personally to it.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
Pretty much agree with all of this.
It's also a reminder that we need to spend the time to craft sensible legislation, not act in a series of jolts driven by headlines.
The law should be that if you leave the country to fight against the United Kingdom, then you are guilty of treason, and punishment can be anything up to a whole life tariff.
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I wasn't making the comparison - simply picking up the OP on his figures. But, of course, in 1981 Europe was the issue (as well as defence) and, then as now, the position of the leavers was close to that of the Liberals/LDs. But I agree that in the current media and internet world things will move more quickly. Not least because decision day on Brexit looms, and whatever happens will have major fallout into our politics.
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I wasn't making the comparison - simply picking up the OP on his figures. But, of course, in 1981 Europe was the issue (as well as defence) and, then as now, the position of the leavers was close to that of the Liberals/LDs. But I agree that in the current media and internet world things will move more quickly. Not least because decision day on Brexit looms, and whatever happens will have major fallout into our politics.
There was no imminent Brexit process back in 1981.
The taxi is on its way to his house with his suspension letter right now...
Apparently a complaint was made by Barry Gardiner MP that Hatton made an allegedly antisemitic tweet in 2012. Although I would have presumed that was why they let him back in.
Labour rules experts suggest the party may be acting illegally by suspending Derek Hatton for something he did while not a party member. “He has a clear and simple legal case and could easily win in court,” says one source.
As a matter of pedantry, it would be nice if the House of Commons authorities would distinguish the Independents from the Independent Group when updating their website. Keeping track of all the different independents is becoming something of a challenge.
The current count appears to be:
Ex-Labour Independent Group members: 8 Ex-Labour Independents: 6 Ex-Tory Independent Group members: 3 People actually elected as Independents: 1 Ex-Lib Dem Independents: 1
At least the Speaker gets counted separately, which is something.
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I think if anything it is a more favourable environment for a new party with MPs in a hung H of C instead of a solid Tory majority as in the early 1980s. Political identification and partisanship are diminishing. People become bored and will embrace risks that they were not willing to do in the past.
I watched an interesting lecture by Vernon Bogdanor on parliament TV in the last 6 months and he said that despite the anomaly result of 2017, that the future of political parties was more likely to be fragmented and might be more like the pre 1945 set up in the future. Bogdanor also predicted several years ago that Brexit would be a Government destroyer, looks like he will be proved correct on both accounts!
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Wasn't Mike Gapes sitting on a 31K majority, would be interesting to see how strong the personal vote is.
Apparently a complaint was made by Barry Gardiner MP that Hatton made an allegedly antisemitic tweet in 2012. Although I would have presumed that was why they let him back in.
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Wasn't Mike Gapes sitting on a 31K majority, would be interesting to see how strong the personal vote is.
Given the ethnic makeup of his seat, Labour would put a Muslim up against him and he would get slaughtered.
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
In a hung parliament they have maximum leverage and why would the Labour defectors give Corbyn the chance of victories in ultra safe Labour seats when they say he is unfit to be PM? The Eight Labour defectors want to stop Corbyn becoming PM not help him along the way!
Apart from the PB tricoteuses, those of us who take politics seriously are left to wonder this evening where this is all going. The defections of Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston were well touted and although some derision was to be expected, the general tone has been one more of sorrow than anger from the Conservative side.
How TIG evolves is going to be fascinating. There will be huge pressure for it to start looking like a political party with all the trappings and trimmings but I sense that's not where Chuka and the others are at the moment.
The problem will be IF TIG starts building momentum outside Westminster among the "I'm sick of the current politicians" brigade. As I've often stated, at least 2/3 of the SDP's initial members had never been in any party so the question has to be whether TIG will resonate among that significant group of the population with a shifting political allegiance. The significant number of Don't Knows in today's polling shows there's a market out there.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I think if anything it is a more favourable environment for a new party with MPs in a hung H of C instead of a solid Tory majority as in the early 1980s. Political identification and partisanship are diminishing. People become bored and will embrace risks that they were not willing to do in the past.
I watched an interesting lecture by Vernon Bogdanor on parliament TV in the last 6 months and he said that despite the anomaly result of 2017, that the future of political parties was more likely to be fragmented and might be more like the pre 1945 set up in the future. Bogdanor also predicted several years ago that Brexit would be a Government destroyer, looks like he will be proved correct on both accounts!
On the other hand there are now far fewer by elections than in earlier decades , and this will deny any new party the oxygen of momentum and publicity previously generated by such campaigns.
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Wasn't Mike Gapes sitting on a 31K majority, would be interesting to see how strong the personal vote is.
Given the ethnic makeup of his seat, Labour would put a Muslim up against him and he would get slaughtered.
I hope you aren't suggesting that lots of Muslim voters would flock to the polls to back an openly antisemitic party?
John Mann attacking Kevin Macquire in the HOC on anti semitism, and I am not going to repeat his allegation
Go on! What's Kev been up to now?
I think he's from Hartlepool
I do not have the protection of the HOC so I would suggest you watch it on playback
We could always wait for John to repeat it outside the of the commons.
As we know what an honest and reliable source John is there would be no reason for him to have any fear about saying it without any protections on his speech.
I know some of you are thinking John is some kind of coward who would smear someone by telling what he knows to be lies merely for his own political advancement but I think much more highly of him than that.
John would only be saying these things if they were true, stake my life on it....
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
In a hung parliament they have maximum leverage and why would the Labour defectors give Corbyn the chance of victories in ultra safe Labour seats when they say he is unfit to be PM? The Eight Labour defectors want to stop Corbyn becoming PM not help him along the way!
Ah, so they are too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing!
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Yes, probably, but I honestly cannot get too worked up about it. I would not be surprised if a majority have always felt that MPs should resign if they defect, and I give great credit to the UKIP defectors for doing so, but it happens so rarely when defections happen that the calls for it, and the refusals, are just too formulaic to worry about.
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Wasn't Mike Gapes sitting on a 31K majority, would be interesting to see how strong the personal vote is.
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Wasn't Mike Gapes sitting on a 31K majority, would be interesting to see how strong the personal vote is.
Given the ethnic makeup of his seat, Labour would put a Muslim up against him and he would get slaughtered.
I hope you aren't suggesting that lots of Muslim voters would flock to the polls to back an openly antisemitic party?
Probably that they would be too enthusiastic about the funny tinge party or the Islamophobic one...
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
But it's not the case that there is no legal process. First, because the HS has to be able to show that the person's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good - and that means that there will need to be an internal legal assessment about whether that test - in light of UK court cases and relevant cases before the ECHR - has been met in the case in question. Second, the person has the right to appeal the decision and it will be the courts who decide whether the HS has acted lawfully or not.
That said, for the reasons I put forward this morning, I'm not sure it was wise to do this now in the full glare of publicity or, indeed, at all. Our efforts would have been better directed to getting the authorities in Syria or Iraq to investigate her activities and put her on trial there, if there was evidence of crimes.
Yes, not sure how they develop things further. They would also presumably want a broad church for any new grouping, but there's very little guarantee they can cobble unity together on very much at all, and members they need on side are inherently tribal still and will be wary of certain policies.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
I've never understood why the Treason Act doesn't apply. "Adherence to the Queen's enemies, at home or abroad". It hanged Casement
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
But it's not the case that there is no legal process. First, because the HS has to be able to show that the person's presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good - and that means that there will need to be an internal legal assessment about whether that test - in light of UK court cases and relevant cases before the ECHR - has been met in the case in question. Second, the person has the right to appeal the decision and it will be the courts who decide whether the HS has acted lawfully or not.
That said, for the reasons I put forward this morning, I'm not sure it was wise to do this now in the full glare of publicity or, indeed, at all. Our efforts would have been better directed to getting the authorities in Syria or Iraq to investigate her activities and put her on trial there, if there was evidence of crimes.
Yes, I really do not know why people are acting like there is no process here, rather than merely focus on whether it was the right thing to do even if the legal process was carried out correctly, and indeed whether the legal process existing at all is ok or not (for hypothetical cases such as those rcs100 suggests). It makes it very easy to dismiss what might otherwise be valid concerns because it includes the claim there was or would be no legal process.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
I've never understood why the Treason Act doesn't apply. "Adherence to the Queen's enemies, at home or abroad". It hanged Casement
And she's already been Rogered.
A terrible slur on our sage of the Oscars...
I just saw a brief window in that line on Casement.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I think if anything it is a more favourable environment for a new party with MPs in a hung H of C instead of a solid Tory majority as in the early 1980s. Political identification and partisanship are diminishing. People become bored and will embrace risks that they were not willing to do in the past.
I watched an interesting lecture by Vernon Bogdanor on parliament TV in the last 6 months and he said that despite the anomaly result of 2017, that the future of political parties was more likely to be fragmented and might be more like the pre 1945 set up in the future. Bogdanor also predicted several years ago that Brexit would be a Government destroyer, looks like he will be proved correct on both accounts!
On the other hand there are now far fewer by elections than in earlier decades , and this will deny any new party the oxygen of momentum and publicity previously generated by such campaigns.
What if the defections slowly continue week on week? I used to work in a newsagents in my teens and remember looking at some newspapers from the early 1980s. The SDP defections happened over weeks or months and so in the current media environment a defection maybe as newsworthy as a by-election was then.
I noticed the style of the defection of the Tories today and the three seemed to be trying to optimise Heidi Allen's exposure to the media. This maybe because she has only been an MP since 2015 and many people will never have heard of her before. It may also have been because she is very telegenic in my opinion and the message coming from a fresh faced source maybe mean a more receptive public approval?
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Wasn't Mike Gapes sitting on a 31K majority, would be interesting to see how strong the personal vote is.
There's an argument to be made that given the forthcoming crucial Brexit votes they aren't serving their constituents by removing themselves from those Commons votes.
My reflections on a tumultuous day. Heidi Allen- This is what you get with All Women Shortlists. A dilution of choice. Sarah Wollaston- a live example of why open primaries are unfit for purpose. Hypocrisy laid bare. Whilst the 3 defectors criticise Brexiters not a word from them about Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless and their courageous decisions to call by elections when they defected. Newport West by election. An excellent opportunity to force Labour into a decision at last on the M4 relief road. Do they want it or not? The whole of South Wales wants an answer.
I must admit that I'm slightly concerned about the distinction between:
1. is a citizen of another country 2. is eligible to the citizen of another country
Because if 2 is the barrier, then the Home Secretary can - without going through any legal process - strip anybody of Jewsish heritage, or who was born in Northern Ireland, or who has one Irish grandparent of their citizenship.
From what I've read previously, this case would appear to hinge on the interpretation of the relevant citizenship legislation in Bangladesh. Just because their Interior Minister's take on the matter is diametrically opposed to ours, it doesn't automatically follow that theirs is right and ours is wrong. The matter will have to be settled in the courts, which is proper.
My own opinion on the matter remains unchanged. I think there's nothing objectionable about taking Shameless Shamima back in theory. The issue is complicated in practice because Parliament has been negligent in failing to implement the appropriate criminal penalties. Her return would not be an issue if membership of IS were regarded in law as a form of treason and punishable by a mandatory whole of life tariff. If she dared to turn up in Britain we could simply lock her up and throw away the key.
As it is, she's still our problem anyway and, if the authorities in Syria don't want to punish her, then we should take her back and attempt to do so - although one obviously understands why the Government doesn't want to do it. Because she would, in all likelihood, be let off with a slap on the wrist and all the trouble and the dire newspaper headlines that she would generate over the ensuing years would be blamed on the uselessness of politicians - and not without a large measure of justification, either.
I've never understood why the Treason Act doesn't apply. "Adherence to the Queen's enemies, at home or abroad". It hanged Casement
And she's already been Rogered.
A terrible slur on our sage of the Oscars...
I just saw a brief window in that line on Casement.
This is why correct use of commas is important, and that the Oxford comma is awesome.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I think if anything it is a more favourable environment for a new party with MPs in a hung H of C instead of a solid Tory majority as in the early 1980s. Political identification and partisanship are diminishing. People become bored and will embrace risks that they were not willing to do in the past.
I watched an intereounts!
On the other hand there are now far fewer by elections than in earlier decades , and this will deny any new party the oxygen of momentum and publicity previously generated by such campaigns.
What if the defections slowly continue week on week? I used to work in a newsagents in my teens and remember looking at some newspapers from the early 1980s. The SDP defections happened over weeks or months and so in the current media environment a defection maybe as newsworthy as a by-election was then.
I noticed the style of the defection of the Tories today and the three seemed to be trying to optimise Heidi Allen's exposure to the media. This maybe because she has only been an MP since 2015 and many people will never have heard of her before. It may also have been because she is very telegenic in my opinion and the message coming from a fresh faced source maybe mean a more receptive public approval?
I can find that plausible. Though personally I'm not a fan of the word telegenic. I know it is not necessarily a direct synonym, but it usually gets used as if to just to say said person is attractive, without just saying that.
John Mann attacking Kevin Macquire in the HOC on anti semitism, and I am not going to repeat his allegation
Go on! What's Kev been up to now?
I think he's from Hartlepool
I do not have the protection of the HOC so I would suggest you watch it on playback
We could always wait for John to repeat it outside the of the commons.
As we know what an honest and reliable source John is there would be no reason for him to have any fear about saying it without any protections on his speech.
I know some of you are thinking John is some kind of coward who would smear someone by telling what he knows to be lies merely for his own political advancement but I think much more highly of him than that.
John would only be saying these things if they were true, stake my life on it....
If what John Mann said is true and he has the evidence, then it would be him who would have a good case for libel against the journalist in question.
Still, good to see that Labour is still in shooting-the-messenger mode. That listening exercise of Mr McDonnell seems to have been very short-lived.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I think if anything it is a more favourable environment for a new party with MPs in a hung H of C instead of a solid Tory majority as in the early 1980s. Political identification and partisanship are diminishing. People become bored and will embrace risks that they were not willing to do in the past.
I watched an interesting lecture by Vernon Bogdanor on parliament TV in the last 6 months and he said that despite the anomaly result of 2017, that the future of political parties was more likely to be fragmented and might be more like the pre 1945 set up in the future. Bogdanor also predicted several years ago that Brexit would be a Government destroyer, looks like he will be proved correct on both accounts!
On the other hand there are now far fewer by elections than in earlier decades , and this will deny any new party the oxygen of momentum and publicity previously generated by such campaigns.
What if the defections slowly continue week on week? I used to work in a newsagents in my teens and remember looking at some newspapers from the early 1980s. The SDP defections happened over weeks or months and so in the current media environment a defection maybe as newsworthy as a by-election was then.
I noticed the style of the defection of the Tories today and the three seemed to be trying to optimise Heidi Allen's exposure to the media. This maybe because she has only been an MP since 2015 and many people will never have heard of her before. It may also have been because she is very telegenic in my opinion and the message coming from a fresh faced source maybe mean a more receptive public approval?
My, er, friend tells me he fancies her like crazy, but he is seriously conflicted about this whole defection thing! Remember this is my, er, friend we're talking about!
Well quite. Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Wasn't Mike Gapes sitting on a 31K majority, would be interesting to see how strong the personal vote is.
Given the ethnic makeup of his seat, Labour would put a Muslim up against him and he would get slaughtered.
I hope you aren't suggesting that lots of Muslim voters would flock to the polls to back an openly antisemitic party?
Probably that they would be too enthusiastic about the funny tinge party or the Islamophobic one...
Dr Phillip Lee MP: I've never understood why the Tories wanted to become the Brexit party...but someone somewhere thought embracing this turd was going to be a political bounty..
Philip Lee seems to be a bit thick. He didn't understand the legislation to have a referendum on EU membership, he didn't understand the legislation to trigger A50, and he didn't understand his party's manifesto.
One could argue the SDP's most significant achievement was to being first Labour and then the Conservative parties back to the centre - perhaps TIG will do something similar.
The problem is we still don't really know what TIG stands for apart from being opposed to Brexit - rather like the early days of the SDP or May anyone can project anything.
A survey of SDP members found 25% joined from Labour, 10% from the Tories, 5% from the Liberals, with the remaining 60% joining afresh as previous non-party members.
The SDP comparison is overdone. There was no major issue where a significant proportion of the population were unrepresented by the major parties (Brexit). The internet wasn't a thing. I think it will work out a completely different way, this time around. How it will play out is anyones guess.
I think if anything it is a more favourable environment for a new party with MPs in a hung H of C instead of a solid Tory majority as in the early 1980s. Political identification and partisanship are diminishing. People become bored and will embrace risks that they were not willing to do in the past.
I watet up in the future. Bogdanor also predicted several years ago that Brexit would be a Government destroyer, looks like he will be proved correct on both accounts!
On the other hand there are now far fewer by elections than in earlier decades , and this will deny any new party the oxygen of momentum and publicity previously generated by such campaigns.
What if the defections slowly continue week on week? I used to work in a newsagents in my teens and remember looking at some newspapers from the early 1980s. The SDP defections happened over weeks or months and so in the current media environment a defection maybe as newsworthy as a by-election was then.
I noticed the style of the defection of the Tories today and the three seemed to be trying to optimise Heidi Allen's exposure to the media. This maybe because she has only been an MP since 2015 and many people will never have heard of her before. It may also have been because she is very telegenic in my opinion and the message coming from a fresh faced source maybe mean a more receptive public approval?
My, er, friend tells me he fancies her like crazy, but he is seriously conflicted about this whole defection thing! Remember this is my, er, friend we're talking about!
It's a positive thing - you get to keep your 'Never knocked one out thinking about a Tory' T-shirt.
Dr Phillip Lee MP: I've never understood why the Tories wanted to become the Brexit party...but someone somewhere thought embracing this turd was going to be a political bounty..
Philip Lee seems to be a bit thick. He didn't understand the legislation to have a referendum on EU membership, he didn't understand the legislation to trigger A50, and he didn't understand his party's manifesto.
TBH, in my one time professional experience I often found GP's had difficulty in understanding much outside their immediate field.
German has unilaterally imposed its view on arms exports on a UK business, putting that company in breach of contract and embarrassing the U.K. government
You may disagree with the U.K. policy but for the Foreign Sectetary to write a stern letter is entirely reasonable
The question whether MPs should subject themselves to by-elections is a good one. It seems to me that MPs who can fairly claim that events have taken their party away from them rather than vice versa don’t have the same obligation as MPs who have moved away from their party.
So the current ex-Cons have more explaining for me on this than the ex-Labs.
If Theresa May embraces no-deal, future Con defectors have no moral obligation to submit themselves to a fresh verdict of their constituency electorate.
I am always shocked that maguire never lost his mirror job or his cushy sky gig after he admitted to being involved in the dirty tricks plot to smear tories but it is ok cos he did it in “a personal capacity”.
Except in this case the two motives *might* coincide. He wants her locked out of the country and the law provides a perfectly workable instrument for achieving the aim.
Things only get sticky for Javid if he had good reason to believe that the Bangladeshi authorities would have a solid legal basis (and not just the motivation of their own convenience) to deny her right of citizenship. One way or the other, one imagines that the truth of this matter will out.
Eventually.
It's win win. If it holds up he is vindicated. If it doesn't he is the muslim politician who tried his damnedest to stop an evil muslim from darkening our shores ever again. Either way he burnishes his credentials with you know who. Probably thinks he's got it in the bag now unless Hunt screws him over by getting Zaghari Radcliffe out.
Angry splutter. I'm not bigoted. I just hate Tory MPs. And someone is judging Essex by it's TV image.
I've spent time in Essex, also Essex elected Mark Francois.
Oddly there were at one time a couple of Lib County Councillors in what is now Mark Francois constituency. But I must admit that having him, Priti Patel and Bernard Jenkin as MP's is not a good advertisement. It is in fact a good reason for changing from FPTP, although not necessarily to AV.
I am always shocked that maguire never lost his mirror job or his cushy sky gig after he admitted to being involved in the dirty tricks plot to smear tories but it is ok cos he did it in “a personal capacity”.
I thought that Anna Soubry on Channel 4 News was a bit rude and patronising towards Bill Cash. He was courteous to her but she was rather snooty towards him.
Comments
Sure, I can see a case for full-time legislators who mainly encounter voters in a political context like a public meeting and can concentrate undistracted on good legislation, but it would feel much more soulless, and perhaps would lose touch with what was actually going wrong. For instance, I found I kept getting child support problems coming up, so I worked out that the legislation, reasonable-looking as it was on paper, was really not working. By contrast, nobody ever complained about passport delays, so I assumed the passport system was working well.
(I've no involvement currently or recently in that price.)
Things only get sticky for Javid if he had good reason to believe that the Bangladeshi authorities would have a solid legal basis (and not just the motivation of their own convenience) to deny her right of citizenship. One way or the other, one imagines that the truth of this matter will out.
Eventually.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749
Please actually don't respond, other than to call me an idiot if you like. I guess you can see how one might mistakenly join the dots though
http://news.sky.com/story/ex-militant-figure-derek-hatton-suspended-by-labour-just-days-after-re-admittance-11643090
It's also a reminder that we need to spend the time to craft sensible legislation, not act in a series of jolts driven by headlines.
The law should be that if you leave the country to fight against the United Kingdom, then you are guilty of treason, and punishment can be anything up to a whole life tariff.
The current count appears to be:
Ex-Labour Independent Group members: 8
Ex-Labour Independents: 6
Ex-Tory Independent Group members: 3
People actually elected as Independents: 1
Ex-Lib Dem Independents: 1
At least the Speaker gets counted separately, which is something.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1098284695735943168
Yes it is. Shame on Labour.
I say this as an ardent Remainer . It’s clear May is to blame for where we are because she never faced up to the hard decisions early on .
There was a chance to heal some of the divisions but she instead decided to trash Remainers and call them citizens of nowhere .
She’s only still PM because no one else wants the poisoned chalice of Brexit.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1098308930349027328
I watched an interesting lecture by Vernon Bogdanor on parliament TV in the last 6 months and he said that despite the anomaly result of 2017, that the future of political parties was more likely to be fragmented and might be more like the pre 1945 set up in the future. Bogdanor also predicted several years ago that Brexit would be a Government destroyer, looks like he will be proved correct on both accounts!
As we know what an honest and reliable source John is there would be no reason for him to have any fear about saying it without any protections on his speech.
I know some of you are thinking John is some kind of coward who would smear someone by telling what he knows to be lies merely for his own political advancement but I think much more highly of him than that.
John would only be saying these things if they were true, stake my life on it....
Which leaves Labour pretty much.
That said, for the reasons I put forward this morning, I'm not sure it was wise to do this now in the full glare of publicity or, indeed, at all. Our efforts would have been better directed to getting the authorities in Syria or Iraq to investigate her activities and put her on trial there, if there was evidence of crimes.
Ha ha ha ha
Still - i'm sure he will be quietly let back in like a lot of others.
Won't whatever was said be published in Hansard?
Cue a sudden collapse...
I noticed the style of the defection of the Tories today and the three seemed to be trying to optimise Heidi Allen's exposure to the media. This maybe because she has only been an MP since 2015 and many people will never have heard of her before. It may also have been because she is very telegenic in my opinion and the message coming from a fresh faced source maybe mean a more receptive public approval?
Sarah Wollaston- a live example of why open primaries are unfit for purpose.
Hypocrisy laid bare. Whilst the 3 defectors criticise Brexiters not a word from them about Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless and their courageous decisions to call by elections when they defected.
Newport West by election. An excellent opportunity to force Labour into a decision at last on the M4 relief road. Do they want it or not? The whole of South Wales wants an answer.
You are now exiled to ConHome until the UK revokes article 50 or rejoins the EU.
Still, good to see that Labour is still in shooting-the-messenger mode. That listening exercise of Mr McDonnell seems to have been very short-lived.
Yes I thought that was mandatory for Corbyn's Labour party like Islamophobia is de rigueur for UKIP.
Heidi is a remarkably good communicator. Does great telly. She is superb again on Peston Live.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Woolfe/status/1098224374476390403
(Or hold multiple contradictory views simultaneously?)
at about 18.24
German has unilaterally imposed its view on arms exports on a UK business, putting that company in breach of contract and embarrassing the U.K. government
You may disagree with the U.K. policy but for the Foreign Sectetary to write a stern letter is entirely reasonable
So the current ex-Cons have more explaining for me on this than the ex-Labs.
If Theresa May embraces no-deal, future Con defectors have no moral obligation to submit themselves to a fresh verdict of their constituency electorate.
Cry Woolfe!
Essex is lovely :-)