Went to a New Statesman Brexit and the left event this evening. Came away feeling rather sad. So, this evening left me sad. In their different ways, Paul Mason and Stella Creasy described an engaged and engaging Labour party that would be well worth being a part of. But then I remembered the anti-Semitic Morning Star Brexiteers are in charge and knew it could never be.
I do wonder how long it will be before Mason falls out with the Jezza show. He seems thoughtful, imaginative and at least interested in mapping the future of economics and politics, rather than running a 1970s reenactment society with a large dash of anti-semitism.
He was excellent this evening. Very scathing of what he described as Morning Star Stalinists and very clear in his frustration at the Labour leaderships Brexit positioning. Thecstar was Stella Creasy, though. She made mincemeat of the Lexiteer Grace Blakeley.
Mason has repeatedly said Jezza should reach out and put talented, hard working soft left MPs like Yvette in his Cabinet.
Ignored of course.
Yep. Corbyn would rather have the absurd Richard Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
That is incredible. What a performance from Roy, Root and to a lesser extent Morgan.
Morgan's knock was key. As the run rate started to go up he pressed the accelerator and ended the game as a contest. This really is a fabulous England one day team, we should treasure it.
We are very, very good. But, we need to prove ourselves on the big stage - at this summer’s World Cup.
We do indeed and would back us to do so. Thst said, the knockout nature does add a randomness to the latter stages.
Good riddance in the case of Austin, any hopes he takes the cowardly little John Mann as well or is that too much to hope for?
I don't understand this attitude at all. I don't agree with everything that Soubry says but I'd rather have her in the tent than not.
I don't mind disagreement, these people are vicious wreckers determined to destroy the left, I quite like Liz Kendall as a person, I am mostly willing to forgive Jess Phillips for various pre GE'17 confrontations with the left. I'd like Yvette Cooper and Stella Creasy in the shadow cabinet.
These people (the ones who've left or who I'd like to see go) are worse than the ERG or Soubry, they are worse than both the worst elements combined from a Tory perspective. Look at the language they use about May compared to some of the Labour rebels Corbyn. Or the language used about the supporters or the party itself.
I really don't mind differences of opinion but if I was to make a war analogy these people are going around and blowing up our defences, it really feels like it will be an advantage to remove them from our backlines.
Javids more moderate colleagues wont commit to camera to support what he’s doing.
Firstly, there’s no easy option here, but there are security experts saying, in the main interest of security the better option is don’t leave this great radicalised mass out there, each country with deradicalization schemes in place, largely proven as effective, to own your own, put them through the programme with ultimate aim to use them to fight more radicalisation. Secondly, an element of leave vote was to kick criminals out rather than be frustrated from doing it, there are legal experts warning here of precedent, to follow Javid’s trick of shitting on other countries sets other countries the precedent to shit on us.
The national Interest in this case is security of our communities and British Citizens. by taking this girl and baby back to be treated as criminal, treated as radicalised and put through deradicalization, and monitored, are we more than less safe? By stripping our foreign fighters of British citizenship, leaving them out there in the world just as they are, are we more than less safe, here and where we go in the world?
If Javid is gone by Monday I reckon Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
Delusional 😃 I’m only defending Javids own policy of two weeks ago, before he shredded it.
As I have made clear here, the only way to judge the new policy is on sound security. And on those grounds its the wrong policy.
Isn’t it typical of this most reactionary and most distracted and dysfunctional of governments and its supporters, instead of standing against trial by media, to genuflect to it, to allow the box office mouth of an immature young girl to reshape the government’s policy.
the threat now to western security is country’s of origin not owning and dealing and processing their IS criminals. Home Secretary is engaging a policy that is completely opposite to that thinking.
Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
Went to a New Statesman Brexit and the left event this evening. Came away feeling rather sad. So, this evening left me sad. In their different ways, Paul Mason and Stella Creasy described an engaged and engaging Labour party that would be well worth being a part of. But then I remembered the anti-Semitic Morning Star Brexiteers are in charge and knew it could never be.
I do wonder how long it will be before Mason falls out with the Jezza show. He seems thoughtful, imaginative and at least interested in mapping the future of economics and politics, rather than running a 1970s reenactment society with a large dash of anti-semitism.
He was excellent this evening. Very scathing of what he described as Morning Star Stalinists and very clear in his frustration at the Labour leaderships Brexit positioning. Thecstar was Stella Creasy, though. She made mincemeat of the Lexiteer Grace Blakeley.
Mason has repeatedly said Jezza should reach out and put talented, hard working soft left MPs like Yvette in his Cabinet.
Ignored of course.
Yep. Corbyn would rather have the absurd Richard Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
Yes the many not the few always jumps to mind with idiots in the Shadow Cabinet. For Grayling you have Abbott Burgon Gardiner Williamson
Javids more moderate colleagues wont commit to camera to support what he’s doing.
Firstly, there’s no easy option here, but there are security experts saying, in the main interest of security the better option is don’t leave this great radicalised mass out there, each country with deradicalization schemes in place, largely proven as effective, to own your own, put them through the programme with ultimate aim to use them to fight more radicalisation. Secondly, an element of leave vote was to kick criminals out rather than be frustrated from doing it, there are legal experts warning here of precedent, to follow Javid’s trick of shitting on other countries sets other countries the precedent to shit on us.
The national Interest in this case is security of our communities and British Citizens. by taking this girl and baby back to be treated as criminal, treated as radicalised and put through deradicalization, and monitored, are we more than less safe? By stripping our foreign fighters of British citizenship, leaving them out there in the world just as they are, are we more than less safe, here and where we go in the world?
If Javid is gone by Monday I reckon Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
Delusional 😃 I’m only defending Javids own policy of two weeks ago, before he shredded it.
As I have made clear here, the only way to judge the new policy is on sound security. And on those grounds its the wrong policy.
Isn’t it typical of this most reactionary and most distracted and dysfunctional of governments and its supporters, instead of standing against trial by media, to genuflect to it, to allow the box office mouth of an immature young girl to reshape the government’s policy.
the threat now to western security is country’s of origin not owning and dealing and processing their IS criminals. Home Secretary is engaging a policy that is completely opposite to that thinking.
Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
What on earth are you talking about? The media have been cheerleading for her to be let back in, first by finding her and giving her a platform, and then being outraged by the decision to revoke her citizenship. And she hasn't reshaped policy in any way - there are a load more cases of people we've done the exact same thing to.
Your point about security is a fair one, but personally I'd rather have her as far away as possible and with no ability to enter the country any time she chooses.
Javids more moderate colleagues wont commit to camera to support what he’s doing.
Firstly, there’s no easy option here, but there are security experts saying, in the main interest of security the better option is don’t leave this great radicalised mass out there, each country with deradicalization schemes in place, largely proven as effective, to own your own, put them through the programme with ultimate aim to use them to fight more radicalisation. Secondly, an element of leave vote was to kick criminals out rather than be frustrated from doing it, there are legal experts warning here of precedent, to follow Javid’s trick of shitting on other countries sets other countries the precedent to shit on us.
The national Interest in this case is security of our communities and British Citizens. by taking this girl and baby back to be treated as criminal, treated as radicalised and put through deradicalization, and monitored, are we more than less safe? By stripping our foreign fighters of British citizenship, leaving them out there in the world just as they are, are we more than less safe, here and where we go in the world?
If Javid is gone by Monday I reckon Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
Delusional 😃 I’m only defending Javids own policy of two weeks ago, before he shredded it.
As I have made clear here, the only way to judge the new policy is on sound security. And on those grounds its the wrong policy.
Isn’t it typical of this most reactionary and most distracted and dysfunctional of governments and its supporters, instead of standing against trial by media, to genuflect to it, to allow the box office mouth of an immature young girl to reshape the government’s policy.
the threat now to western security is country’s of origin not owning and dealing and processing their IS criminals. Home Secretary is engaging a policy that is completely opposite to that thinking.
Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
Went to a New Statesman Brexit and the left event this evening. Came away feeling rather sad. So, this evening left me sad. In their different ways, Paul Mason and Stella Creasy described an engaged and engaging Labour party that would be well worth being a part of. But then I remembered the anti-Semitic Morning Star Brexiteers are in charge and knew it could never be.
I do wonder how long it will be before Mason falls out with the Jezza show. He seems thoughtful, imaginative and at least interested in mapping the future of economics and politics, rather than running a 1970s reenactment society with a large dash of anti-semitism.
He was excellent this evening. Very scathing of what he described as Morning Star Stalinists and very clear in his frustration at the Labour leaderships Brexit positioning. Thecstar was Stella Creasy, though. She made mincemeat of the Lexiteer Grace Blakeley.
Mason has repeatedly said Jezza should reach out and put talented, hard working soft left MPs like Yvette in his Cabinet.
Ignored of course.
Yep. Corbyn would rather have the absurd Richard Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
Yes the many not the few always jumps to mind with idiots in the Shadow Cabinet. For Grayling you have Abbott Burgon Gardiner Williamson
To be absolutely fair, Williamson is not actually a member of the Shadow Cabinet. On the other hand, you did miss out Long-Bailey and Butler.
Went to a New Statesman Brexit and the left event this evening. Came away feeling rather sad. So, this evening left me sad. In their different ways, Paul Mason and Stella Creasy described an engaged and engaging Labour party that would be well worth being a part of. But then I remembered the anti-Semitic Morning Star Brexiteers are in charge and knew it could never be.
I do wonder how long it will be before Mason falls out with the Jezza show. He seems thoughtful, imaginative and at least interested in mapping the future of economics and politics, rather than running a 1970s reenactment society with a large dash of anti-semitism.
He was excellent this evening. Very scathing of what he described as Morning Star Stalinists and very clear in his frustration at the Labour leaderships Brexit positioning. Thecstar was Stella Creasy, though. She made mincemeat of the Lexiteer Grace Blakeley.
Mason has repeatedly said Jezza should reach out and put talented, hard working soft left MPs like Yvette in his Cabinet.
Ignored of course.
Yep. Corbyn would rather have the absurd Richard Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
Yes the many not the few always jumps to mind with idiots in the Shadow Cabinet. For Grayling you have Abbott Burgon Gardiner Williamson
To be absolutely fair, Williamson is not actually a member of the Shadow Cabinet. On the other hand, you did miss out Long-Bailey and Butler.
The "miss out" list would be boringly tedious, so count your blessings
Good riddance in the case of Austin, any hopes he takes the cowardly little John Mann as well or is that too much to hope for?
Purity is all!!!
Yes, and those responses positively relishing the split within Labour are unfortunately very typical of reactions from the far left. Which is why, as I posted earlier, I think there is a very real chance that this could snowball and eventually end up with Tom Watson leading dozens more out. Watson is also a hate figure in the eyes of the far left extremists, no doubt his departure would be welcomed too.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Went to a New Statesman Brexit and the left event this evening. Came away feeling rather sad. So, this evening left me sad. In their different ways, Paul Mason and Stella Creasy described an engaged and engaging Labour party that would be well worth being a part of. But then I remembered the anti-Semitic Morning Star Brexiteers are in charge and knew it could never be.
I do wonder how long it will be before Mason falls out with the Jezza show. He seems thoughtful, imaginative and at least interested in mapping the future of economics and politics, rather than running a 1970s reenactment society with a large dash of anti-semitism.
He was excellent this evening. Very scathing of what he described as Morning Star Stalinists and very clear in his frustration at the Labour leaderships Brexit positioning. Thecstar was Stella Creasy, though. She made mincemeat of the Lexiteer Grace Blakeley.
Mason has repeatedly said Jezza should reach out and put talented, hard working soft left MPs like Yvette in his Cabinet.
Ignored of course.
Yep. Corbyn would rather have the absurd Richard Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
Yes the many not the few always jumps to mind with idiots in the Shadow Cabinet. For Grayling you have Abbott Burgon Gardiner Williamson
To be absolutely fair, Williamson is not actually a member of the Shadow Cabinet. On the other hand, you did miss out Long-Bailey and Butler.
The "miss out" list would be boringly tedious, so count your blessings
Yes, but that it is a significant omission given that Long-Bailey is the anointed successor in waiting.
Good riddance in the case of Austin, any hopes he takes the cowardly little John Mann as well or is that too much to hope for?
Purity is all!!!
Yes, and those responses positively relishing the split within Labour are unfortunately very typical of reactions from the far left. Which is why, as I posted earlier, I think there is a very real chance that this could snowball and eventually end up with Tom Watson leading dozens more out. Watson is also a hate figure in the eyes of the far left extremists, no doubt his departure would be welcomed too.
I think Tom Watson presently looks the most likely candidate for saviour of the Labour Party and I'm sure Tom would agree with me, so I don't see him leaving.
Went to a New Statesman Brexit and the left event this evening. Came away feeling rather sad. So, this evening left me sad. In their different ways, Paul Mason and Stella Creasy described an engaged and engaging Labour party that would be well worth being a part of. But then I remembered the anti-Semitic Morning Star Brexiteers are in charge and knew it could never be.
I do wonder how long it will be before Mason falls out with the Jezza show. He seems thoughtful, imaginative and at least interested in mapping the future of economics and politics, rather than running a 1970s reenactment society with a large dash of anti-semitism.
He was excellent this evening. Very scathing of what he described as Morning Star Stalinists and very clear in his frustration at the Labour leaderships Brexit positioning. Thecstar was Stella Creasy, though. She made mincemeat of the Lexiteer Grace Blakeley.
Mason has repeatedly said Jezza should reach out and put talented, hard working soft left MPs like Yvette in his Cabinet.
Ignored of course.
Yep. Corbyn would rather have the absurd Richard Burgon in the shadow cabinet.
Yes the many not the few always jumps to mind with idiots in the Shadow Cabinet. For Grayling you have Abbott Burgon Gardiner Williamson
To be absolutely fair, Williamson is not actually a member of the Shadow Cabinet. On the other hand, you did miss out Long-Bailey and Butler.
The "miss out" list would be boringly tedious, so count your blessings
Yes, but that it is a significant omission given that Long-Bailey is the anointed successor in waiting.
Really, JC is into anointing now? Is that some kind of confirmation of his messiah status?
Javids more moderate colleagues wont commit to camera to support what he’s doing.
Firstly, there’s no easy option here, but there are security experts saying, in the main interest of security the better option is don’t leave this great radicalised mass out there, each country with deradicalization schemes in place, largely proven as effective, to own your own, put them through the programme with ultimate aim to use them to fight more radicalisation. Secondly, an element of leave vote was to kick criminals out rather than be frustrated from doing it, there are legal experts warning here of precedent, to follow Javid’s trick of shitting on other countries sets other countries the precedent to shit on us.
The national Interest in this case is security of our communities and British Citizens. by taking this girl and baby back to be treated as criminal, treated as radicalised and put through deradicalization, and monitored, are we more than less safe? By stripping our foreign fighters of British citizenship, leaving them out there in the world just as they are, are we more than less safe, here and where we go in the world?
If Javid is gone by Monday I reckon Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
The conciliatory gestures and comments from the PM down slapped away then....."ah sweet the air from all my burning bridges".....
Think Con's going to have to call an election for the Summer - Will leave Chuka and Heidi out in the cold standing as independents in their constituency's with no real time to formulate a campaign or policy agenda.
Once we are past March 29 I think a GE is the only way forward for the tories , and puts a quick end to the independent group before it has any chance to develop
The group is already up to 14% in the latest poll, that is more than the LDs got in the last 2 general elections
The group won’t be mps if we have a swift GE this summer. Cutting off the head quickly before it develops
I would not be so sure, especially with LD pacts and personal votes of some of the incumbents eg Mike Gapes. Already the LDs and Independent Group are on over 20% combined
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
If the Deal does go through though we will have Farage's Brexit Party appealing to No Dealers in mainly Tory ranks as much the Independent Group will be appealing to Remainers who want to reverse Brexit, mainly from Labour
Is there a betting market on when the Tiggers become the official opposition? Another 100 Labour and 50 Tory defectors should just about do it...
Weirdly they could become the government without first becoming the opposition. A few more Tories, VONC, *then* mass defections behind a new Prime Minister, who can promise to end the chaos, while offering new recruits pork and government jobs.
Javids more moderate colleagues wont commit to camera to support what he’s doing.
Firstly, there’s no easy option here, but there are security experts saying, in the main interest of security the better option is don’t leave this great radicalised mass out there, each country with deradicalization schemes in place, largely proven as effective, to own your own, put them through the programme with ultimate aim to use them to fight more radicalisation. Secondly, an element of leave vote was to kick criminals out rather than be frustrated from doing it, there are legal experts warning here of precedent, to follow Javid’s trick of shitting on other countries sets other countries the precedent to shit on us.
The national Interest in this case is security of our communities and British Citizens. by taking this girl and baby back to be treated as criminal, treated as radicalised and put through deradicalization, and monitored, are we more than less safe? By stripping our foreign fighters of British citizenship, leaving them out there in the world just as they are, are we more than less safe, here and where we go in the world?
If Javid is gone by Monday I reckon Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
If the Deal does go through though we will have Farage's Brexit Party appealing to No Dealers in mainly Tory ranks as much the Independent Group will be appealing to Remainers who want to reverse Brexit, mainly from Labour
Speaking as a Tory, although not died in the wool, the alternatives on offer scare me shitless! I don't feel alone. However I think pressing for or calling an election is too easily labelled as "party before country" to be an option for anyone capable of winning it.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
I just don't understand what's to be gained by cocking up the formalities. Unless it's just a question of timing - unless Javid was so desperate to do it while it was in the public eye that he was willing to act unlawfully to do so.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
It’s a mirror image of the ERG. He thinks that if he just waits, the Tories will destroy themselves over Brexit and he can waltz into Downing Street as the new messiah.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
I wonder what the Tiggers’ bottom line on the union is. They could be natural allies of the SNP.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
This is a pilgrimage; it requires faith which you obviously lack as you don't believe. Hallelujah
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
I just don't understand what's to be gained by cocking up the formalities. Unless it's just a question of timing - unless Javid was so desperate to do it while it was in the public eye that he was willing to act unlawfully to do so.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
It’s a mirror image of the ERG. He thinks that if he just waits, the Tories will destroy themselves over Brexit and he can waltz into Downing Street as the new messiah.
I don't think it can work but god help us if it does
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
If the Deal does go through though we will have Farage's Brexit Party appealing to No Dealers in mainly Tory ranks as much the Independent Group will be appealing to Remainers who want to reverse Brexit, mainly from Labour
Speaking as a Tory, although not died in the wool, the alternatives on offer scare me shitless! I don't feel alone. However I think pressing for or calling an election is too easily labelled as "party before country" to be an option for anyone capable of winning it.
No you are not alone. I have never been so bemused by our politics and I have no idea what will happen next. That's quite an admission from someone who for many years has made a lot of money from betting on politics.
There's a definite sense of things spinning out of control. The public would not welcome a GE, and I doubt any of the Parties want one either, whatever they may say in public, but we may get one anyway because it becomes inevitable.
Guess you could say much the same about a No Deal Brexit.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
I wonder what the Tiggers’ bottom line on the union is. They could be natural allies of the SNP.
This bit I wouldn't mind working, even as of Scottish breeding
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
Whose solution do they take though?
Only the no dealers will have been proven wrong if it all goes wrong, new party or Labour policies are no more responsible for this. I suppose the new party would have more of an appeal to natural Tory voters than Corbyn's party if they are leaving the Tories because of No Deal chaos.
I get the impression many Tory voters are very loyal though, the age profile of them probably marks them down as people who have been mostly voting Tory for decades. I'm not sure they'd change their vote in any great numbers.
With Corbyn campaigning strongly I'd fancy the chances TBH although this is a prediction based on mostly undefined hypothetical... I'm assuming Labour are still mostly there.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
I just don't understand what's to be gained by cocking up the formalities. Unless it's just a question of timing - unless Javid was so desperate to do it while it was in the public eye that he was willing to act unlawfully to do so.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
My dear boy, it's votes he's after.
I'm sure he is. But are you saying you think he's trying to get them by deliberately acting in an unlawful manner, rather than complying with the legal requirements?
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
Great. More MPs who actually want No Deal. Just what we need right now.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
Great. More MPs who actually want No Deal. Just what we need right now.
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
If the Deal does go through though we will have Farage's Brexit Party appealing to No Dealers in mainly Tory ranks as much the Independent Group will be appealing to Remainers who want to reverse Brexit, mainly from Labour
Speaking as a Tory, although not died in the wool, the alternatives on offer scare me shitless! I don't feel alone. However I think pressing for or calling an election is too easily labelled as "party before country" to be an option for anyone capable of winning it.
No you are not alone. I have never been so bemused by our politics and I have no idea what will happen next. That's quite an admission from someone who for many years has made a lot of money from betting on politics.
There's a definite sense of things spinning out of control. The public would not welcome a GE, and I doubt any of the Parties want one either, whatever they may say in public, but we may get one anyway because it becomes inevitable.
Guess you could say much the same about a No Deal Brexit.
I agree, and all those cunt politicians spouting "maybes" as if they are "certainties". Joe Public ain't as stupid as they think he is. Even if he is, he votes.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
I'm not sure that criticism really holds true. Isn't it the rebels that have overreacted just because nationalising trains and other tinkering?
Well that and never wanting Corbyn in the first place. If Corbyn had followed some centre right agenda that might have worked, but I think Corbyn would have also needed to be someone else, like Liz Kendall to please them.
These people would never have accepted an agenda even slightly to the left, the idea has driven them to quit the party. If Corbyn has broken the party he has only done so by insisting it be a left wing party. If the Labour party could not be left wing then quite frankly it was already broken.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
Whose solution do they take though?
Only the no dealers will have been proven wrong if it all goes wrong, new party or Labour policies are no more responsible for this. I suppose the new party would have more of an appeal to natural Tory voters than Corbyn's party if they are leaving the Tories because of No Deal chaos.
I get the impression many Tory voters are very loyal though, the age profile of them probably marks them down as people who have been mostly voting Tory for decades. I'm not sure they'd change their vote in any great numbers.
With Corbyn campaigning strongly I'd fancy the chances TBH although this is a prediction based on mostly undefined hypothetical... I'm assuming Labour are still mostly there.
In my experience, the hardest thing to shake is wishful thinking.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
I'm not sure that criticism really holds true. Isn't it the rebels that have overreacted just because nationalising trains and other tinkering?
If you watched proceedings on Monday morning and thought, "they're overreacting just because they didn't want to see the railways nationalised," then I feel extremely sorry for you.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
I wonder what the Tiggers’ bottom line on the union is. They could be natural allies of the SNP.
They are Unionists unlike the SNP but believe avoiding hard Brexit is the best way to secure the Union and like the SNP believe hard Brexit would boost the case for Scottish independence
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
I wonder what the Tiggers’ bottom line on the union is. They could be natural allies of the SNP.
They are Unionists unlike the SNP but believe avoiding hard Brexit is the best way to secure the Union and like the SNP believe hard Brexit would boost the case for Scottish independence
How in this world do you know that they're Unionists?!
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
It’s a mirror image of the ERG. He thinks that if he just waits, the Tories will destroy themselves over Brexit and he can waltz into Downing Street as the new messiah.
I don't think it can work but god help us if it does
I'm roughly the same age as Corbyn. I remember from my University days some entertaining discussions about whether true socialists should tip waiters. Some said you should because it was kind and helped them along; others refrained because the poorer and more oppressed they were the more likely they were to develop the kind of revolutionary spirit necessary to bring about a truly socialist society.
I could be wrong, but have the impression Corbyn doesn't tip waiters.
Only the no dealers will have been proven wrong if it all goes wrong, new party or Labour policies are no more responsible for this. I suppose the new party would have more of an appeal to natural Tory voters than Corbyn's party if they are leaving the Tories because of No Deal chaos.
I get the impression many Tory voters are very loyal though, the age profile of them probably marks them down as people who have been mostly voting Tory for decades. I'm not sure they'd change their vote in any great numbers.
With Corbyn campaigning strongly I'd fancy the chances TBH although this is a prediction based on mostly undefined hypothetical... I'm assuming Labour are still mostly there.
If there's No Deal the job is: 1) Get competent people in charge of the ministries to do damage control - basically put all the select committee chairs in charge of their respective departments 2) Quickly negotiate small deals to mitigate the damage 3) Negotiate either a new version of May-Barnier (which is no longer available as it stands) or Rejoin, putting the latter to a referendum
No need (or time) for a GE until it's done, if the PM is popular you can form a new party around them.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
I just don't understand what's to be gained by cocking up the formalities. Unless it's just a question of timing - unless Javid was so desperate to do it while it was in the public eye that he was willing to act unlawfully to do so.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
My dear boy, it's votes he's after.
I'm sure he is. But are you saying you think he's trying to get them by deliberately acting in an unlawful manner, rather than complying with the legal requirements?
I don't doubt that he has a legal opinion from some disposable civil servant who finds early retirement attractive. But then, I'm a cynic.
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
I wonder what the Tiggers’ bottom line on the union is. They could be natural allies of the SNP.
They are Unionists unlike the SNP but believe avoiding hard Brexit is the best way to secure the Union and like the SNP believe hard Brexit would boost the case for Scottish independence
How in this world do you know that they're Unionists?!
Well they certainly are not Nationalists and they have all come together on a platform that hard Brexit damages the Union, they are pro EU and pro Union
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
It’s a mirror image of the ERG. He thinks that if he just waits, the Tories will destroy themselves over Brexit and he can waltz into Downing Street as the new messiah.
I don't think it can work but god help us if it does
I'm roughly the same age as Corbyn. I remember from my University days some entertaining discussions about whether true socialists should tip waiters. Some said you should because it was kind and helped them along; others refrained because the poorer and more oppressed they were the more likely they were to develop the kind of revolutionary spirit necessary to bring about a truly socialist society.
I could be wrong, but have the impression Corbyn doesn't tip waiters.
So as a Tory, when I tip waiters it's actually because I want to keep them oppressed and downtrodden?
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
It’s a mirror image of the ERG. He thinks that if he just waits, the Tories will destroy themselves over Brexit and he can waltz into Downing Street as the new messiah.
I don't think it can work but god help us if it does
I'm roughly the same age as Corbyn. I remember from my University days some entertaining discussions about whether true socialists should tip waiters. Some said you should because it was kind and helped them along; others refrained because the poorer and more oppressed they were the more likely they were to develop the kind of revolutionary spirit necessary to bring about a truly socialist society.
I could be wrong, but have the impression Corbyn doesn't tip waiters.
I'm ancient too. All I can remember from my youth is football and girls. The booze I've forgotten about 'cos of the booze. That's flippant but then it is late.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
I just don't understand what's to be gained by cocking up the formalities. Unless it's just a question of timing - unless Javid was so desperate to do it while it was in the public eye that he was willing to act unlawfully to do so.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
My dear boy, it's votes he's after.
I'm sure he is. But are you saying you think he's trying to get them by deliberately acting in an unlawful manner, rather than complying with the legal requirements?
I don't doubt that he has a legal opinion from some disposable civil servant who finds early retirement attractive. But then, I'm a cynic.
I must admit I'm tempted to put in a FOI request for the legal advice on which a letter telling someone "I've done this" could be construed as satisfying a statutory requirement to give someone else notice that it was going to happen.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
I just don't understand what's to be gained by cocking up the formalities. Unless it's just a question of timing - unless Javid was so desperate to do it while it was in the public eye that he was willing to act unlawfully to do so.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
My dear boy, it's votes he's after.
I'm sure he is. But are you saying you think he's trying to get them by deliberately acting in an unlawful manner, rather than complying with the legal requirements?
I don't doubt that he has a legal opinion from some disposable civil servant who finds early retirement attractive. But then, I'm a cynic.
I must admit I'm tempted to put in a FOI request for the legal advice on which a letter telling someone "I've done this" could be construed as satisfying a statutory requirement to give someone else notice that it was going to happen.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
It’s a mirror image of the ERG. He thinks that if he just waits, the Tories will destroy themselves over Brexit and he can waltz into Downing Street as the new messiah.
I don't think it can work but god help us if it does
I'm roughly the same age as Corbyn. I remember from my University days some entertaining discussions about whether true socialists should tip waiters. Some said you should because it was kind and helped them along; others refrained because the poorer and more oppressed they were the more likely they were to develop the kind of revolutionary spirit necessary to bring about a truly socialist society.
I could be wrong, but have the impression Corbyn doesn't tip waiters.
So as a Tory, when I tip waiters it's actually because I want to keep them oppressed and downtrodden?
Christ I'm evil.
Depends on how you view the tipping conundrum.
The point is that I suspect Corbyn may actually be one of those old throwback socialists types who really wouldn't mind a spot of economic mayhem and hardship if it helped usher in the new era.
And on that note, I'll go and check my winnings on the cricket and say goodnite to you all.
You are genuinely delusional. This will do Javid no harm even if the courts ultimately disagree with him.
I can imagine Javid "toughing it out" and perhaps ending up with a political advantage even if the courts overruled him on appeal on the substantive issue of whether the deprival of citizenship was legally justified.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
I think this is Javed taking a leaf out of Boris's populist handbook. Whatever the niceties, most Joes will applaud.
I just don't understand what's to be gained by cocking up the formalities. Unless it's just a question of timing - unless Javid was so desperate to do it while it was in the public eye that he was willing to act unlawfully to do so.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
My dear boy, it's votes he's after.
I'm sure he is. But are you saying you think he's trying to get them by deliberately acting in an unlawful manner, rather than complying with the legal requirements?
I don't doubt that he has a legal opinion from some disposable civil servant who finds early retirement attractive. But then, I'm a cynic.
I must admit I'm tempted to put in a FOI request for the legal advice on which a letter telling someone "I've done this" could be construed as satisfying a statutory requirement to give someone else notice that it was going to happen.
You'd be wasting your time. FOIs are optional
I have a bit of experience, and I know that's not always true if the requester is persistent enough.
Even though thinking up ways of refusing them is viewed as a bit of sport among some of our "public servants".
They are Unionists unlike the SNP but believe avoiding hard Brexit is the best way to secure the Union and like the SNP believe hard Brexit would boost the case for Scottish independence
How in this world do you know that they're Unionists?!
Anna Soubry has cheerfully admitted they don't have any agreed policies. They share general principles (market economy and so on) and they are clearly all anti-Brexit; they also agree what they're against. That's as far as it goes for now and on some things they seem incompatible (e.g. the desirability of austerity). I shouldn't think they've given Scottish independence any joint thought at all yet.
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
I'm not sure that criticism really holds true. Isn't it the rebels that have overreacted just because nationalising trains and other tinkering?
If you watched proceedings on Monday morning and thought, "they're overreacting just because they didn't want to see the railways nationalised," then I feel extremely sorry for you.
If you read the reply the post I was responding to had the exact phrase 'nationalizing trains and other tinkering' so in my response I used the exact phrase 'nationalizing trains and other tinkering'
Do you want to try again or do you need me to explain it more clearly than that?
Ian Austin, Brexit wise, seems an odd fit for the Tiggers. He voted against Cooper-Boles didn't he?
Yeah, pretty sure he voted for May's deal as well, quite a Brexity constituency.
Goes back to the discussion from earlier: are they better off as a close, tight-knit group (which discourages new joiners but means they'll stay focused and united in the short term) or a broad church (which makes it harder to agree on policy but a greater long term growth potential?
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
From a Labour POV I want the latter. If they are mixed on Brexit they are just a centrist party. I don't think that has the appeal to do well.
Where they really come into their own is if there's No Deal. The offering isn't centrism exactly, it's *stability* against all these nutcase ideologues. That's potentially a very powerful offering, but only *in the presence of actual daily-life-affecting chaos*.
Whose solution do they take though?
Only the no dealers will have been proven wrong if it all goes wrong, new party or Labour policies are no more responsible for this. I suppose the new party would have more of an appeal to natural Tory voters than Corbyn's party if they are leaving the Tories because of No Deal chaos.
I get the impression many Tory voters are very loyal though, the age profile of them probably marks them down as people who have been mostly voting Tory for decades. I'm not sure they'd change their vote in any great numbers.
With Corbyn campaigning strongly I'd fancy the chances TBH although this is a prediction based on mostly undefined hypothetical... I'm assuming Labour are still mostly there.
In my experience, the hardest thing to shake is wishful thinking.
I tend to just shake my head tbh but that is politics every side has their delusions, 2017 woke a few people up but there seem to be some people who just write it off as a one off and back to normal next time.
Only the no dealers will have been proven wrong if it all goes wrong, new party or Labour policies are no more responsible for this. I suppose the new party would have more of an appeal to natural Tory voters than Corbyn's party if they are leaving the Tories because of No Deal chaos.
I get the impression many Tory voters are very loyal though, the age profile of them probably marks them down as people who have been mostly voting Tory for decades. I'm not sure they'd change their vote in any great numbers.
With Corbyn campaigning strongly I'd fancy the chances TBH although this is a prediction based on mostly undefined hypothetical... I'm assuming Labour are still mostly there.
If there's No Deal the job is: 1) Get competent people in charge of the ministries to do damage control - basically put all the select committee chairs in charge of their respective departments 2) Quickly negotiate small deals to mitigate the damage 3) Negotiate either a new version of May-Barnier (which is no longer available as it stands) or Rejoin, putting the latter to a referendum
No need (or time) for a GE until it's done, if the PM is popular you can form a new party around them.
Okay not quite the hypothetical I was thinking of...
Surely the mostly likely scenario is the current government (but maybe not May) and parliament try to firefight the immediate problems and we have an election once the worst is over?
That is what I was going from.
If the new party has enough defections to put its choice of candidate as the PM then that is a different ball game. They would be in a very good position then, presumably even if they didn't finish first they would finish second as the opposition.
I just don't see them getting to that place to start with TBH.
The talk of defections up to triple figures in the Labour party are only really coming from the hugely unreliable (and even more so with Labour) sources (RW press). I don't know if No Deal would trigger a lot of Tories to leave but unless Corbyn actually voted for no deal* or failed to vote against no deal** it wouldn't be a trigger for Labour MPs to go.
*Which he hasn't (bar the you voted for article 50 so you definitely voted for no deal line some people repeat) **Which he won't (some exclusion as above)
If there's No Deal the job is: 1) Get competent people in charge of the ministries to do damage control - basically put all the select committee chairs in charge of their respective departments 2) Quickly negotiate small deals to mitigate the damage 3) Negotiate either a new version of May-Barnier (which is no longer available as it stands) or Rejoin, putting the latter to a referendum
No need (or time) for a GE until it's done, if the PM is popular you can form a new party around them.
Okay not quite the hypothetical I was thinking of...
Surely the mostly likely scenario is the current government (but maybe not May) and parliament try to firefight the immediate problems and we have an election once the worst is over?
That is what I was going from.
If the new party has enough defections to put its choice of candidate as the PM then that is a different ball game. They would be in a very good position then, presumably even if they didn't finish first they would finish second as the opposition.
I just don't see them getting to that place to start with TBH.
The talk of defections up to triple figures in the Labour party are only really coming from the hugely unreliable (and even more so with Labour) sources (RW press). I don't know if No Deal would trigger a lot of Tories to leave but unless Corbyn actually voted for no deal* or failed to vote against no deal** it wouldn't be a trigger for Labour MPs to go.
*Which he hasn't (bar the you voted for article 50 so you definitely voted for no deal line some people repeat) **Which he won't (some exclusion as above)
The government won the last confidence vote 325 to 306. TMay has just lost 3 MPs, so now we're at 322 to 309. Another 7 after (or before) No Deal and that's 315 to 316, and boom.
But you can't just dissolve parliament because it needs to pass emergency things.
This gives MPs a very soft "defect" option, where they vote for another PM In The National Interest, without necessarily burning the bridges with their own party. Then they can see how it gets on, and if it's looking promising after things settle down they join the new party.
This is pretty much the dream scenario for a "break the mold" operation.
It seems that Margaret Hodge and John Mann are either experiencing website problems or they have taken down their sites...
2 more for the list?
John Mann was on sky earlier and he didn’t sound remotely like he was thinking of leaving .
And he is a pro Brexit MP - so while its possible he may decide to leave Labour its highly unlikely he would join the Tiggers. More likely to sit with Frank Field?
It seems that Margaret Hodge and John Mann are either experiencing website problems or they have taken down their sites...
2 more for the list?
John Mann was on sky earlier and he didn’t sound remotely like he was thinking of leaving .
And he is a pro Brexit MP - so while its possible he may decide to leave Labour its highly unlikely he would join the Tiggers. More likely to sit with Frank Field?
He was very rude about the tiggers and their motivates.
The government won the last confidence vote 325 to 306. TMay has just lost 3 MPs, so now we're at 322 to 309. Another 7 after (or before) No Deal and that's 315 to 316, and boom.
But you can't just dissolve parliament because it needs to pass emergency things.
This gives MPs a very soft "defect" option, where they vote for another PM In The National Interest, without necessarily burning the bridges with their own party. Then they can see how it gets on, and if it's looking promising after things settle down they join the new party.
This is pretty much the dream scenario for a "break the mold" operation.
I'd agree that is probably the best possible scenario in terms of future electoral success for them, I guess my assumptions are if the scenario of a VONC passing immediately upon a no deal is possible then it would be similarly possible just before no deal. Which means we don't get no deal to begin with (as I assume a VONC would pass to avoid just that)
But if things are stuck in place enough for no deal to happen without a VONC passing either just before, or immediately after, then it would hold together whilst the government does the immediate firefighting of no deal.
Whilst the overall actions of parliament aren't necessarily logical it would seem silly to allow us to crash out with no deal and then at that very moment swap things around as a negative reaction to crashing out with no deal, if you had the power to do it you'd do it before no deal.
I mean, that is unless you are cynically going for the crash out for electoral advantage.
I'd agree that is probably the best possible scenario in terms of future electoral success for them, I guess my assumptions are if the scenario of a VONC passing immediately upon a no deal is possible then it would be similarly possible just before no deal. Which means we don't get no deal to begin with (as I assume a VONC would pass to avoid just that)
But if things are stuck in place enough for no deal to happen without a VONC passing either just before, or immediately after, then it would hold together whilst the government does the immediate firefighting of no deal.
Whilst the overall actions of parliament aren't necessarily logical it would seem silly to allow us to crash out with no deal and then at that very moment swap things around as a negative reaction to crashing out with no deal, if you had the power to do it you'd do it before no deal.
I mean, that is unless you are cynically going for the crash out for electoral advantage.
That would make sense given perfectly well-informed and rational voters. But the political situation 3 days before a widely-predicted shitshow is very different to the political situation 3 days into an actual shitshow.
PS I'm not at all saying No Deal is the most likely outcome, just pondering on where things might end up if it happens.
It seems that Margaret Hodge and John Mann are either experiencing website problems or they have taken down their sites...
2 more for the list?
Margaret Hodge also doesn't mention her party on her Twitter profile - but then quite a few MPs (including Cabinet Ministers no one has on their watch list) don't:
MP for Barking & the heart of Dagenham. Chair of @taxinparliament. If you are a constituent and have a problem, let me know on margaret.hodge.mp@parliament.uk
They are Unionists unlike the SNP but believe avoiding hard Brexit is the best way to secure the Union and like the SNP believe hard Brexit would boost the case for Scottish independence
How in this world do you know that they're Unionists?!
Anna Soubry has cheerfully admitted they don't have any agreed policies. They share general principles (market economy and so on) and they are clearly all anti-Brexit; they also agree what they're against. That's as far as it goes for now and on some things they seem incompatible (e.g. the desirability of austerity). I shouldn't think they've given Scottish independence any joint thought at all yet.
What do you think would happen in Broxtowe if Anna stands as an independent at the next election - do Lab get back in on a split Con vote, or does Anna lose her deposit?
They are Unionists unlike the SNP but believe avoiding hard Brexit is the best way to secure the Union and like the SNP believe hard Brexit would boost the case for Scottish independence
How in this world do you know that they're Unionists?!
Anna Soubry has cheerfully admitted they don't have any agreed policies. They share general principles (market economy and so on) and they are clearly all anti-Brexit; they also agree what they're against. That's as far as it goes for now and on some things they seem incompatible (e.g. the desirability of austerity). I shouldn't think they've given Scottish independence any joint thought at all yet.
What do you think would happen in Broxtowe if Anna stands as an independent at the next election - do Lab get back in on a split Con vote, or does Anna lose her deposit?
Or is Anna swept back into power on a wave of exuberant centrism?
That means they've overtaken the LDs. Could be important in terms of things like PMQs.
But do they yet exist as being a Parliamentary thing? Or does the Speaker just see them as a bunch of independent MPs who sit on some adjacent green benches?
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the gold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
Taking a step back the weird thing about this is that Corbyn his broken his party for no particular gain. There's factional control, but there's no bold left-wing agenda - just nationalizing trains and other tinkering, and a position on Brexit that he apparently doesn't particularly care about either way. It's like a supercharged version of the TB-GB stupids.
I suspect that what’s in the manifesto is entirely incidental to what a future Corbyn government would do
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the gold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
"The enablers of antisemitism are as big a problem as the antisemites, and they are more numerous. It is time the enablers were exposed. I have exposed one: Kevin Maguire—an enabler of racism."
Hypothetically If I wanted to lie about someone and smear someone but was too cowardly to take the consequences then doing so in parliament as an MP but not repeating myself outside parliament would be the approach I would take.
I won't be holding my breath on this one...
What is it that bothers you about John Mann's speech?
Edit: Just to make clear you are not an enabler of racism (AFAIK)
Would you have a problem if John Mann called you an enabler of racism?
But did it in a cowardly way that meant he wouldn't face consequences.
A question I've asked multiple people but haven't got an answer yet... do you think John will repeat his accusations without protection or is he too cowardly?
I suppose it would depend whether or not the accusation was justified.
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the fold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the fold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
A novel constitutional theory, based on nothing but your personal prejudices.
Just watched John Mann's comments in parliament that seems to have got some (well, one) person so angry.
TBF he spoke eloquently and angrily about a fairly nasty experience he and his family had been put through. The enablers of racism of all forms do need to be tackled, and especially when they are in the media.
It is interesting that some people seem more excised about Mann's comments in parliament than they dos about the misogynistic and racism Mann and his family suffered at the hands of fellow Labour party members and followers.
I was more annoyed with the fact Mann can't seem to put his tie on straight. It was virtually unwatchable ...
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the fold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
A novel constitutional theory, based on nothing but your personal prejudices.
When Mark Reckless showed a moral authority that made these shiny new guys look grubby in comparison, then they've got a problem.
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the fold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
From the soundbites I've heard from Allen et al, it's not just the Brexit vote: it's the fact that Brexit has utterly consumed government, and the backwards-looking, navel-gazing right-wing tendency so eloquently evoked by JRM and his fellow winnets is in control.
This government is not a conservative government. It's barely a Conservative government. Some might say it's not even a government ...
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the gold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
I think that depends very much on when the next election is.
I don’t think there’ll be any returning to the fold. The Tory party has become the party of Brexit, with a membership dominated by the elderly and the right, and I cannot see any means by which they might attract new moderate members to rebalance that any time soon. Brexit is only the lever, but it could prove powerful enough to break apart the Tory coalition.
Of course their gamble might easily fail, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Tories have abandoned the centre as Labour have.
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the gold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
I think that depends very much on when the next election is.
I don’t think there’ll be any returning to the fold. The Tory party has become the party of Brexit, with a membership dominated by the elderly and the right, and I cannot see any means by which they might attract new moderate members to rebalance that any time soon. Brexit is only the lever, but it could prove powerful enough to break apart the Tory coalition.
Of course their gamble might easily fail, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Tories have abandoned the centre as Labour have.
52% voted for Brexit so please define "the centre" that has been abandoned?
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
I'd also agree with those who see a general election as likely. The conservatives have the chance to capitalise on labour in disarray, and the TIGgers not yet organised, and the anti-tory vote split. They can't not seek to take advantage. When this happens, and whether May is leader, are more difficult questions to answer.
I think that’s spot on
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the gold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
I think that depends very much on when the next election is.
I don’t think there’ll be any returning to the fold. The Tory party has become the party of Brexit, with a membership dominated by the elderly and the right, and I cannot see any means by which they might attract new moderate members to rebalance that any time soon. Brexit is only the lever, but it could prove powerful enough to break apart the Tory coalition.
Of course their gamble might easily fail, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Tories have abandoned the centre as Labour have.
The Tories hasn’t abandoned the centre - they are spending more, they are working on environmental stuff. It’s just Brexit is all consuming
(As a point of clarification I said it would be great *if* they would return to the fold but don’t think they will)
Comments
These people (the ones who've left or who I'd like to see go) are worse than the ERG or Soubry, they are worse than both the worst elements combined from a Tory perspective. Look at the language they use about May compared to some of the Labour rebels Corbyn. Or the language used about the supporters or the party itself.
I really don't mind differences of opinion but if I was to make a war analogy these people are going around and blowing up our defences, it really feels like it will be an advantage to remove them from our backlines.
As I have made clear here, the only way to judge the new policy is on sound security. And on those grounds its the wrong policy.
Isn’t it typical of this most reactionary and most distracted and dysfunctional of governments and its supporters, instead of standing against trial by media, to genuflect to it, to allow the box office mouth of an immature young girl to reshape the government’s policy.
the threat now to western security is country’s of origin not owning and dealing and processing their IS criminals. Home Secretary is engaging a policy that is completely opposite to that thinking.
Gavin Williamson will become Home sec, Penny Mordant Defence sec.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/heres-the-woman-behind-britains-most-divisive-twitter
Account may/may not be run by her husband.
Your point about security is a fair one, but personally I'd rather have her as far away as possible and with no ability to enter the country any time she chooses.
Said he would respect the referendum when elected.
Voted to trigger article 50.
Now refuses to support any possible form of Brexit.
Might be a dab hand at drafting amendments but lacks integrity.
so I think we can say "no" she is a creation of twitter
Personally I'd want the latter in their shoes.
What I can't understand is why the Home Office wouldn't even have gone through the motions of complying with statute law by failing to give notice to the person before she was deprived of citizenship. Instead, they just wrote to her mother after the event. To my mind, that bespeaks either an incomprehensible (though apparently not unprecedented) level of incompetence, or some kind of attempt at political sabotage.
Can anyone see any other reason why he wouldn't at least have given advance notice to the girl's mother - rather than writing to her after the event? Considering that written notice is a legal requirement?
Or I suppose the other possibility is that he might actually have wanted for political reasons to provoke a confrontation with the courts by making sure he had acted unlawfully. That's a disturbing thought.
The convulsions of a No Deal Brexit would be bound to produce dramatic political realignments.
There's a definite sense of things spinning out of control. The public would not welcome a GE, and I doubt any of the Parties want one either, whatever they may say in public, but we may get one anyway because it becomes inevitable.
Guess you could say much the same about a No Deal Brexit.
Only the no dealers will have been proven wrong if it all goes wrong, new party or Labour policies are no more responsible for this. I suppose the new party would have more of an appeal to natural Tory voters than Corbyn's party if they are leaving the Tories because of No Deal chaos.
I get the impression many Tory voters are very loyal though, the age profile of them probably marks them down as people who have been mostly voting Tory for decades. I'm not sure they'd change their vote in any great numbers.
With Corbyn campaigning strongly I'd fancy the chances TBH although this is a prediction based on mostly undefined hypothetical... I'm assuming Labour are still mostly there.
Well that and never wanting Corbyn in the first place. If Corbyn had followed some centre right agenda that might have worked, but I think Corbyn would have also needed to be someone else, like Liz Kendall to please them.
These people would never have accepted an agenda even slightly to the left, the idea has driven them to quit the party. If Corbyn has broken the party he has only done so by insisting it be a left wing party. If the Labour party could not be left wing then quite frankly it was already broken.
I could be wrong, but have the impression Corbyn doesn't tip waiters.
1) Get competent people in charge of the ministries to do damage control - basically put all the select committee chairs in charge of their respective departments
2) Quickly negotiate small deals to mitigate the damage
3) Negotiate either a new version of May-Barnier (which is no longer available as it stands) or Rejoin, putting the latter to a referendum
No need (or time) for a GE until it's done, if the PM is popular you can form a new party around them.
Christ I'm evil.
The point is that I suspect Corbyn may actually be one of those old throwback socialists types who really wouldn't mind a spot of economic mayhem and hardship if it helped usher in the new era.
And on that note, I'll go and check my winnings on the cricket and say goodnite to you all.
2 more for the list?
Even though thinking up ways of refusing them is viewed as a bit of sport among some of our "public servants".
Do you want to try again or do you need me to explain it more clearly than that?
Surely the mostly likely scenario is the current government (but maybe not May) and parliament try to firefight the immediate problems and we have an election once the worst is over?
That is what I was going from.
If the new party has enough defections to put its choice of candidate as the PM then that is a different ball game. They would be in a very good position then, presumably even if they didn't finish first they would finish second as the opposition.
I just don't see them getting to that place to start with TBH.
The talk of defections up to triple figures in the Labour party are only really coming from the hugely unreliable (and even more so with Labour) sources (RW press). I don't know if No Deal would trigger a lot of Tories to leave but unless Corbyn actually voted for no deal* or failed to vote against no deal** it wouldn't be a trigger for Labour MPs to go.
*Which he hasn't (bar the you voted for article 50 so you definitely voted for no deal line some people repeat)
**Which he won't (some exclusion as above)
But you can't just dissolve parliament because it needs to pass emergency things.
This gives MPs a very soft "defect" option, where they vote for another PM In The National Interest, without necessarily burning the bridges with their own party. Then they can see how it gets on, and if it's looking promising after things settle down they join the new party.
This is pretty much the dream scenario for a "break the mold" operation.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-tigger-heads-for-no-10-8pb2c2v6cl6
But if things are stuck in place enough for no deal to happen without a VONC passing either just before, or immediately after, then it would hold together whilst the government does the immediate firefighting of no deal.
Whilst the overall actions of parliament aren't necessarily logical it would seem silly to allow us to crash out with no deal and then at that very moment swap things around as a negative reaction to crashing out with no deal, if you had the power to do it you'd do it before no deal.
I mean, that is unless you are cynically going for the crash out for electoral advantage.
PS I'm not at all saying No Deal is the most likely outcome, just pondering on where things might end up if it happens.
MP for Barking & the heart of Dagenham. Chair of @taxinparliament. If you are a constituent and have a problem, let me know on margaret.hodge.mp@parliament.uk
TIG don’t want to be a new party. They want to change Labour - they are setting themselves up as a “government in exile”
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the gold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
I meant “return to the fold”...
TBF he spoke eloquently and angrily about a fairly nasty experience he and his family had been put through. The enablers of racism of all forms do need to be tackled, and especially when they are in the media.
It is interesting that some people seem more excised about Mann's comments in parliament than they dos about the misogynistic and racism Mann and his family suffered at the hands of fellow Labour party members and followers.
I was more annoyed with the fact Mann can't seem to put his tie on straight. It was virtually unwatchable ...
This government is not a conservative government. It's barely a Conservative government. Some might say it's not even a government ...
I don’t think there’ll be any returning to the fold. The Tory party has become the party of Brexit, with a membership dominated by the elderly and the right, and I cannot see any means by which they might attract new moderate members to rebalance that any time soon.
Brexit is only the lever, but it could prove powerful enough to break apart the Tory coalition.
Of course their gamble might easily fail, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Tories have abandoned the centre as Labour have.
(As a point of clarification I said it would be great *if* they would return to the fold but don’t think they will)