If a miracle happens and Labour and the Tories reach an agreement then I expect the public to quickly get behind that .
As a Remainer I’m willing to move on as long as there are safeguards to stop a future PM from ripping them up.
From the start I was willing to accept Leaving as long as it was an orderly exit with a deal . The ERG nutjobs and Farage etc are the ones to blame for entrenching divisions because pushing no deal is polarizing both sides even more .
The only hope of easing the divisions is with a deal .
With right-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a cold Singapore and some left-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a wet Venezuela, I hope they can find a way to make PD changes agreed now binding. One of the best justifications of a confirmatory referendum and an early general election.
Yebbut, it’s nice when it’s warm and sunny here, isn’t it?
Off topic: What's really going on with Crossrail? Lots in the news today. Seems a bit mad. Surprised they don't try to open some of it.
The same things we will be getting from HS2 about five years from now.
Basically, it's run by idiots who don't have a clue what they're doing and have a great deal of our money to waste, er, spend.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
If May tries to whip her party for a PV it'll be the last thing she does as PM as they'll be a VONC very quickly and the government will be brought down.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
The Chancellor says it's ok. Of course it's possible.
Glad to see you put so much faith in the pronouncements of a Tory Chancellor. Probably more than I do on this topic.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
If May tries to whip her party for a PV it'll be the last thing she does as PM as they'll be a VONC very quickly and the government will be brought down.
Isn’t that a given now in any scenario where her deal is passed.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
If May tries to whip her party for a PV it'll be the last thing she does as PM as they'll be a VONC very quickly and the government will be brought down.
Who care?. We need a deal that gets the country out of this mess.
If a miracle happens and Labour and the Tories reach an agreement then I expect the public to quickly get behind that .
As a Remainer I’m willing to move on as long as there are safeguards to stop a future PM from ripping them up.
From the start I was willing to accept Leaving as long as it was an orderly exit with a deal . The ERG nutjobs and Farage etc are the ones to blame for entrenching divisions because pushing no deal is polarizing both sides even more .
The only hope of easing the divisions is with a deal .
With right-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a cold Singapore and some left-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a wet Venezuela, I hope they can find a way to make PD changes agreed now binding. One of the best justifications of a confirmatory referendum and an early general election.
Yebbut, it’s nice when it’s warm and sunny here, isn’t it?
Off topic: What's really going on with Crossrail? Lots in the news today. Seems a bit mad. Surprised they don't try to open some of it.
There’s still a lot of work to do. It was always impossible to do in 8.5 years. It had to chop a billion off its budget to get through the 2010 CSR, which it always needed. It’s the most complex systems integration challenge ever done in the UK, and in Europe. A brand new train and software platform has to talk to three different signalling systems safely and reliably. It’s really hard. There are not enough skilled people in the industry to complete all the stations work quickly enough no matter how hard we are flogged. And our contract supply chain doesn’t have the same level of management skill over systems as it does over large scale civils work, and the programme controls regime is so complex you almost need an AI platform to do it, which we don’t have time to develop.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
That is not a compromise. You can't strike a bargain, and then allow the other party to campaign against it.
If a miracle happens and Labour and the Tories reach an agreement then I expect the public to quickly get behind that .
As a Remainer I’m willing to move on as long as there are safeguards to stop a future PM from ripping them up.
From the start I was willing to accept Leaving as long as it was an orderly exit with a deal . The ERG nutjobs and Farage etc are the ones to blame for entrenching divisions because pushing no deal is polarizing both sides even more .
The only hope of easing the divisions is with a deal .
With right-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a cold Singapore and some left-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a wet Venezuela, I hope they can find a way to make PD changes agreed now binding. One of the best justifications of a confirmatory referendum and an early general election.
Yebbut, it’s nice when it’s warm and sunny here, isn’t it?
Off topic: What's really going on with Crossrail? Lots in the news today. Seems a bit mad. Surprised they don't try to open some of it.
The same things we will be getting from HS2 about five years from now.
Basically, it's run by idiots who don't have a clue what they're doing and have a great deal of our money to waste, er, spend.
Crossrail is already open in part from Liverpool Street to Shenfield and from Paddington to Heathrow. I am not a fan of the new trains with their extremely noisy beeping doors and the most uncomfortable train seats I have ever sat on!
It’s all just more complicated than they thought integrating new trains into three different signalling systems. And no UK infrastructure project gets built cheaply!
London business ratepayers and developers are of course picking up cost of the overspend not central government.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Nearly half are on the payroll. Some others are devout Remainers.
I could see a narrow majority of Tories rebelling but with say 120 Tory ayes plus 200 Labour + SNP, TIG and LDs and it gets over the line easily.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
The Chancellor says it's ok. Of course it's possible.
I think the compromise will be to agree to put it to MPs without a joint recommendation. May will calculate that she has the numbers to beat it (25+ Labour MPs minus Tory Remainers), Corbyn will be able to say he did his best to get it, but sadly there weren't enough Labour MPs this time.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Nearly half are on the payroll. Some others are devout Remainers.
I could see a narrow majority of Tories rebelling but with say 120 Tory ayes plus 200 Labour + SNP, TIG and LDs and it gets over the line easily.
If this does lead to Sindy, that destroys Cameron's last claim to have got anything right. Perhaps that is why we haven't seen the Memoirs yet, because he doesn't want to claim to have saved that Union and it turns out he indirectly did for it anyway.
Why would they when Tory Remainers [excluding a tiny number of extremists like Grieve] are already backing May's Deal without a customs union?
Clarke backs a customs union but he also backs May's Deal without a customs union. Though yes a new PM seeking a mandate to drop the customs union from the public at a general election would work too.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
The Chancellor says it's ok. Of course it's possible.
I think the compromise will be to agree to put it to MPs without a joint recommendation. May will calculate that she has the numbers to beat it (25+ Labour MPs minus Tory Remainers), Corbyn will be able to say he did his best to get it, but sadly there weren't enough Labour MPs this time.
Yep. Both principals happy. Lieutenants fought the good fight and won/lost as appropriate.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
I'd assume the PV only exists as one extreme of a range of indicative vote options. If they're selected carefully enough, the May/Corbyn combined preferred option should win out.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Nearly half are on the payroll. Some others are devout Remainers.
I could see a narrow majority of Tories rebelling but with say 120 Tory ayes plus 200 Labour + SNP, TIG and LDs and it gets over the line easily.
What makes you think the payroll would not rebel?
Many will. But you only need about 50. The whip gives them air cover.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
That is not a compromise. You can't strike a bargain, and then allow the other party to campaign against it.
Who would be campaigning against it if they both deploy a 3-line whip?
If a miracle happens and Labour and the Tories reach an agreement then I expect the public to quickly get behind that .
As a Remainer I’m willing to move on as long as there are safeguards to stop a future PM from ripping them up.
From the start I was willing to accept Leaving as long as it was an orderly exit with a deal . The ERG nutjobs and Farage etc are the ones to blame for entrenching divisions because pushing no deal is polarizing both sides even more .
The only hope of easing the divisions is with a deal .
With right-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a cold Singapore and some left-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a wet Venezuela, I hope they can find a way to make PD changes agreed now binding. One of the best justifications of a confirmatory referendum and an early general election.
Yebbut, it’s nice when it’s warm and sunny here, isn’t it?
Off topic: What's really going on with Crossrail? Lots in the news today. Seems a bit mad. Surprised they don't try to open some of it.
There’s still a lot of work to do. It was always impossible to do in 8.5 years. It had to chop a billion off its budget to get through the 2010 CSR, which it always needed. It’s the most complex systems integration challenge ever done in the UK, and in Europe. A brand new train and software platform has to talk to three different signalling systems safely and reliably. It’s really hard. There are not enough skilled people in the industry to complete all the stations work quickly enough no matter how hard we are flogged. And our contract supply chain doesn’t have the same level of management skill over systems as it does over large scale civils work, and the programme controls regime is so complex you almost need an AI platform to do it, which we don’t have time to develop.
Now 122 Unopposed/Guaranteed Conservative candidates, 8 Lib Dem, 4 Labour.
My impression is that there are more independent and Green candidates than unusual , and more UKIP than I expected (but many fewer than 2015).
Here in Dorset 30 Greens and 30 UKIP candidates for 82 seats.
More UKIP than I expected and they will no doubt mop up any discontented No Dealers (unless we have exited with no deal by then of course, which could scupper their vote somewhat).
In Surrey SW we have Labour candidates nearly everywhere, for the first time that anyone can remember, and we're the only party contesting a County by-election.
In a curious coincidence, a number of 2-seat wards have one Labour and one LibDem candidate. Haven't noticed any Kippers but there's the odd Green here and there.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
I'd assume the PV only exists as one extreme of a range of indicative vote options. If they're selected carefully enough, the May/Corbyn combined preferred option should win out.
We should be careful not to mix whatever might come out of the May/Corbyn talks (and I remain sceptical an agreement is likely) and the option voting the government will offer MPs on Monday. At the moment these are two separate processes.
Many will. But you only need about 50. The whip gives them air cover.
May is not a dictator.
If May says she's whipping for a customs union then I think a majority of the party would quickly say she needs to go and call for an emergency meeting of the 1922 to change the rules to allow that to happen. A majority of cabinet would likely call for her to go as well.
Why would they when Tory Remainers [excluding a tiny number of extremists like Grieve] are already backing May's Deal without a customs union?
Clarke backs a customs union but he also backs May's Deal without a customs union. Though yes a new PM seeking a mandate to drop the customs union from the public at a general election would work too.
That latter approach would be fair and valid. But if, say, Boris was the new leader and decided to drop the (previously agreed CU) without a fresh mandate, quite a few Tory Remainers would refuse to support that.
Now 122 Unopposed/Guaranteed Conservative candidates, 8 Lib Dem, 4 Labour.
My impression is that there are more independent and Green candidates than unusual , and more UKIP than I expected (but many fewer than 2015).
Here in Dorset 30 Greens and 30 UKIP candidates for 82 seats.
More UKIP than I expected and they will no doubt mop up any discontented No Dealers (unless we have exited with no deal by then of course, which could scupper their vote somewhat).
In Surrey SW we have Labour candidates nearly everywhere, for the first time that anyone can remember, and we're the only party contesting a County by-election.
In a curious coincidence, a number of 2-seat wards have one Labour and one LibDem candidate. Haven't noticed any Kippers but there's the odd Green here and there.
I see a Con to LD defection has just deprived the Tories control of Woking, nominally at least
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
I'd assume the PV only exists as one extreme of a range of indicative vote options. If they're selected carefully enough, the May/Corbyn combined preferred option should win out.
We should be careful not to mix whatever might come out of the May/Corbyn talks (and I remain sceptical an agreement is likely) and the option voting the government will offer MPs on Monday. At the moment these are two separate processes.
AIUI they’ve not laid a business motion for indicative votes for Monday, and can’t tomorrow as they are not sitting.
Many will. But you only need about 50. The whip gives them air cover.
May is not a dictator.
If May says she's whipping for a customs union then I think a majority of the party would quickly say she needs to go and call for an emergency meeting of the 1922 to change the rules to allow that to happen. A majority of cabinet would likely call for her to go as well.
If a miracle happens and Labour and the Tories reach an agreement then I expect the public to quickly get behind that .
As a Remainer I’m willing to move on as long as there are safeguards to stop a future PM from ripping them up.
From the start I was willing to accept Leaving as long as it was an orderly exit with a deal . The ERG nutjobs and Farage etc are the ones to blame for entrenching divisions because pushing no deal is polarizing both sides even more .
The only hope of easing the divisions is with a deal .
With right-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a cold Singapore and some left-wing ideologues hoping to turn the UK into a wet Venezuela, I hope they can find a way to make PD changes agreed now binding. One of the best justifications of a confirmatory referendum and an early general election.
Yebbut, it’s nice when it’s warm and sunny here, isn’t it?
Off topic: What's really going on with Crossrail? Lots in the news today. Seems a bit mad. Surprised they don't try to open some of it.
There’s still a lot of work to do. It was always impossible to do in 8.5 years. It had to chop a billion off its budget to get through the 2010 CSR, which it always needed. It’s the most complex systems integration challenge ever done in the UK, and in Europe. A brand new train and software platform has to talk to three different signalling systems safely and reliably. It’s really hard. There are not enough skilled people in the industry to complete all the stations work quickly enough no matter how hard we are flogged. And our contract supply chain doesn’t have the same level of management skill over systems as it does over large scale civils work, and the programme controls regime is so complex you almost need an AI platform to do it, which we don’t have time to develop.
MPs want someone to blame.
Sort of like Brexit in microcosm, then.
And, just as practically achievable with real benefits and impressive results at the end. It’s just not quick, cheap or easy.
Politicalbetting really amuses me sometimes: no-one on the entire project would ever make that analogy. Only on here.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
I'd assume the PV only exists as one extreme of a range of indicative vote options. If they're selected carefully enough, the May/Corbyn combined preferred option should win out.
We should be careful not to mix whatever might come out of the May/Corbyn talks (and I remain sceptical an agreement is likely) and the option voting the government will offer MPs on Monday. At the moment these are two separate processes.
AIUI they’ve not laid a business motion for indicative votes for Monday, and can’t tomorrow as they are not sitting.
Not sure what the process for Monday is then...
There's little scheduled at all, presumably to allow the decks to be cleared, either for the options process, or for a May/Corbyn agreement to come to the house as a motion.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
I'd assume the PV only exists as one extreme of a range of indicative vote options. If they're selected carefully enough, the May/Corbyn combined preferred option should win out.
We should be careful not to mix whatever might come out of the May/Corbyn talks (and I remain sceptical an agreement is likely) and the option voting the government will offer MPs on Monday. At the moment these are two separate processes.
AIUI they’ve not laid a business motion for indicative votes for Monday, and can’t tomorrow as they are not sitting.
Not sure what the process for Monday is then...
There's little scheduled at all, presumably to allow the decks to be cleared, either for the options process, or for a May/Corbyn agreement to come to the house as a motion.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
I'd assume the PV only exists as one extreme of a range of indicative vote options. If they're selected carefully enough, the May/Corbyn combined preferred option should win out.
We should be careful not to mix whatever might come out of the May/Corbyn talks (and I remain sceptical an agreement is likely) and the option voting the government will offer MPs on Monday. At the moment these are two separate processes.
AIUI they’ve not laid a business motion for indicative votes for Monday, and can’t tomorrow as they are not sitting.
Not sure what the process for Monday is then...
There's little scheduled at all, presumably to allow the decks to be cleared, either for the options process, or for a May/Corbyn agreement to come to the house as a motion.
Guessing they can table a motion/process in the morning?
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
I'd assume the PV only exists as one extreme of a range of indicative vote options. If they're selected carefully enough, the May/Corbyn combined preferred option should win out.
We should be careful not to mix whatever might come out of the May/Corbyn talks (and I remain sceptical an agreement is likely) and the option voting the government will offer MPs on Monday. At the moment these are two separate processes.
AIUI they’ve not laid a business motion for indicative votes for Monday, and can’t tomorrow as they are not sitting.
Not sure what the process for Monday is then...
There's little scheduled at all, presumably to allow the decks to be cleared, either for the options process, or for a May/Corbyn agreement to come to the house as a motion.
Guessing they can table a motion/process in the morning?
In the circumstance I am sure they could use the urgent business provisions, in extremis.
Now 122 Unopposed/Guaranteed Conservative candidates, 8 Lib Dem, 4 Labour.
My impression is that there are more independent and Green candidates than unusual , and more UKIP than I expected (but many fewer than 2015).
Here in Dorset 30 Greens and 30 UKIP candidates for 82 seats.
More UKIP than I expected and they will no doubt mop up any discontented No Dealers (unless we have exited with no deal by then of course, which could scupper their vote somewhat).
In Surrey SW we have Labour candidates nearly everywhere, for the first time that anyone can remember, and we're the only party contesting a County by-election.
The Independent candidate was the County Councillor from 2013-17 and is well known in the town. Her win in 2013 stunned the local Conservatives.
can anyone update me is the government now caving in on a second referendum, surely that is political suicide for the tories,
No. Neither May nor Corbyn want it. But he wants a way to look like he tried for it. That keeps his membership/most voters on side, without alienating his northern leave seats.
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly.
I've got a few ex-students from last year, both Labour and Tory, getting very pissed at uni who would do much better.
can anyone update me is the government now caving in on a second referendum, surely that is political suicide for the tories,
No. Neither May nor Corbyn want it. But he wants a way to look like he tried for it. That keeps his membership/most voters on side, without alienating his northern leave seats.
She could never get a PV past the party.
Plus he's a Brexiteer pretending not to be one. Pretending to push for a 2nd referendum fits that perfectly.
Re-reading Robert Harris' Imperium, there was a reference to those strange individuals who follow elections, the way others follow sports contests. Does he mean us?
Re-reading Robert Harris' Imperium, there was a reference to those strange individuals who follow elections, the way others follow sports contests. Does he mean us?
It's the ultimate sport. No gladiator ever took the blows May has.
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
A leader in their 30s could have had May be in her 30s herself when they were born. Hardly schoolgirl.
Again, that ain't skipping a generation.
It is, it is skipping May's own generation.
This isn't like the monarchy where power is passed from one generation to the next, in Parliament power can be passed sideways across the generation. Skipping a generation rules out a sideways change and moves down to next generation [Hancock's].
Same/similar generation transfers: Blair [born 1953] passed the premiership to Brown [born 1951] Cameron [born 1966] passed the premiership to May [born 1956]
Skipping a generation: Thatcher [born 1925] passed to John Major [born 1943]
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
can anyone update me is the government now caving in on a second referendum, surely that is political suicide for the tories,
No. Neither May nor Corbyn want it. But he wants a way to look like he tried for it. That keeps his membership/most voters on side, without alienating his northern leave seats.
She could never get a PV past the party.
On the flipside, she and her party have so successfully boxed themselves in with red lines she has to break one of them somewhere along the line. They don't want a GE, the party won't accept being in the single market or being in a customs union, she doesn't want no deal, she doesn't want a long extension and European elections, she doesn't want the backstop, she doesn't want the union being threatened, she doesn't want a second referendum, she doesn't want to resign until Brexit is delivered.
She wants her deal but can't explain how to get it through and short of literally boring everyone into submission - which appears her only strategy at the moment - is basically going to be forced to take something she doesn't want in order to get it through, so get on with picking the least worst option, whatever that is.
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
Well, perhaps.
But they have Fawkesed everything up...
They are just the fall Guys for the electorate.
They're grinding my patience to powder.
I prefer to snuff out such incendiary suggestions.
I suppose Newport is a shoe-in for Labour. Who comes 2nd is interesting to me. Betfair odds are suggesting Cons will come 3rd, but the Newport W/O labour market sees UKIP coming 3rd. Is there any reason for that?
I think Con vote is unlikely to fall enough to see them drop to 3rd but there is also nothing to propel them into first. The only freak result that could beat labour is a UKIP surge. So UKIP are 2nd favs to Lab to win but also 2nd favs to Con to finish 2nd.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
This isn't science, this is vandalism. Totally disgraceful.
Would be funny if the small explosion shifted the orbit of the asteroid enough to trigger a sequence of collisions that leads a large asteroid to be put on a collision course with the Earth. Would be something else to talk about besides Brexit.
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
Well, perhaps.
But they have Fawkesed everything up...
They are just the fall Guys for the electorate.
They're grinding my patience to powder.
I prefer to snuff out such incendiary suggestions.
This isn't science, this is vandalism. Totally disgraceful.
Would be funny if the small explosion shifted the orbit of the asteroid enough to trigger a sequence of collisions that leads a large asteroid to be put on a collision course with the Earth. Would be something else to talk about besides Brexit.
Submit the idea as a screenplay, no doubt it would be regardy as very symbolic and trendy if you set it at the same time as Brexit, contrasting the politicians arguing while the world ends.
This isn't science, this is vandalism. Totally disgraceful.
Would be funny if the small explosion shifted the orbit of the asteroid enough to trigger a sequence of collisions that leads a large asteroid to be put on a collision course with the Earth. Would be something else to talk about besides Brexit.
Submit the idea as a screenplay, no doubt it would be regardy as very symbolic and trendy.
I think someone published a paper a few years back about the minimum energy required to wipe out all life on Earth. It was nudging an asteroid by a small amount...
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
Well, perhaps.
But they have Fawkesed everything up...
They are just the fall Guys for the electorate.
They're grinding my patience to powder.
I prefer to snuff out such incendiary suggestions.
This isn't science, this is vandalism. Totally disgraceful.
Would be funny if the small explosion shifted the orbit of the asteroid enough to trigger a sequence of collisions that leads a large asteroid to be put on a collision course with the Earth. Would be something else to talk about besides Brexit.
Isn't that what the bugs in Starship Troopers were doing? Firing stuff out of their arses to send rocks to hit earth. We probably deserve that .
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Still might be enough.
I don't think so, mass resignations.
The more resignations from the members the better as each one diminishes the chances of a ERG member taking over the leadership
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
Ah, now I see what you mean.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly....
Sounds a bit drastic. Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
Well, perhaps.
But they have Fawkesed everything up...
They are just the fall Guys for the electorate.
They're grinding my patience to powder.
I prefer to snuff out such incendiary suggestions.
I knew you'd be plotting a good riposte.
You have arrested me.
We seem to be drawing on the same puns, quartering the same territory, and hanging on to each other. The execution is however capital.
Surely from May, skipping a generation means going for a new leader in their 20s?
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
She's 62. Amply old enough to be both Hancock's mother and not a schoolgirl at the time.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
Exactly. Hancock is the next generation. The one he wants to skip!
I think the phrase skip a generation in this context means simply go to the next generation and leave out anyone from May's generation.
Well that's just bloody daft.
No because inter-generation transfers are the most common, skipping a generation rules out an inter-generation transfer.
This is a bloody daft way to use the word 'skipped'. How do you 'skip' the generation that has provided the last 4 PMs?
In normal usage, 'skip' means to miss out. E.g. in an exam I skip Question 2, i.e. I answer Q1 then Q3.
That's normal usage in a linear progression. Politics isn't linear.
If we define the 'current' generation as those born in the 50s/60s [as all of Blair-May have been] then 12 out of 21 MPs in the Cabinet who could succeed May are in that generation. Including all of the Great Offices of State.
If we 'skip a generation' and move on to the next generation that is ruling out ['miss out' as you put it] the majority of the Cabinet and all of the current Great Offices of State so is hardly meaningless.
This isn't science, this is vandalism. Totally disgraceful.
Would be funny if the small explosion shifted the orbit of the asteroid enough to trigger a sequence of collisions that leads a large asteroid to be put on a collision course with the Earth. Would be something else to talk about besides Brexit.
Isn't that what the bugs in Starship Troopers were doing? Firing stuff out of their arses to send rocks to hit earth. We probably deserve that .
There's a theory that the first in the movie was a false flag attack by the fascist government, given the stunning impossibility of even intelligent bugs managing such a feat.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Still might be enough.
I don't think so, mass resignations.
The more resignations from the members the better as each one diminishes the chances of a ERG member taking over the leadership
This isn't science, this is vandalism. Totally disgraceful.
Would be funny if the small explosion shifted the orbit of the asteroid enough to trigger a sequence of collisions that leads a large asteroid to be put on a collision course with the Earth. Would be something else to talk about besides Brexit.
Submit the idea as a screenplay, no doubt it would be regardy as very symbolic and trendy.
I think someone published a paper a few years back about the minimum energy required to wipe out all life on Earth. It was nudging an asteroid by a small amount...
When you look into it, our existence - particularly at our current societal level - is incredibly perilous and fragile.
A Carrington Event (or worse) alone could really f**k us up in the West, when in 1859 it was virtually unnoticed. Or with our modern travel patterns, a new virus or bacterial infection could be devastating.
Then there are the life-enders (or at least multi-cellular life-enders): everything from a deep solar minimum, a Deccan flats-style volcanic event or an asteroid impact.
It's why Sandy's wrong IMO - we need to become interplanetary.
can anyone update me is the government now caving in on a second referendum, surely that is political suicide for the tories,
No. Neither May nor Corbyn want it. But he wants a way to look like he tried for it. That keeps his membership/most voters on side, without alienating his northern leave seats.
She could never get a PV past the party.
On the flipside, she and her party have so successfully boxed themselves in with red lines she has to break one of them somewhere along the line. They don't want a GE, the party won't accept being in the single market or being in a customs union, she doesn't want no deal, she doesn't want a long extension and European elections, she doesn't want the backstop, she doesn't want the union being threatened, she doesn't want a second referendum, she doesn't want to resign until Brexit is delivered.
She wants her deal but can't explain how to get it through and short of literally boring everyone into submission - which appears her only strategy at the moment - is basically going to be forced to take something she doesn't want in order to get it through, so get on with picking the least worst option, whatever that is.
CU is the one most likely to get past enough MPs. Half the cabinet will support and Hancock, Gove et al will take to the airwaves to pave the way.
Enough MPs and members will grudgingly support as a) it is finally leaving and b) nothing is permanent.
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Still might be enough.
I don't think so, mass resignations.
The more resignations from the members the better as each one diminishes the chances of a ERG member taking over the leadership
Completely agree
its the mass resignations of voters that will do it for the tories for betraying the referendum promise. PM Corbyn is now guaranteed
Whipping a PV will be a step too far for the Tories. The most she'll offer is a free vote (Including cabinet). A second referendum will kill both the Tories and Brexit, particularly if it is May's deal as the leave option. "No deal" would stand a fighting chance.
Whipping a PV will be a step too far for the Tories. The most she'll offer is a free vote (Including cabinet). A second referendum will kill both the Tories and Brexit, particularly if it is May's deal as the leave option. "No deal" would stand a fighting chance.
its the mass resignations of voters that will do it for the tories for betraying the referendum promise. PM Corbyn is now guaranteed
No because May will be defenestrated before she goes to the polls. No way Tory MPs allow her another General Election. Her successor will be a Brexiteer (original or born-again like Hunt).
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Still might be enough.
I don't think so, mass resignations.
The more resignations from the members the better as each one diminishes the chances of a ERG member taking over the leadership
Completely agree
its the mass resignations of voters that will do it for the tories for betraying the referendum promise. PM Corbyn is now guaranteed
As it’s guaranteed, I assume that you’ve bet everything you own on that absolute certainty.
Why would they when Tory Remainers [excluding a tiny number of extremists like Grieve] are already backing May's Deal without a customs union?
Clarke backs a customs union but he also backs May's Deal without a customs union. Though yes a new PM seeking a mandate to drop the customs union from the public at a general election would work too.
Apparently, part of the deal on a Customs Union would be that the devolved parliaments would get a veto on any future changes to the political declaration - in which case a Hard Brexiteer becoming PM wouldn't be enough to "drop the customs union", there'd need to be Hard Brexiteers as the Scottish and Welsh First Ministers too.
Whipping a PV will be a step too far for the Tories. The most she'll offer is a free vote (Including cabinet). A second referendum will kill both the Tories and Brexit, particularly if it is May's deal as the leave option. "No deal" would stand a fighting chance.
I dread a 2nd Referendum.
Tories and Labour will lose seats to BREXIT party in spades
Whipping a PV will be a step too far for the Tories. The most she'll offer is a free vote (Including cabinet). A second referendum will kill both the Tories and Brexit, particularly if it is May's deal as the leave option. "No deal" would stand a fighting chance.
I've always said I'd be fine with a People's Vote between May's Deal and No Deal.
its the mass resignations of voters that will do it for the tories for betraying the referendum promise. PM Corbyn is now guaranteed
No because May will be defenestrated before she goes to the polls. No way Tory MPs allow her another General Election. Her successor will be a Brexiteer (original or born-again like Hunt).
but if we are forced with a referendum to choose between Mays crap deal and Remain, I suspect Remain would win and we will be forever locked into the EU Superstate. Leavers will desert the tories regardless of who the leader is
All that talk to come up with the idea of indicative votes again? But for real this time?
So three options, simultaneous paper ballot next week.
TM deal. TM deal + customs union/workers rights TM deal + customs union/workers rights + referendum.
Middle option wins.
TM goes off to EUCo and says will put Bill next week in EU agree unconditional extension to 22 May to pass legislation.
Pipe and slippers time.
It should be done by amendments to May's deal, with a commitment for both parties to whip the two amendments.
But it can’t be inserted in the WA. Needs to be an indicative vote so that TM can get EU to rewrite the PD. Then amendments inserted in the deal bill which are whipped.
I sense we might be getting somewhere... but could be wrong.
The key point is that May and Corbyn have to both 3-line whip WA, CU & PV.
May can’t whip PV and Corbyn really doesn’t want to.
Indicative vote, and then whip the winner thereby removing the impasse and any need for the public to break the deadlock.
That’s what the principals really want, but Corbin keeps his mob happy that PV was offered and rejected by parliament.
It could work.
They can both whip the PV. Corbyn already has. May can too, and I suspect she will if it's the price she has to pay for her deal.
No. That’s a trap and a compromise way too far. She couldn’t and wouldn’t. If Labour insist that, it demonstrates they went into this in bad faith. They will own the blame for failure.
If it's PV on top of CU, most Conservatives will rebel against the whip.
Still might be enough.
I don't think so, mass resignations.
The more resignations from the members the better as each one diminishes the chances of a ERG member taking over the leadership
Completely agree
its the mass resignations of voters that will do it for the tories for betraying the referendum promise. PM Corbyn is now guaranteed
You are hurting but there is nothing guaranteed in anything at present
Comments
Basically, it's run by idiots who don't have a clue what they're doing and have a great deal of our money to waste, er, spend.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1113738131503833088
MPs want someone to blame.
It’s all just more complicated than they thought integrating new trains into three different signalling systems. And no UK infrastructure project gets built cheaply!
London business ratepayers and developers are of course picking up cost of the overspend not central government.
I could see a narrow majority of Tories rebelling but with say 120 Tory ayes plus 200 Labour + SNP, TIG and LDs and it gets over the line easily.
Clarke backs a customs union but he also backs May's Deal without a customs union. Though yes a new PM seeking a mandate to drop the customs union from the public at a general election would work too.
In a curious coincidence, a number of 2-seat wards have one Labour and one LibDem candidate. Haven't noticed any Kippers but there's the odd Green here and there.
If May says she's whipping for a customs union then I think a majority of the party would quickly say she needs to go and call for an emergency meeting of the 1922 to change the rules to allow that to happen. A majority of cabinet would likely call for her to go as well.
Not sure what the process for Monday is then...
Politicalbetting really amuses me sometimes: no-one on the entire project would ever make that analogy. Only on here.
We really are weird obsessives.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/04/conservatives-need-prepare-skip-generation-replacing-theresa/
Can't possibly think who he has in mind can you?
#shameless
Unless we are using schoolgirl mums as the norm.
Indeed, she's not ridiculously younger than Corbyn.
She could never get a PV past the party.
Given the truly epic mess those aged 40-69 have made of things, I actually think he has the right idea. Also it would eliminate the entire House of Commons on the fly.
I've got a few ex-students from last year, both Labour and Tory, getting very pissed at uni who would do much better.
This isn't like the monarchy where power is passed from one generation to the next, in Parliament power can be passed sideways across the generation. Skipping a generation rules out a sideways change and moves down to next generation [Hancock's].
Same/similar generation transfers:
Blair [born 1953] passed the premiership to Brown [born 1951]
Cameron [born 1966] passed the premiership to May [born 1956]
Skipping a generation:
Thatcher [born 1925] passed to John Major [born 1943]
Only the latter was skipping a generation.
Wouldn’t voting them out of office suffice ?
But they have Fawkesed everything up...
In normal usage, 'skip' means to miss out. E.g. in an exam I skip Question 2, i.e. I answer Q1 then Q3.
She wants her deal but can't explain how to get it through and short of literally boring everyone into submission - which appears her only strategy at the moment - is basically going to be forced to take something she doesn't want in order to get it through, so get on with picking the least worst option, whatever that is.
"Hayabusa-2 probe set to 'bomb' an asteroid"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47818460
This isn't science, this is vandalism. Totally disgraceful.
We need to be doing more of this.
People should be paying more attention and considering their 2020 betting positions.
Shall we call it quits?
If we define the 'current' generation as those born in the 50s/60s [as all of Blair-May have been] then 12 out of 21 MPs in the Cabinet who could succeed May are in that generation. Including all of the Great Offices of State.
If we 'skip a generation' and move on to the next generation that is ruling out ['miss out' as you put it] the majority of the Cabinet and all of the current Great Offices of State so is hardly meaningless.
A Carrington Event (or worse) alone could really f**k us up in the West, when in 1859 it was virtually unnoticed. Or with our modern travel patterns, a new virus or bacterial infection could be devastating.
Then there are the life-enders (or at least multi-cellular life-enders): everything from a deep solar minimum, a Deccan flats-style volcanic event or an asteroid impact.
It's why Sandy's wrong IMO - we need to become interplanetary.
Enough MPs and members will grudgingly support as a) it is finally leaving and b) nothing is permanent.
A second referendum will kill both the Tories and Brexit, particularly if it is May's deal as the leave option. "No deal" would stand a fighting chance.
Only 10% of Tory MPs voted for Customs Union in the indicative votes. You really think one of them is going to be May's successor?
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1113753348463910912
Tories and Labour will lose seats to BREXIT party in spades