That seems to be the policy of ERG and why they will lose
Feels like a dangerous end game of English nationalism....
Why is Scottish nationalism something to be proud of but English nationalism is dangerous?
A Scot feels like he wants Scottish MSPs to set Scottish laws that's viewed as honorable. If I say as an Englishman I want English MPs to set English laws then that's dangerous?
Are yyou so stupid that you don't know that you already set your own laws
Until we get rid of Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs setting English laws no we bloody well don't. Are you so stupid that you don't know that happens?
I though there were now procedures in place with England only committee stages and the like.
They're weak and only mean that England-only MPs can veto an England-only law but non-English MPs can still veto an England-only law like the Sunday Trading change.
But so called “English” laws still effect them. As you well know, for example, the Barnett formula automatically adjusts the amounts of public expenditure allocated to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to reflect changes in spending levels allocated to public services in England. So if English MPs voted a decrease in spending there would be a proportionate decrease in the allocation of funds to the devolved nations, so it is fair their MPs can vote on such matters even if the spending concerned effects only England. Given Westminster can legally override the devolved legislatures, and has a vast English majority, there has to be a quid pro quo.
If we dissolve the union and eliminate the Barnett formula the English can decide what they want to spend their money on, the Scots can decide what they want to spend their money on and everyone can act like actual grown ups. Win, win.
This I agree with wholeheartedly. There is clearly a Scottish demos which is far stronger for them than the UK demos and I think Scotland would thrive as an independent nation.
I'm not, I'm a fan of our Parliament making decisions by itself.
“Our Parliament” ????
Yes, Westminster. That's our Parliament. Has been since the 13th century (14th for Commons).
That is shocking historical ignorance. Being sited in the same place is where he continuity ends. The current UK Parliament is the result of two mergers - one in 1707 and one in 1801 - with other nations’ parliaments that produced a new one on each occasion. Our Parliament is younger than the US Congress even. We are currently on the 57th Parliament of the UK, the first having sat only in 1801. Even the building it sits in now has never been an exclusively English Parliament.
Up to a point Lord Copper. I think it's disingenuous to say that the Parliaments of 1707 and 1801 were some completely new creation. If they were, why were no initial elections held to either? Instead in 1707 all the English MPs and peers stayed in place, and the monarch appointed members for Scotland, whereas in 1801 all British MPs and peers stayed in place whereas only some Irish MPs were transferred in. The first Great Britain parliament served out the three year term (specified by the Triennial Act) of the last English parliament. The first UK parliament didn't quite get to the end of the last Great Britain parliament's now seven-year term, but it wasn't dissolved until eighteen months after the union with Ireland
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
Agreed. Tory MPs should VONC May's government if this gets proposed.
Every time I mention I would rather England be an independent nation its met with shock and outrage at such a preposterous suggestion.
Every time a Scot says they'd rather Scotland be an independent nation its met with understanding and either polite disagreement or agreement. No shock, no outrage.
English independence should be no more shocking a desire than Scottish.
I think English independence would reconcile England to being part of the family of European nations within the EU.
It's the continuing existence of the UK that simultaneously denies the English a political identity, and gives England a feeling that it doesn't belong in an entity like the EU.
I think you are absolutely right. This is the root of the whole issue.
There is also an interesting educational difference.
I was brought up in Cambridge and was taught British history 1066-1850 for mandatory O-Level.
My three kids were brought up in Edinburgh and were taught The Wars of (Scottish) Independence, the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion and WW2 (all in Junior school) then the Slave Trade and David Livingstone (not linked) (first year of senior school, none chose History as an exam subject). They have no understanding of a British identity, just a Scottish one, and throughout their learning there was a sense of the English as Other.
That results in some interesting family discussions with their cousins brought up in England.
I'm not, I'm a fan of our Parliament making decisions by itself.
“Our Parliament” ????
Yes, Westminster. That's our Parliament. Has been since the 13th century (14th for Commons).
That is shocking historical ignorance. Being sited in the same place is where he continuity ends. The current UK Parliament is the result of two mergers - one in 1707 and one in 1801 - with other nations’ parliaments that produced a new one on each occasion. Our Parliament is younger than the US Congress even. We are currently on the 57th Parliament of the UK, the first having sat only in 1801. Even the building it sits in now has never been an exclusively English Parliament.
Up to a point Lord Copper. I think it's disingenuous to say that the Parliaments of 1707 and 1801 were some completely new creation. If they were, why were no initial elections held to either? Instead in 1707 all the English MPs and peers stayed in place, and the monarch appointed members for Scotland, whereas in 1801 all British MPs and peers stayed in place whereas only some Irish MPs were transferred in. The first Great Britain parliament served out the three year term (specified by the Triennial Act) of the last English parliament. The first UK parliament didn't quite get to the end of the last Great Britain parliament's now seven-year term, but it wasn't dissolved until eighteen months after the union with Ireland
Precisely!
And the argument about the word "ours" came in reply to my saying that "our" Parliament should decide international matters. That includes Scottish MPs who each should and do count every bit as much an English MP does since international matters are not devolved. Every single Scottish MP should be equally as important as every single single English, Welsh or NI MP.
I'm not, I'm a fan of our Parliament making decisions by itself.
“Our Parliament” ????
Yes, Westminster. That's our Parliament. Has been since the 13th century (14th for Commons).
That is shocking historical ignorance. Being sited in the same place is where he continuity ends. The current UK Parliament is the result of two mergers - one in 1707 and one in 1801 - with other nations’ parliaments that produced a new one on each occasion. Our Parliament is younger than the US Congress even. We are currently on the 57th Parliament of the UK, the first having sat only in 1801. Even the building it sits in now has never been an exclusively English Parliament.
Up to a point Lord Copper. I think it's disingenuous to say that the Parliaments of 1707 and 1801 were some completely new creation. If they were, why were no initial elections held to either? Instead in 1707 all the English MPs and peers stayed in place, and the monarch appointed members for Scotland, whereas in 1801 all British MPs and peers stayed in place whereas only some Irish MPs were transferred in. The first Great Britain parliament served out the three year term (specified by the Triennial Act) of the last English parliament. The first UK parliament didn't quite get to the end of the last Great Britain parliament's now seven-year term, but it wasn't dissolved until eighteen months after the union with Ireland
Your answer comes from Queen Anne herself, expediency - "I think it expedient that the Lords of parliament of England, and Commons of the present parliament of England, should be the members of the respective houses of the first parliament of Great Britain, for and on the behalf of England; and therefore I intend within the time limited, to publish a proclamation for the purpose, pursuant to the powers given me by the acts of parliament of both kingdoms, ratifying the treaty of Union" (Anne's speech of 24 April 1707, as published in Cobbett (1810) Parliamentary History of Great Britain, vol. 6: pp. 580–81).
Note she describes it as the “First Parliament” of Great Britain. I think it is reasonably clear from this that for the sake of getting the new body up and running the members of he old body were co-opted into the new one pending elections.
Yes I'm a Conservative, I am not a Unionist. I've never made a secret of that and I wanted Yes to win in 2014 but the Scots were too frit to take the opportunity of independence, unlike the Welsh and English in 2016 which is why the SNP are so upset now.
I understand that I am not the same as other Conservatives who are Unionists but then I am a great believer in individualism and not collectivism which is what draws me to the Conservative way of thinking in the first place. So I see no reason why I have to bend to Collective thinking.
Being a Unionist is central to the belief system of the Conservatives, so much so they say what they are on the tin.
You may call yourself a turnip if you wish but I would deny your viability as a root vegetable. Similarly you may wish to assume the rigour of a Conservative but you fail in the most fundamentals of the British Conservative - the belief in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I'm an atheist and a republican too for what its worth.
It's worth diddly squat as a Conservative.
.....................................
Goodnight Newport West watchers and pretendy Conservatives alike .....
Anyone know if the Conservatives have even campaigned in Newport West? Has anyone from the Cabinet visited?
I mean bearing mind Labour only won this with a 5,000 majority in 2017 so in the right circumstances it should be competitive for Con.
In the 2017 locals the Tories were only 1% behind
That's what I mean and yet we've heard absolutely nothing about Con campaigning here?
Looks like it will end up another mess up from Theresa May's Conservatives...
I was there on Saturday and today - got very lucky with the weather. I think both sides have tried to keep it as local as possible as a strong Brexit focus is likely to repel as many as it attracts (though he's for leaving and she's for a 2nd ref).
Yes I'm a Conservative, I am not a Unionist. I've never made a secret of that and I wanted Yes to win in 2014 but the Scots were too frit to take the opportunity of independence, unlike the Welsh and English in 2016 which is why the SNP are so upset now.
I understand that I am not the same as other Conservatives who are Unionists but then I am a great believer in individualism and not collectivism which is what draws me to the Conservative way of thinking in the first place. So I see no reason why I have to bend to Collective thinking.
Being a Unionist is central to the belief system of the Conservatives, so much so they say what they are on the tin.
Surely the label "Conservative and Unionist Party" means the opposite? You can be a Conservative who's not a Unionist or a Unionist who's not a Conservative, but the Party is for those who are both.
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
I guess that given a Lab hold will be hearalded as a triumph even though looking pretty safe, the actual big moment would be if the recent meltdown of the Tories means they don't come second. Would be fun.
If UKIP came 2nd I suspect it would stiffen the resolve of the ERG and undermine May's attempts to find a soft-Brexit compromise.
What if the pro EU Renew party beats UKIP?
There was a photo of the Renew canvassing team in the Times yesterday
I must say if she canvassed me I might vote for them 😅
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
Agreed. Tory MPs should VONC May's government if this gets proposed.
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
Agreed. Tory MPs should VONC May's government if this gets proposed.
To quench one horror, May created another...
It is rather like the bathtub ring in The Cat in the Hat Comes Back.
Anyone know if the Conservatives have even campaigned in Newport West? Has anyone from the Cabinet visited?
I mean bearing mind Labour only won this with a 5,000 majority in 2017 so in the right circumstances it should be competitive for Con.
In the 2017 locals the Tories were only 1% behind
That's what I mean and yet we've heard absolutely nothing about Con campaigning here?
Looks like it will end up another mess up from Theresa May's Conservatives...
I was there on Saturday and today - got very lucky with the weather. I think both sides have tried to keep it as local as possible as a strong Brexit focus is likely to repel as many as it attracts (though he's for leaving and she's for a 2nd ref).
That seems to be the policy of ERG and why they will lose
Feels like a dangerous end game of English nationalism....
Why is Scottish nationalism something to be proud of but English nationalism is dangerous?
A Scot feels like he wants Scottish MSPs to set Scottish laws that's viewed as honorable. If I say as an Englishman I want English MPs to set English laws then that's dangerous?
Are yyou so stupid that you don't know that you already set your own laws
Until we get rid of Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs setting English laws no we bloody well don't. Are you so stupid that you don't know that happens?
And if diddy regions get a lock on exiting the Customs Union then we'll be trapped even more. Despite the fact that North West England has 33% more population than Scotland and 4x the population of Northern Ireland.
There are 532 English constituencies in the 650 UK House of Commons. Not quite sure why England isn't able to set laws to their hearts content ?!?!
' A political row has broken out over the role of Scottish Labour MPs whose votes proved crucial as the government won the vote on university top-up fees. The Higher Education Bill was backed by 316 votes to 311 at Westminster.
Some 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government, even though the plans will not apply north of the border. '
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
But the problem is, if the Tories want Labour MPs to vote for the Brexit deal, then there needs to be something that persuades Labour MPs that a commitment to a customs union will actually stick, and not just be ripped up by whatever fruit-loop becomes Tory leader next.
Obviously the best way of doing that would be getting the customs union properly negotiated with the EU before the withdrawal agreement; but, in the absence of that, the Tories will have to agree to tie their hands in domestic law instead, whether that's through a "devo lock" or something else.
Yes I'm a Conservative, I am not a Unionist. I've never made a secret of that and I wanted Yes to win in 2014 but the Scots were too frit to take the opportunity of independence, unlike the Welsh and English in 2016 which is why the SNP are so upset now.
I understand that I am not the same as other Conservatives who are Unionists but then I am a great believer in individualism and not collectivism which is what draws me to the Conservative way of thinking in the first place. So I see no reason why I have to bend to Collective thinking.
Being a Unionist is central to the belief system of the Conservatives, so much so they say what they are on the tin.
Surely the label "Conservative and Unionist Party" means the opposite? You can be a Conservative who's not a Unionist or a Unionist who's not a Conservative, but the Party is for those who are both.
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
You're wrong, it is the official party name. There is no other political home though for someone who is a Conservative but not a Unionist.
Oh and I'll only ever write that I'm a capital-C Conservative. Lowercase I consider myself a classical liberal and prefer the name of Australia's centre-right party.
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
Agreed. Tory MPs should VONC May's government if this gets proposed.
I actually would prefer to No Deal, and I say this as a “hard” Remainer.
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
But the problem is, if the Tories want Labour MPs to vote for the Brexit deal, then there needs to be something that persuades Labour MPs that a commitment to a customs union will actually stick, and not just be ripped up by whatever fruit-loop becomes Tory leader next.
There can be no such commitment.
One Parliament cannot bind another Parliament and no amount of constitutional jiggery pokery from May and her team can make it so...
Yes I'm a Conservative, I am not a Unionist. I've never made a secret of that and I wanted Yes to win in 2014 but the Scots were too frit to take the opportunity of independence, unlike the Welsh and English in 2016 which is why the SNP are so upset now.
I understand that I am not the same as other Conservatives who are Unionists but then I am a great believer in individualism and not collectivism which is what draws me to the Conservative way of thinking in the first place. So I see no reason why I have to bend to Collective thinking.
Being a Unionist is central to the belief system of the Conservatives, so much so they say what they are on the tin.
Surely the label "Conservative and Unionist Party" means the opposite? You can be a Conservative who's not a Unionist or a Unionist who's not a Conservative, but the Party is for those who are both.
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
I don't think I've ever had a ballot paper with the description 'Conservative and Unionist Party' on it.
Nor, for example, did the voters of Maidenhead in 2017:
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
But the problem is, if the Tories want Labour MPs to vote for the Brexit deal, then there needs to be something that persuades Labour MPs that a commitment to a customs union will actually stick, and not just be ripped up by whatever fruit-loop becomes Tory leader next.
There can be no such commitment.
One Parliament cannot bind another Parliament and no amount of constitutional jiggery pokery from May and her team can make it so...
If there's no such commitment, then I doubt the necessary Labour votes for Brexiting will ever come.
Yes I'm a Conservative, I am not a Unionist. I've never made a secret of that and I wanted Yes to win in 2014 but the Scots were too frit to take the opportunity of independence, unlike the Welsh and English in 2016 which is why the SNP are so upset now.
I understand that I am not the same as other Conservatives who are Unionists but then I am a great believer in individualism and not collectivism which is what draws me to the Conservative way of thinking in the first place. So I see no reason why I have to bend to Collective thinking.
Being a Unionist is central to the belief system of the Conservatives, so much so they say what they are on the tin.
Surely the label "Conservative and Unionist Party" means the opposite? You can be a Conservative who's not a Unionist or a Unionist who's not a Conservative, but the Party is for those who are both.
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
It is still their name. It'd be like saying they are not Conservatives because we call them Tories all the time.
As for what the label means, one could argue its for 'Conservatives' and 'Unionists' but equally one could argue it is for 'Conservatives and Unionists' as a integral combination. But we all know parties are broad coalitions, too broad sometimes even. There are plenty of Tories who are republicans, or who don't care that much for the Union.
I'd just like to re-emphasise that those here who have dismissed the Mueller report as being significant may need to re-evaluate.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
Yes I'm a Conservative, I am not a Unionist. I've never made a secret of that and I wanted Yes to win in 2014 but the Scots were too frit to take the opportunity of independence, unlike the Welsh and English in 2016 which is why the SNP are so upset now.
I understand that I am not the same as other Conservatives who are Unionists but then I am a great believer in individualism and not collectivism which is what draws me to the Conservative way of thinking in the first place. So I see no reason why I have to bend to Collective thinking.
Being a Unionist is central to the belief system of the Conservatives, so much so they say what they are on the tin.
Surely the label "Conservative and Unionist Party" means the opposite? You can be a Conservative who's not a Unionist or a Unionist who's not a Conservative, but the Party is for those who are both.
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
Except when Mrs May announced the confidence & supply agreement with the medieval creationists outside No10.
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
But the problem is, if the Tories want Labour MPs to vote for the Brexit deal, then there needs to be something that persuades Labour MPs that a commitment to a customs union will actually stick, and not just be ripped up by whatever fruit-loop becomes Tory leader next.
There can be no such commitment.
One Parliament cannot bind another Parliament and no amount of constitutional jiggery pokery from May and her team can make it so...
If there's no such commitment, then I doubt the necessary Labour votes for Brexiting will ever come.
The thing to understand about Scotland is everyone is a nationalist. The argument is about independence. Alex Salmond said he wished the Scottish Nationalist Party was called the independence party. If you are a Unionist you are not going to argue on cultural grounds. You will lose and it's pointless because you are just as Scottish as the other lot. It's a village, Jock Tamson's bairns etc.
The devo lock is an absolute abortion. Basically, permanently trapped inside another power’s customs structure, with a veto to nationalists who by definition wish to dissolve the Union.
I think if we go for this, it really is curtains for the U.K.
But the problem is, if the Tories want Labour MPs to vote for the Brexit deal, then there needs to be something that persuades Labour MPs that a commitment to a customs union will actually stick, and not just be ripped up by whatever fruit-loop becomes Tory leader next.
Obviously the best way of doing that would be getting the customs union properly negotiated with the EU before the withdrawal agreement; but, in the absence of that, the Tories will have to agree to tie their hands in domestic law instead, whether that's through a "devo lock" or something else.
BBC Wales suggesting Labour damping down expectations in Newport West.
Of course, this may well just be damping expectations to make winning in a safe seat seem better than it is.
Well that is definitely part of the formula. "This shows the government is being rejected" cries LOTO even in a seat won by 50% at a GE. There are far safer seats than this, and hopefully it will be at least a little interesting and be close, or have a surprise winner (Renew or UKIP would be hilarious), but I don;t think I'll be staying up for this one.
I guess that given a Lab hold will be hearalded as a triumph even though looking pretty safe, the actual big moment would be if the recent meltdown of the Tories means they don't come second. Would be fun.
If UKIP came 2nd I suspect it would stiffen the resolve of the ERG and undermine May's attempts to find a soft-Brexit compromise.
What if the pro EU Renew party beats UKIP?
There was a photo of the Renew canvassing team in the Times yesterday
I must say if she canvassed me I might vote for them 😅
I'd just like to re-emphasise that those here who have dismissed the Mueller report as being significant may need to re-evaluate.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
Given Mueller himself hasn't contradicted Barr it seems that Barr has likely done enough to bury this.
Seems a lot like the Hutton Inquiry in that respect.
Even though British politics is in a mad flurry right now, the actual party effects will be mooted till Brexit sorts itself out one way or another. I think if it happens Lib Dems/ChangeTigger get a decent boost, if it doesn't then UKIP/SDP/Brexit party will probably be the beneficiaries.
I guess that given a Lab hold will be hearalded as a triumph even though looking pretty safe, the actual big moment would be if the recent meltdown of the Tories means they don't come second. Would be fun.
If UKIP came 2nd I suspect it would stiffen the resolve of the ERG and undermine May's attempts to find a soft-Brexit compromise.
What if the pro EU Renew party beats UKIP?
There was a photo of the Renew canvassing team in the Times yesterday
I must say if she canvassed me I might vote for them 😅
Even though British politics is in a mad flurry right now, the actual party effects will be mooted till Brexit sorts itself out one way or another. I think if it happens Lib Dems/ChangeTigger get a decent boost, if it doesn't then UKIP/SDP/Brexit party will probably be the beneficiaries.
I'd just like to re-emphasise that those here who have dismissed the Mueller report as being significant may need to re-evaluate.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
As I've backed Trump for the nomination and backed Dems generally for the Presidency, I've always hoped for a drip drip political effect but nothing to give Congress grounds for impeachment. The leftish media seem too busy trying to destroy Biden right now in the USA though rather than anything Trump related.
I guess that given a Lab hold will be hearalded as a triumph even though looking pretty safe, the actual big moment would be if the recent meltdown of the Tories means they don't come second. Would be fun.
If UKIP came 2nd I suspect it would stiffen the resolve of the ERG and undermine May's attempts to find a soft-Brexit compromise.
What if the pro EU Renew party beats UKIP?
There was a photo of the Renew canvassing team in the Times yesterday
I must say if she canvassed me I might vote for them 😅
Even though British politics is in a mad flurry right now, the actual party effects will be mooted till Brexit sorts itself out one way or another. I think if it happens Lib Dems/ChangeTigger get a decent boost, if it doesn't then UKIP/SDP/Brexit party will probably be the beneficiaries.
Either way Con and Lab are ****** ?
Brexit happening with some sort of Customs abomination probably fucks both parties to a decent degree. If it doesn't go ahead at all then the Tories are screwed. The sheer act of Brexit happening with Labour's connivance no matter how soft it is is not great for them.
I'd just like to re-emphasise that those here who have dismissed the Mueller report as being significant may need to re-evaluate.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
Given Mueller himself hasn't contradicted Barr it seems that Barr has likely done enough to bury this.
Seems a lot like the Hutton Inquiry in that respect.
Doesn’t seem anything like it to me.
Whether there’s anything completely damning in Mueller’s report is a matter of conjecture, but Congress is not going to let go of it for the next couple of years, and they have subpoena powers.
Even though British politics is in a mad flurry right now, the actual party effects will be mooted till Brexit sorts itself out one way or another. I think if it happens Lib Dems/ChangeTigger get a decent boost, if it doesn't then UKIP/SDP/Brexit party will probably be the beneficiaries.
Either way Con and Lab are ****** ?
Brexit happening with some sort of Customs abomination probably fucks both parties to a decent degree. If it doesn't go ahead at all then the Tories are screwed. The sheer act of Brexit happening with Labour's connivance no matter how soft it is is not great for them.
I guess that given a Lab hold will be hearalded as a triumph even though looking pretty safe, the actual big moment would be if the recent meltdown of the Tories means they don't come second. Would be fun.
If UKIP came 2nd I suspect it would stiffen the resolve of the ERG and undermine May's attempts to find a soft-Brexit compromise.
What if the pro EU Renew party beats UKIP?
There was a photo of the Renew canvassing team in the Times yesterday
I must say if she canvassed me I might vote for them 😅
I'd just like to re-emphasise that those here who have dismissed the Mueller report as being significant may need to re-evaluate.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
Given Mueller himself hasn't contradicted Barr it seems that Barr has likely done enough to bury this.
Seems a lot like the Hutton Inquiry in that respect.
Mueller knows what he's doing, he'll STFU to keep his reputation as above politics then let the Dems drag the information out of him.
Even though British politics is in a mad flurry right now, the actual party effects will be mooted till Brexit sorts itself out one way or another. I think if it happens Lib Dems/ChangeTigger get a decent boost, if it doesn't then UKIP/SDP/Brexit party will probably be the beneficiaries.
Either way Con and Lab are ****** ?
Brexit happening with some sort of Customs abomination probably fucks both parties to a decent degree. If it doesn't go ahead at all then the Tories are screwed. The sheer act of Brexit happening with Labour's connivance no matter how soft it is is not great for them.
Well indeed, although small comfort to them I will respect them both more for compromising.
Surely no more than we would otherwise - Tessie's deal had us paying our full Budget contribution for the next two years, during the transition period, right?
Surely no more than we would otherwise - Tessie's deal had us paying our full Budget contribution for the next two years, during the transition period, right?
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
The UK had a veto on the Maastricht Treaty which started the Euro , instead it decided to get opt outs on that and Schengen .
The UKs choice and not the rubbish peddled by the right wing press that it was bullied . And the ECJ so maligned delivered one of the most important decisions in its history on Euro trading to the benefit of the UK .
The more people research the more they realize the UKs crap press has delivered a litany of lies on the EU which many gullible voters accepted as the truth .
Yes I'm a Conservative, I am not a Unionist. I've never made a secret of that and I wanted Yes to win in 2014 but the Scots were too frit to take the opportunity of independence, unlike the Welsh and English in 2016 which is why the SNP are so upset now.
I understand that I am not the same as other Conservatives who are Unionists but then I am a great believer in individualism and not collectivism which is what draws me to the Conservative way of thinking in the first place. So I see no reason why I have to bend to Collective thinking.
Being a Unionist is central to the belief system of the Conservatives, so much so they say what they are on the tin.
Surely the label "Conservative and Unionist Party" means the opposite? You can be a Conservative who's not a Unionist or a Unionist who's not a Conservative, but the Party is for those who are both.
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
I don't think I've ever had a ballot paper with the description 'Conservative and Unionist Party' on it.
Nor, for example, did the voters of Maidenhead in 2017:
And the Unionist bit refers to the union of Britain and Ireland and the Liberal Unionists of the 19th century so somewhat defunct now in any case.
I thought the Unionist bit referred to the Unionist Party that used to stand candidates as a separate party in Scotland, but were hurriedly merged with the English Conservative Party after the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland went rogue and became the Ulster Unionists, independent of their English Conservative Bretwalda.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
Surely no more than we would otherwise - Tessie's deal had us paying our full Budget contribution for the next two years, during the transition period, right?
You always have to read the small print with these people...
However a one year "flextension" does give Con the chance to push Theresa under the proverbial bus, get a new leader and have a general election which hopefully leads to a Parliament that can actually make a decision.
Probably better than any other option currently on the table...
I'd just like to re-emphasise that those here who have dismissed the Mueller report as being significant may need to re-evaluate.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
As I've backed Trump for the nomination and backed Dems generally for the Presidency, I've always hoped for a drip drip political effect but nothing to give Congress grounds for impeachment. The leftish media seem too busy trying to destroy Biden right now in the USA though rather than anything Trump related.
I suspect this drip-drip is worse for Trump than Mueller recommending action regarding obstruction.
I'd just like to re-emphasise that those here who have dismissed the Mueller report as being significant may need to re-evaluate.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
As I've backed Trump for the nomination and backed Dems generally for the Presidency, I've always hoped for a drip drip political effect but nothing to give Congress grounds for impeachment. The leftish media seem too busy trying to destroy Biden right now in the USA though rather than anything Trump related.
I suspect this drip-drip is worse for Trump than Mueller recommending action regarding obstruction.
Indeed, and Pelosi is no fool on how to play this.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
Comments
I was brought up in Cambridge and was taught British history 1066-1850 for mandatory O-Level.
My three kids were brought up in Edinburgh and were taught The Wars of (Scottish) Independence, the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion and WW2 (all in Junior school) then the Slave Trade and David Livingstone (not linked) (first year of senior school, none chose History as an exam subject). They have no understanding of a British identity, just a Scottish one, and throughout their learning there was a sense of the English as Other.
That results in some interesting family discussions with their cousins brought up in England.
And the argument about the word "ours" came in reply to my saying that "our" Parliament should decide international matters. That includes Scottish MPs who each should and do count every bit as much an English MP does since international matters are not devolved. Every single Scottish MP should be equally as important as every single single English, Welsh or NI MP.
Note she describes it as the “First Parliament” of Great Britain. I think it is reasonably clear from this that for the sake of getting the new body up and running the members of he old body were co-opted into the new one pending elections.
.....................................
Goodnight Newport West watchers and pretendy Conservatives alike .....
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
I must say if she canvassed me I might vote for them 😅
The Higher Education Bill was backed by 316 votes to 311 at Westminster.
Some 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government, even though the plans will not apply north of the border. '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3432767.stm
1 unit stake
Monbeg Notorious 67
Dounikos 34
Jury Duty 21
Rock The Kasbah 21
1/2 stake
Ramses De Teillee 26
Tea for Two 81
Using Bet365 offer which gives you £250 of bets for £125. <- The important bit
Obviously the best way of doing that would be getting the customs union properly negotiated with the EU before the withdrawal agreement; but, in the absence of that, the Tories will have to agree to tie their hands in domestic law instead, whether that's through a "devo lock" or something else.
Oh and I'll only ever write that I'm a capital-C Conservative. Lowercase I consider myself a classical liberal and prefer the name of Australia's centre-right party.
😇
One Parliament cannot bind another Parliament and no amount of constitutional jiggery pokery from May and her team can make it so...
Hillary shed fuck loads of percentage points whilst Trump only gained a point or two. It's those missing voters the Dem candidate needs.
Nor, for example, did the voters of Maidenhead in 2017:
https://www3.rbwm.gov.uk/info/200394/election_results/1271/general_election_results_2017
And the Unionist bit refers to the union of Britain and Ireland and the Liberal Unionists of the 19th century so somewhat defunct now in any case.
LAB 2nd CON 3rd
SDP to beat LD!
As for what the label means, one could argue its for 'Conservatives' and 'Unionists' but equally one could argue it is for 'Conservatives and Unionists' as a integral combination. But we all know parties are broad coalitions, too broad sometimes even. There are plenty of Tories who are republicans, or who don't care that much for the Union.
Once the NY Times and the cable news networks get over their embaressment at being trivially and easily fooled by Barr they might yet actually do some reporting.
It always looked unlikely...
22:33
Labour 'quietly confident'
David Deans
BBC Wales politics reporter
Labour sources say they are 'quietly confident' about tonight's result - but suggest it may be closer than in 2017.
They do not expect Ruth Jones to get the majority that Paul Flynn had, saying he had a "significant personal vote".
Mr Flynn had a majority of 3,510 in 2015, which rose to 5,658 in 2017.
The Saunders enthusiasts have certainly noticed him, and are directing some unpleasantries in his direction:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete?
4 hours from now "record majority for Labour candidate!"
We love hearing the news of a possible upset, but it rarely happens.
https://images.app.goo.gl/A7pEas1dTD44BXVF8
To be fair Labour from 2007 to 2010 DID play the expectation management game... Trouble is they always did WORSE than they're worst spin!
* the message being to build a tunnel. Or not. Either way, the message is clear and should be loudly heard for the next 32 seconds
Seems a lot like the Hutton Inquiry in that respect.
I think if it happens Lib Dems/ChangeTigger get a decent boost, if it doesn't then UKIP/SDP/Brexit party will probably be the beneficiaries.
The leftish media seem too busy trying to destroy Biden right now in the USA though rather than anything Trump related.
https://images.app.goo.gl/rPdNuuJ9QY3tZM5q7
Whether there’s anything completely damning in Mueller’s report is a matter of conjecture, but Congress is not going to let go of it for the next couple of years, and they have subpoena powers.
The UKs choice and not the rubbish peddled by the right wing press that it was bullied . And the ECJ so maligned delivered one of the most important decisions in its history on Euro trading to the benefit of the UK .
The more people research the more they realize the UKs crap press has delivered a litany of lies on the EU which many gullible voters accepted as the truth .
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
However a one year "flextension" does give Con the chance to push Theresa under the proverbial bus, get a new leader and have a general election which hopefully leads to a Parliament that can actually make a decision.
Probably better than any other option currently on the table...
For example an unfavourable trade treaty ?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.