On pretty much every measure Americans are batter off now than before Trump got elected (not necessarily because of anything he did). If he makes his campaign the same that Reagan he could win again.. (of course Reagan was using this as a criticism of the previous administration. ) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvFQLhqWPQ
Unless you're a woman who cares about reproductive health, an LGBT person who cares about equal protection, a latinx person who wants to feel welcome in their own country, a working person who wants to keep their healthcare, or so on and so on. The only Americans doing better are the already wealthy. The wealth is not trickling down, as the Russian prostitute said to the future POTUS.
And it’s the identity politics approach which will kill the Dems if they pursue it.
Judging people by the colour of their skin, their creed their gender or sexuality not by the content of their character in other words. Make people a victim not an American.
Latino and Hispanic voters for example are predominantly Catholic and on average less supportive of abortion and reproductive rights than most Americans - opposition to LGBT rights isn’t also the exclusive position of white evangelical voters. You can end up very conflicted if you try to square those circles!
When you argue in favour of the historically oppressed minorities it is identity politics. When you are (as Trump is) the pure Id of white resentment, please, can't we talk about the economy instead... The GOP platform is as much identity politics as anything the Dems talk about, it's just that it is an identity that is considered more "naturally" American; white.
Labour candidate for Nothumbria Police and Crime Commissioner by-election is Kim McGuinness, a cabinet member from Newcastle.
Ahead of PCCs 2020 elections....
Hampshire (Michael Lane), North Yorkshire (Jullia Mulligan) and Surrey (David Munro) PCCs have been basically deselected by Conservatives. All three lost the automatic re-selection and then decided not to contest the full selection.
Labour PCC for South Yorkshire (Alan Billings) also lost the trigger ballot for automatic reselection. I am not sure if he is contesting the open selection.
Labour PCCs for West Midlands (David Jamieson) and Leicestershire (Lord Willie Bach) will retire. Conservative PCCs for Wiltshire (Angus MacPerhson) and Norfolk (Lorne Green) will also retire.
The PCC for Merseyside (Jane Kennedy) will stand down and she left Labour along with Luciana Berger anyway.
Why is Johnson uniquely among the 10 routinely called by his given name? Is it meant to make him seem sort of cuddly and amusing compared to the other 9?
Interesting that Rory probably comes second on that criterion.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
By having the backstop in place then no deal cannot be used by either side as a threat in the negotiations over the future trade agreement. It's the future trade agreement which will be more difficult than the issues of legacy financial obligations and reciprocal citizen rights, so this is the lower risk point at which to deal with creating a guarantee on the Irish border.
No deal is already being used as a threat though. And making NI a colony isn't an acceptable price to make future negotiations easier.
If NI is subject to EU laws it must have all rights applicable to have representatives to shape those laws including veto powers where they exist. That is not unreasonable.
If NI has no representation and no veto powers then it must not be subject to the laws.
Self determination is not a principle lightly sacrificed.
Why is Johnson uniquely among the 10 routinely called by his given name? Is it meant to make him seem sort of cuddly and amusing compared to the other 9?
I think it all goes back to his mayor-of-London stint. Livingstone was already universally known as 'Ken', so 'Ken' vs 'Boris' had a certain symmetry to it.
Stewart is emerging as the backbench big beast who will be there waiting for the time when all turns to dust in the hands of the 'winner'. If there still is a party at that stage.
Well, apart from the fact that he is already in the cabinet.
For a few weeks so far and a few weeks more probably. He shouldn't survive the incoming PMs reshuffle.
I think that the success of his campaign is that it will be much more difficult for the incoming leader not to have him at the cabinet table bound by collective responsibility. Who would want a Tory Yvette Cooper on the back benchers when you have a minority government?
He's said he won't serve in a no-dealer's cabinet
“I’m very honoured to be in Government,” Mr Stewart admitted. “I love that job; it’s been one of the greatest privileges of my life, but I cannot continue to serve in the cabinet if I don’t agree with the policies I’m advocating for.
“I’d be happy to sacrifice my career in cabinet on a point of principle.”
Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :
2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent 3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent 4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent 5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent
Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :
6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits. 7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation 8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking 9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor
Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates
10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.
I was out for a dinner party last night.
The Conservatives will not pick Rory. However I hope there are enough MP's that support Stewart to give him a solid base for the future. If the Conservatives pick Boris and crash and burn then they'll need leaders such as Stewart to pick over the wreckage and move forward.
The question is whether he appeals to non Tories because they don’t think he’s a Tory, and are so picking the best of the worst, or whether he has the potential to pull votes into the Tory camp from centrist Labour supporters and Lib Dems.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily but if such voters would never vote Tory regardless then it’s just mood music.
I think Rory’s appeal is just the novelty of someone conducting politics in a different way, but for all his talk of compromise, he’s unwilling to change his positions because he’s absolutely sure that he is right.
Because on the big issues of the day he probably is.
He thinks that we can move on from Brexit with a deal, and said he would back No Deal over revocation if it came to that. He also said we’d “survive” because “trade isn’t vital to our economy”.
Given a choice between irreparable damage to the fabric of our democratic society and a temporary economic dislocation he is right
Can someone help me out with the exact current arithmetic in the House of Commons? By my reckoning it currently stands at this:
Government: 322
Conservatives 312 (but I've also seen 313 and 314). Does this include Nick Boles and Johnny Mercer? DUP 10
So a total of 322. But, as I say, I've seen 323 or 324 mentioned
Opposition: 317
Labour 244 SNP 35 Ind 11 LibDem 11 TIG / Ind 11 Plaid 4 Green 1
On Thursday 20th we will know about the Brecon & Radnorshire recall petition. If it's successful then the numbers would be:
321 v 317
If the LibDems or another opposition party then win the by-election it would be 321 v 318
These figures do not include 1 x Speaker, 3 x Deputy Speakers, 7 x Sinn Fein
This is seriously squeaky bum time for a new Gov't. If the Independents like Boles and Mercer vote against the Gov't it gets incredibly tight. It only takes a couple of the remainer Tories to decide they've had enough and the Government will fall.
Which is of course the no no deal insurance policy spoken about by the likes of eg. Amber Rudd.
He thinks that we can move on from Brexit with a deal, and said he would back No Deal over revocation if it came to that. He also said we’d “survive” because “trade isn’t vital to our economy”.
Given a choice between irreparable damage to the fabric of our democratic society and a temporary economic dislocation he is right
A no deal Brexit against the wishes of the people at the time it is being done would do irreparable damage to the fabric of our democratic society. It's not just a temporary economic dislocation.
So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorugue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart
It would be an interesting exercise to set out their positions if they were not leader. Rory Stewart, for example, says he would back no-deal over revocation, so if Boris Johnson provokes that choice, Stewart would be a no-dealer.
Does he? Though Hancock has said revoke would happen over No Deal so maybe he is the most pro Remain candidate now Gyimah has left as not 1 Leaver is backing Hancock
One thing I really don't understand is why Johnson chose to saddle himself with such a definite statement about leaving in October, given that it looks as though he's going to walk the contest anyway. Why didn't he wait and see whether it would be necessary, rather than tying his hands at the start?
Boris has made a career out of speaking first and thinking second, there's no chance of him changing his stripes.
and we still know that is who the Tory membership are going to foist on us as PM given the chance.
So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorugue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart
It would be an interesting exercise to set out their positions if they were not leader. Rory Stewart, for example, says he would back no-deal over revocation, so if Boris Johnson provokes that choice, Stewart would be a no-dealer.
Does he? Though Hancock has said revoke would happen over No Deal so maybe he is the most pro Remain candidate now Gyimah has left as not 1 Leaver is backing Hancock
Can someone help me out with the exact current arithmetic in the House of Commons? By my reckoning it currently stands at this:
Government: 322
Conservatives 312 (but I've also seen 313 and 314). Does this include Nick Boles and Johnny Mercer? DUP 10
So a total of 322. But, as I say, I've seen 323 or 324 mentioned
Opposition: 317
Labour 244 SNP 35 Ind 11 LibDem 11 TIG / Ind 11 Plaid 4 Green 1
On Thursday 20th we will know about the Brecon & Radnorshire recall petition. If it's successful then the numbers would be:
321 v 317
If the LibDems or another opposition party then win the by-election it would be 321 v 318
These figures do not include 1 x Speaker, 3 x Deputy Speakers, 7 x Sinn Fein
This is seriously squeaky bum time for a new Gov't. If the Independents like Boles and Mercer vote against the Gov't it gets incredibly tight. It only takes a couple of the remainer Tories to decide they've had enough and the Government will fall.
Really hate to say this, but TMay hanging onto the keys of no 10 in the face of historic defeats which under normal circumstances, would have caused a GE does not lead to any confidence that a VoNC would be regarded by the new PM as significant or important.
Why is Johnson uniquely among the 10 routinely called by his given name? Is it meant to make him seem sort of cuddly and amusing compared to the other 9?
That is an important aspect. It does give him an advantage.
I think it is mainly due to his larger than life persona, so to this extent you could say he has 'earned' it, however I think that the actual name "Boris" also has something to do with it. It's that sort of name.
Consider if it were Boris Harper and Mark Johnson. Would that (ceteris paribus) be presented as Harper vs Mark?
No, I think not. Or at least less likely.
"Rory" is also that sort of name and he too is accruing a benefit. Much ado about Rory, or about RORY Stewart, precious little about plain prosaic 'Stewart'.
Interestingly, his real name is not Rory, it is Roderick. If he had retained that, he would in all probability be known as Rod Stewart.
Group Two - In Order Of Least Worst For The Nation :
2. Jeremy Hunt - Dull, worthy and vaguely competent 3. Michael Gove - A complete sh*t but vaguely competent 4. Matt Hancock - Completely vague and vaguely competent 5. Sajid Javid - Not entirely vague and not entirely incompetent
Group Three - Ranking In Order Of Rank Incredulity Of Their Rankness :
6. Mark Harper - The cab rank awaits. 7. Andrea Leadsom - Ranks as a mother but no rebirth of the nation 8. Dominic Rabb - Requires proroguing to Dover for re-education and re-ranking 9. Ester McVey - A rank disaster but with added delusions as a Thatcher successor
Group Four - Special Grouping For MIA Candidates
10. Boris Johnson - The Donald Trump went To Eton candidate.
I was out for a dinner party last night.
The Conservatives will not pick Rory. However I hope there are enough MP's that support Stewart to give him a solid base for the future. If the Conservatives pick Boris and crash and burn then they'll need leaders such as Stewart to pick over the wreckage and move forward.
The question is whether he appeals to non Tories because they don’t think he’s a Tory, and are so picking the best of the worst, or whether he has the potential to pull votes into the Tory camp from centrist Labour supporters and Lib Dems.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily but if such voters would never vote Tory regardless then it’s just mood music.
I think Rory’s appeal is just the novelty of someone conducting politics in a different way, but for all his talk of compromise, he’s unwilling to change his positions because he’s absolutely sure that he is right.
Because on the big issues of the day he probably is.
He thinks that we can move on from Brexit with a deal, and said he would back No Deal over revocation if it came to that. He also said we’d “survive” because “trade isn’t vital to our economy”.
Given a choice between irreparable damage to the fabric of our democratic society and a temporary economic dislocation he is right
"irreparable damage to the fabric of our democratic society"!!!
Really hate to say this, but TMay hanging onto the keys of no 10 in the face of historic defeats which under normal circumstances, would have caused a GE does not lead to any confidence that a VoNC would be regarded by the new PM as significant or important.
The whole point is that a VoNC, and only a VoNC, now triggers the PM's replacement (or a GE). That is a matter of law.
So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorugue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart
It would be an interesting exercise to set out their positions if they were not leader. Rory Stewart, for example, says he would back no-deal over revocation, so if Boris Johnson provokes that choice, Stewart would be a no-dealer.
Does he? Though Hancock has said revoke would happen over No Deal so maybe he is the most pro Remain candidate now Gyimah has left as not 1 Leaver is backing Hancock
So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorugue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart
It would be an interesting exercise to set out their positions if they were not leader. Rory Stewart, for example, says he would back no-deal over revocation, so if Boris Johnson provokes that choice, Stewart would be a no-dealer.
Does he? Though Hancock has said revoke would happen over No Deal so maybe he is the most pro Remain candidate now Gyimah has left as not 1 Leaver is backing Hancock
So after Harper and Leadsom's campaign launches this morning we now know the Brexit positions of all the candidates.
Leave the EU in October with No Deal if necessary and prorugue Parliament to ensure that - McVey, Raab
Leave the EU in October Deal or No Deal - Boris, Leadsom, Javid
Extend Article 50 beyond October if necessary - Hunt, Gove, Harper
Only Leave the EU with a Deal passed by Parliament - Hancock, Stewart
It would be an interesting exercise to set out their positions if they were not leader. Rory Stewart, for example, says he would back no-deal over revocation, so if Boris Johnson provokes that choice, Stewart would be a no-dealer.
Does he? Though Hancock has said revoke would happen over No Deal so maybe he is the most pro Remain candidate now Gyimah has left as not 1 Leaver is backing Hancock
Ah. So Rory Stewart "backing no-deal over revocation" was in the context of our asking for an extension and being refused one.
Yes, which is why I said it could come about if there were a leader like Boris Johnson intentionally provoking that choice, or any leader ruling out asking for an extension for that matter.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
And, it transpires, a guarantee not to act like a wazzock is unacceptable on principle to some on the Leave side.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
By having the backstop in place then no deal cannot be used by either side as a threat in the negotiations over the future trade agreement. It's the future trade agreement which will be more difficult than the issues of legacy financial obligations and reciprocal citizen rights, so this is the lower risk point at which to deal with creating a guarantee on the Irish border.
No deal is already being used as a threat though. And making NI a colony isn't an acceptable price to make future negotiations easier.
If NI is subject to EU laws it must have all rights applicable to have representatives to shape those laws including veto powers where they exist. That is not unreasonable.
If NI has no representation and no veto powers then it must not be subject to the laws.
Self determination is not a principle lightly sacrificed.
Why not make NI part of the EU ? It will solve many a problem. New GE , the DUP loses its blackmailing numbers. What's not to like ?
If the Lib Dems were to win Brecon and Radnor, the forces in a VONC would be 319 for the Gov't benches and 316 against. That is if Corbyn can rally all opposition to his banner. There are plenty of independents who in practice might not.
The backstop is a mutual guarantee, from both sides, that neither will act like wazzocks over the difficult issue of the Irish border as a negotiating tactic for the future relationship.
There is no deal without it.
Leaving the EU without a deal qualifies as "acting like a wazzock" over the Irish border issue.
Except they are acting like wazzocks by insisting upon it though.
So you expect the EU to allow us to alter or remove literally any product standards and regulations, and then export those goods to their consumers across an open border with zero checks?
No. Under the terms of the transition we would not be allowed to alter or remove any product standards and regulations whatsoever.
For the transition (yes) or under the backstop (no)?
For the transition. There is no reason we couldn't kick the can of what happens afterwards to the future negotiations where it belongs and be in the transition already. If we reach a deal during transition then great the backstop is moot. If we don't, we either agree to extend transition until one is agreed, or go to no deal if we can't (which is no different to doing so now). But either way the EU's integrity is maintained and so is ours. The backstop is not needed either way.
How is no deal now because of insistence on the backstop better than no deal after a transition period?
By having the backstop in place then no deal cannot be used by either side as a threat in the negotiations over the future trade agreement. It's the future trade agreement which will be more difficult than the issues of legacy financial obligations and reciprocal citizen rights, so this is the lower risk point at which to deal with creating a guarantee on the Irish border.
No deal is already being used as a threat though. And making NI a colony isn't an acceptable price to make future negotiations easier.
If NI is subject to EU laws it must have all rights applicable to have representatives to shape those laws including veto powers where they exist. That is not unreasonable.
If NI has no representation and no veto powers then it must not be subject to the laws.
Self determination is not a principle lightly sacrificed.
Why not make NI part of the EU ? It will solve many a problem. New GE , the DUP loses its blackmailing numbers. What's not to like ?
If the population of NI votes for that then fine. Self determination.
Hmm, spectacularly dishonest headline there. What the article actually says is:
Michael Younghusband was banned from the profession in July 2014 after being convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to supply. The geography and maths teacher was jailed after being caught out carrying a £30,000 cocaine deal.
The panel stated this was a “fundamental breach of the high standards of personal and professional conduct” required by the teaching standards. The report added: “Teachers have to conduct themselves as role models to both pupils and the general public.”
The other three teachers banned for being caught with cocaine also had other offences on their records. Two more cases involved teachers being caught with drugs other than cocaine, with another two relating to production of drugs.
Another teacher, Tamsin Connolly, was spared a teaching ban in November 2013 for using class A and B drugs because she was of good character, and had showed regret and insight into the matter.
The last of those if is the nearest to Gove's case, except that in his case it was a long time ago.
Which leaves 315 for the opposition if they were to fully unite.
So 3 switchers from the Tories would sink the Gov't in a VONC potentially.
Which means either a Corbyn Government if the SNP, LDs, Greens, Plaid, CUK and Independent Chukas agree to prop up Corbyn to in return for EUref2 (and the DUP abstain) or a general election. Though of course Labour MPs from Leave seats like Nandy, Snell and Flint would vote down EUref2
Can someone help me out with the exact current arithmetic in the House of Commons? By my reckoning it currently stands at this:
Government: 322
Conservatives 312 (but I've also seen 313 and 314). Does this include Nick Boles and Johnny Mercer? DUP 10
So a total of 322. But, as I say, I've seen 323 or 324 mentioned
Opposition: 317
Labour 244 SNP 35 Ind 11 LibDem 11 TIG / Ind 11 Plaid 4 Green 1
On Thursday 20th we will know about the Brecon & Radnorshire recall petition. If it's successful then the numbers would be:
321 v 317
If the LibDems or another opposition party then win the by-election it would be 321 v 318
These figures do not include 1 x Speaker, 3 x Deputy Speakers, 7 x Sinn Fein
This is seriously squeaky bum time for a new Gov't. If the Independents like Boles and Mercer vote against the Gov't it gets incredibly tight. It only takes a couple of the remainer Tories to decide they've had enough and the Government will fall.
Really hate to say this, but TMay hanging onto the keys of no 10 in the face of historic defeats which under normal circumstances, would have caused a GE does not lead to any confidence that a VoNC would be regarded by the new PM as significant or important.
The Tories won 318 seat in 2017 - if Bercow is included. Remove him and Deputy Speaker Eleanor Laing gives 316. Four Tories have resigned the Whip so taking their current total to 312. Laboue had 262 in 2017. Remove two Deputy Speakers lowers that to 260. Eight have defected to Tig gives 252. Others have resigned Whip or had it removed - O'Mara , Field, Hopkins,Dudley MP , Williamson, Lewis, Woodcock. That would leave 245 - though I may have missed someone!
Hmm, spectacularly dishonest headline there. What the article actually says is:
Michael Younghusband was banned from the profession in July 2014 after being convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to supply. The geography and maths teacher was jailed after being caught out carrying a £30,000 cocaine deal.
The panel stated this was a “fundamental breach of the high standards of personal and professional conduct” required by the teaching standards. The report added: “Teachers have to conduct themselves as role models to both pupils and the general public.”
The other three teachers banned for being caught with cocaine also had other offences on their records. Two more cases involved teachers being caught with drugs other than cocaine, with another two relating to production of drugs.
Another teacher, Tamsin Connolly, was spared a teaching ban in November 2013 for using class A and B drugs because she was of good character, and had showed regret and insight into the matter.
The last of those if is the nearest to Gove's case, except that in his case it was a long time ago.
Yet he has admitted the same crime - nice to see confirmation of his hypocrisy..
Very unfair. I'm sure there are ex foreign secretaries and possibly PMs who would have been prevented from traveling to the States if only they had been caught.
Had you asked me at any other time, should Parliament be prorogued - I would have been steadfastly against. However, having watched the Speaker (of all people) conspiring with MPs to overturn conventions, I don't see why we now shouldn't overturn conventions.
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
They never said there would be a blockade. However, they can and probably will check 100% of food imports into the EU from the UK as technically after Brexit we are not subject to EU food standards even if we adopt them. In reality, it will not a 100% check I am sure in the beginning.
Eek said there would be which is what I was replying to. Checking products is different to no planes flying, no food imports and no exports allowed don't you think?
No planes flying because we don't have the paperwork for planes to fly. No exports as lorries are being checked blocking the ferries No imports as the lorries being checked are blocking the roads...
You think a few checks will mean."no exports allowed"? Or "no food to be imported"?
Given what the Tories are doing to the likes of Dominic Grieve, David Gauke and even Sam Gyimah I'm beginning to agree that we are heading for a General Election.
I wonder if there's a market for the shortest ever PM? George Canning I believe currently holds that honour: April to August 1827
Would be spectacular if Boris took the crown and lost his seat in the process.
When you argue in favour of the historically oppressed minorities it is identity politics. When you are (as Trump is) the pure Id of white resentment, please, can't we talk about the economy instead... The GOP platform is as much identity politics as anything the Dems talk about, it's just that it is an identity that is considered more "naturally" American; white.
Hmm, spectacularly dishonest headline there. What the article actually says is:
Michael Younghusband was banned from the profession in July 2014 after being convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to supply. The geography and maths teacher was jailed after being caught out carrying a £30,000 cocaine deal.
The panel stated this was a “fundamental breach of the high standards of personal and professional conduct” required by the teaching standards. The report added: “Teachers have to conduct themselves as role models to both pupils and the general public.”
The other three teachers banned for being caught with cocaine also had other offences on their records. Two more cases involved teachers being caught with drugs other than cocaine, with another two relating to production of drugs.
Another teacher, Tamsin Connolly, was spared a teaching ban in November 2013 for using class A and B drugs because she was of good character, and had showed regret and insight into the matter.
The last of those if is the nearest to Gove's case, except that in his case it was a long time ago.
It's not hard to look to see where Trump gets his lines about the dishonest media from. Also I note that precisely zero effort has been expended by journalists (Save a couple) at explaining Harper's policy whereas plenty are there to tweet about his Bear vs Lion question.
Self determination is not a principle lightly sacrificed.
You want to sacrifice it by taking Northern Ireland out of the EU against their will.
Not true. We are taking the United Kingdom out which is the will of the United Kingdom. If NI wants to leave the United Kingdom and stay in the EU they could but they don't want to.
I am very surprised to see some of the supposedly decent Tories backing Johnson - particularly the likes of Buckland and Chloe Smith. They appear to be such an amoral bunch that many would vote for Reinhard Heydrich if they thought he might save their seats.
Being personally moral does not mean you win an election, ask May and Brown
So they would find Reinhard Heydrich acceptable provided he would win an election!
It’s a very big leap for a Tory MP to vote down their own government . Regardless of what they say now they’d rather do anything else to avoid no deal .
Much depends on external forces . What’s happening to the pound, have some large manufacturers come out and said they’ll leave in the event of no deal .
If there’s a sense of panic and some chaos politically it gives more cover , it also puts pressure on the PM to pull back .
Rory Stewart also goes down well with some Labour friends .
I wouldn’t ever vote Tory and they wouldn’t but he does get some grudging respect and is seen as sane and quite sensible . He also has a very interesting life story and many have been following him on social media .
The thing I like about him is he’s actually putting himself out there and taking a big risk with his campaign . He may well be another who gets removed by the no deal death cult .
And the first paragraph is why Stewart could be a disaster as Leader.
Yes he appeals to non Tories who wouldn't vote Tory. But then if they don't vote Tory still it achieves nothing.
In normal times winning the swing voters would be enough to win the election. But these aren't normal times. Rory is worse than May on Brexit and would fail to deliver, I'm not even sure he wants to deliver. That will drive away more Tories than he attracts.
Stewart runs the risk of completely schisming the party and seeing a Canada 1993 style wipeout.
It wasn't May who failed to deliver Brexit you wazzock, it was the ERG and your mate Mark Francois.
No it was May. She was never a Brexiteer in the first place and then had almost every Brexiteer saying clear as day that the backstop was utterly unacceptable but she continued with it anyway.
Because the EU, protecting their loyal member state, Ireland, insisted on it. The ERG may be prepared to throw people under buses, but the EC seems to be made of better stuff. Remember, too, Ireland has a long-standing gripe agains the English (mean that) Government.
Indeed they insisted on it. Which means we need to decide between surrender or no deal. I say no surrender.
Which means No Deal....
What happens when we encounter a problem and need the EU to agree to something?
We either find an agreeable compromise or we don't agree.
So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......
Just to understand, do you think that would be a hostile series of actions for the EU to take?
Had you asked me at any other time, should Parliament be prorogued - I would have been steadfastly against. However, having watched the Speaker (of all people) conspiring with MPs to overturn conventions, I don't see why we now shouldn't overturn conventions.
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Are you aware of how comical your words sound to anyone sane? The avatar of Enoch Powell and handle "Viceroy of Orange" just add to the ridiculous effect.
Given what the Tories are doing to the likes of Dominic Grieve, David Gauke and even Sam Gyimah I'm beginning to agree that we are heading for a General Election.
I wonder if there's a market for the shortest ever PM? George Canning I believe currently holds that honour: April to August 1827
Would be spectacular if Boris took the crown and lost his seat in the process.
About the only thing that would make me vote Labour would be living in Uxbridge.
Has Maria Miller inadvertently committed some news?
What did she say?
She was on R4 this morning talking about NDAs, and when asked about Raab’s use of one asserted that the claim against him in the employment tribunal case had been ‘vexatious’.
Which rather blunted her otherwise sensible comments on the misuse of NDAs. And raised the question of what basis she had for that assertion.
This was the agreement (which came to light when Raab sued the Mail on Sunday)
The documents said both Raab and Davis entered into a "compromise agreement" with a woman who also worked in Davis’s office.
The agreement brought to an end both the woman’s employment with Davis, and a claim she had made at an employment tribunal, according to a letter from Raab’s solicitor that is quoted in the court documents.
In 2011, Raab’s solicitor wrote to the woman warning that if she breached the terms of the agreement she would “be required to repay the sum [she was] paid in consideration for the confidentiality obligations”. She made clear she had no intention of breaching the agreement.
In 2012, Raab won an apology from the Mail on Sunday after it published “unfounded” allegations about his behaviour....
I don’t know anything about the Raab case
But a “compromise agreement” is utterly different from an NDA designed to gag and offence. It’s commonly used in redundancy situations - essentially an agreement to pay above the statutory minimum. In return the employee agrees not to badmouth the employer, keep the terms of the agreement confidential etc
And vice versa. Calling the original case vexatious would appear to breach that.
Miller referred to the Raab case in the context of a wider discussion about NDAs, and the implication (like you and everyone else not involved, I don’t know the details either) was that an NDA was in place.
I’m well aware of what a compromise agreement is, and it is not unusual that it be accompanied by an NDA.
Miller wouldn’t be party to the NDA though - and vexatious is a term of art
Why is Johnson uniquely among the 10 routinely called by his given name? Is it meant to make him seem sort of cuddly and amusing compared to the other 9?
It’s like the Jezza thing. In each case it’s designed to make each of them look less of a ****. Middle class men here going on about Jezza and Bozza are ***** of the first order.
Note: they are using the updated version of trigger ballot. Sitting AMs are triggered (aka full open selection contest) if either 1/3 of the party branches or 1/3 of the affiliates branches vote to trigger the ballot. Previously, just like MPs, party branches (in this case CLPs; in MPs case wards) and affiliates branches were considered together. And to be triggered it was required to lose the vote in 50% of them. Given affiliates (mainly unions) often vote for reselection of everyone, it was difficult to deselect sitting members, also because affiliates usually outnumber party branches.
Back to London... 3 constituency AMs are retiring: Andrew Dismore (Barnet and Camden), Navin Shah (Brent and Harrow) and Janette Arnold (North East)
The "trigger ballot" situation for CLPs section (let's assume none of them will have troubles with affiliates) is as follows:
City and East (Unmesh Desai): he won in Bethnall Green & Bow, Poplar & Limehouse, Dagenham & Rainham, Barking, Cities of London. West Ham and East still to come. So he is 5/7. Already above the 2/3 threshold required regardless of the outcome of Newham CLPs
Ealing and Hillingdon (Onkar Sahota): he won Eailing Southall and Ruislip & North Pinner . Lost in Ealing Central. Ealing North, Hayes & Harlington and Uxbridge/South Ruislip etc still to vote. He needs to win all of them
Enfield and Haringey (Joanne McCartney): she won in Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield Southgate. Enfiled North and Horney/Wood Green still to come. Winning in 1 of them is enough.
Greenwich and Lewisham (Len Duvall). CLPs part finished. He won in Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Greenwich/Woolwich, Eltham and Erith. He lost in Lewisham Deptford. So 5/6. Save.
Lambeth and Southwark (Florence Eshalomi): she won in Vauxhall and lost in Streatham. Dulwich/West Norwood, Camberwell/Peckham and Bermondsey/Old Southwark still to come. She needs to win all of them.
Merton and Wandsworth (Leonie Cooper): she won Putney and Mitcham & Morden. Wimbledon, Tooting and Battersea left. She can afford to lose one of them.
Had you asked me at any other time, should Parliament be prorogued - I would have been steadfastly against. However, having watched the Speaker (of all people) conspiring with MPs to overturn conventions, I don't see why we now shouldn't overturn conventions.
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Are you aware of how comical your words sound to anyone sane? The avatar of Enoch Powell and handle "Viceroy of Orange" just add to the ridiculous effect.
I couldn't care less. You can stamp your feet all you want, the referendum happened and the genie is out of the bottle. We're not going away.
No deal is already being used as a threat though. And making NI a colony isn't an acceptable price to make future negotiations easier.
If NI is subject to EU laws it must have all rights applicable to have representatives to shape those laws including veto powers where they exist. That is not unreasonable.
If NI has no representation and no veto powers then it must not be subject to the laws.
Self determination is not a principle lightly sacrificed.
Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. A special status for NI would be one way ahead, considered simultaneously a member of the EU (as part of Ireland) and so with MEPs, etc, and still part of the UK. There is a lot to negotiate there, but you could come up with something that preserves NI democracy and puts them into a good economic position (instead of the particular disaster that no deal will be for NI).
The backstop is a reasonably good starting point for that negotiation, but the representative parts are missing because of the "precious Union" rhetoric, which meant that the UK government went for something less ambitious and UK-wide rather than NI-specific.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to enter into a no-change transition period and negotiate such a special status for NI, with the backstop representing the foundation of this future special status.
However, with Leavers intent on trashing any agreement with the EU it's very hard to see how any such negotiation can work. If any agreement with the EU is betrayal then I might as well be called a traitor for Remaining altogether.
It would be difficult to characterise imposition of tariffs on goods entering the EU as a "blockade". The essence of a blockade is that it stops goods coming in and going out. The EU is not proposing to prevent goods from entering the UK nor goods from leaving the UK. It is proposing to enforce criteria for entering the EU (and leaving the EU?) which it is entitled to do.
I think I have spoken to you about similar subjects before. The GFA granted limited power (jurisdiction? Wrong word?) to the Dublin Government over NI. Whilst the UK and IRE were both in the EU this did not pose a problem but now we are leaving it does. It is made especially more difficult by the Dublin Government and the EU acting in lockstep, but that is the landscape. To expect the EU or Dublin to act differently due to the threat of military action is implausible, as military action is not a cure to the problem whilst the Dublin Government exists. My plan (rip up the GFA, build a wall, deal with the repercussions) is dangerous and inadvisable but would at least cure the problem because it is within our power and jurisdiction. Your plan would not.
Read the quoted replies. I wasnt speaking about tariffs. If the EU wants to apply tariffs that is their right. What I replied to and called a virtual declaration of war was a blockade.
"So you are happy for no planes to fly, no food to be imported, no exports allowed......"
That is war.
No planes to fly, because there is nowhere for them to legally land or to be serviced, no recognition of pilots qualifications or of aircraft's permits to fly, or assigned landing slots.
No food to be imported, because the ports are blocked with sanitary and phytosanitary checks being carried out (even if our Government abandons them, abdicating one of the core responsibilities over its borders, the EU would quite rightly carry them out - after all, with no recognised veterinary checks done on our food exports (as we do not have any deals recognising each others standards), God only knows what we could be sending out. Any chancer in the country could try their hand. No exports allowed because they ain't buying from us - China or any other third party country could easily try to flood their market with whatever they want to bypass all regulatory standards and tariffs and they can't trust us to prevent that (especially not with all the noising off about getting around delays by abandoning any checks or tariffs).
So - do you advocate bombing Paris until they allow us slots at Charles de Gaulle airport and taking our pilots and aircraft just on trust? Naval bombardment of Antwerp until they agree not to check anything we send them? Nuclear missile launch against Berlin to be threatened until they agree to buy our stuff sight unseen?
Had you asked me at any other time, should Parliament be prorogued - I would have been steadfastly against. However, having watched the Speaker (of all people) conspiring with MPs to overturn conventions, I don't see why we now shouldn't overturn conventions.
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Are you aware of how comical your words sound to anyone sane? The avatar of Enoch Powell and handle "Viceroy of Orange" just add to the ridiculous effect.
I couldn't care less. You can stamp your feet all you want, the referendum happened and the genie is out of the bottle. We're not going away.
Who the **ck are we, the royal we? Some secret army or is it just you and Philip Thompson acting together?
Note: they are using the updated version of trigger ballot. Sitting AMs are triggered (aka full open selection contest) if either 1/3 of the party branches or 1/3 of the affiliates branches vote to trigger the ballot. Previously, just like MPs, party branches (in this case CLPs; in MPs case wards) and affiliates branches were considered together. And to be triggered it was required to lose the vote in 50% of them. Given affiliates (mainly unions) often vote for reselection of everyone, it was difficult to deselect sitting members, also because affiliates usually outnumber party branches.
Back to London... 3 constituency AMs are retiring: Andrew Dismore (Barnet and Camden), Navin Shah (Brent and Harrow) and Janette Arnold (North East)
The "trigger ballot" situation for CLPs section (let's assume none of them will have troubles with affiliates) is as follows:
City and East (Unmesh Desai): he won in Bethnall Green & Bow, Poplar & Limehouse, Dagenham & Rainham, Barking, Cities of London. West Ham and East still to come. So he is 5/7. Already above the 2/3 threshold required regardless of the outcome of Newham CLPs
Ealing and Hillingdon (Onkar Sahota): he won Eailing Southall and Ruislip & North Pinner . Lost in Ealing Central. Ealing North, Hayes & Harlington and Uxbridge/South Ruislip etc still to vote. He needs to win all of them
Enfield and Haringey (Joanne McCartney): she won in Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield Southgate. Enfiled North and Horney/Wood Green still to come. Winning in 1 of them is enough.
Greenwich and Lewisham (Len Duvall). CLPs part finished. He won in Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Greenwich/Woolwich, Eltham and Erith. He lost in Lewisham Deptford. So 5/6. Save.
Lambeth and Southwark (Florence Eshalomi): she won in Vauxhall and lost in Streatham. Dulwich/West Norwood, Camberwell/Peckham and Bermondsey/Old Southwark still to come. She needs to win all of them.
Merton and Wandsworth (Leonie Cooper): she won Putney and Mitcham & Morden. Wimbledon, Tooting and Battersea left. She can afford to lose one of them.
Can’t see Labour wanting to lose both their black female Assembly members in one go - one retiring one deselected?
What about the ones on the regional list - is Nicky Gavron for example retiring?
Had you asked me at any other time, should Parliament be prorogued - I would have been steadfastly against. However, having watched the Speaker (of all people) conspiring with MPs to overturn conventions, I don't see why we now shouldn't overturn conventions.
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Are you aware of how comical your words sound to anyone sane? The avatar of Enoch Powell and handle "Viceroy of Orange" just add to the ridiculous effect.
I couldn't care less. You can stamp your feet all you want, the referendum happened and the genie is out of the bottle. We're not going away.
Who the **ck are we, the royal we? Some secret army or is it just you and Philip Thompson acting together?
Had you asked me at any other time, should Parliament be prorogued - I would have been steadfastly against. However, having watched the Speaker (of all people) conspiring with MPs to overturn conventions, I don't see why we now shouldn't overturn conventions.
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Are you aware of how comical your words sound to anyone sane? The avatar of Enoch Powell and handle "Viceroy of Orange" just add to the ridiculous effect.
I couldn't care less. You can stamp your feet all you want, the referendum happened and the genie is out of the bottle. We're not going away.
Who the **ck are we, the royal we? Some secret army or is it just you and Philip Thompson acting together?
Had you asked me at any other time, should Parliament be prorogued - I would have been steadfastly against. However, having watched the Speaker (of all people) conspiring with MPs to overturn conventions, I don't see why we now shouldn't overturn conventions.
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Are you aware of how comical your words sound to anyone sane? The avatar of Enoch Powell and handle "Viceroy of Orange" just add to the ridiculous effect.
I couldn't care less. You can stamp your feet all you want, the referendum happened and the genie is out of the bottle. We're not going away.
Who the **ck are we, the royal we? Some secret army or is it just you and Philip Thompson acting together?
The 52% who won the referendum. Wakey wakey.
I'm pretty sure they were a large set (over 17million, iirc) of individuals instead of a collective. Hence the dubiousness of the royal "we".
Comments
On pretty much every measure Americans are batter off now than before Trump got elected (not necessarily because of anything he did). If he makes his campaign the same that Reagan he could win again.. (of course Reagan was using this as a criticism of the previous administration. )
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvFQLhqWPQ
Unless you're a woman who cares about reproductive health, an LGBT person who cares about equal protection, a latinx person who wants to feel welcome in their own country, a working person who wants to keep their healthcare, or so on and so on. The only Americans doing better are the already wealthy. The wealth is not trickling down, as the Russian prostitute said to the future POTUS.
And it’s the identity politics approach which will kill the Dems if they pursue it.
Judging people by the colour of their skin, their creed their gender or sexuality not by the content of their character in other words. Make people a victim not an American.
Latino and Hispanic voters for example are predominantly Catholic and on average less supportive of abortion and reproductive rights than most Americans - opposition to LGBT rights isn’t also the exclusive position of white evangelical voters. You can end up very conflicted if you try to square those circles!
When you argue in favour of the historically oppressed minorities it is identity politics. When you are (as Trump is) the pure Id of white resentment, please, can't we talk about the economy instead... The GOP platform is as much identity politics as anything the Dems talk about, it's just that it is an identity that is considered more "naturally" American; white.
Ahead of PCCs 2020 elections....
Hampshire (Michael Lane), North Yorkshire (Jullia Mulligan) and Surrey (David Munro) PCCs have been basically deselected by Conservatives. All three lost the automatic re-selection and then decided not to contest the full selection.
Labour PCC for South Yorkshire (Alan Billings) also lost the trigger ballot for automatic reselection. I am not sure if he is contesting the open selection.
Labour PCCs for West Midlands (David Jamieson) and Leicestershire (Lord Willie Bach) will retire.
Conservative PCCs for Wiltshire (Angus MacPerhson) and Norfolk (Lorne Green) will also retire.
The PCC for Merseyside (Jane Kennedy) will stand down and she left Labour along with Luciana Berger anyway.
Go and get some fresh air or something.
If NI is subject to EU laws it must have all rights applicable to have representatives to shape those laws including veto powers where they exist. That is not unreasonable.
If NI has no representation and no veto powers then it must not be subject to the laws.
Self determination is not a principle lightly sacrificed.
“I’m very honoured to be in Government,” Mr Stewart admitted. “I love that job; it’s been one of the greatest privileges of my life, but I cannot continue to serve in the cabinet if I don’t agree with the policies I’m advocating for.
“I’d be happy to sacrifice my career in cabinet on a point of principle.”
https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/17691115.rory-stewart-mp-says-he-would-sacrifice-cabinet-career-to-protect-cumbria-in-a-boris-johnson-government/
I think it is mainly due to his larger than life persona, so to this extent you could say he has 'earned' it, however I think that the actual name "Boris" also has something to do with it. It's that sort of name.
Consider if it were Boris Harper and Mark Johnson. Would that (ceteris paribus) be presented as Harper vs Mark?
No, I think not. Or at least less likely.
"Rory" is also that sort of name and he too is accruing a benefit. Much ado about Rory, or about RORY Stewart, precious little about plain prosaic 'Stewart'.
Interestingly, his real name is not Rory, it is Roderick. If he had retained that, he would in all probability be known as Rod Stewart.
So perhaps he missed a trick there.
Slight hyperbole methinks....
It's called realism.
650 - 4 speakers - 4 tellers - 7 Sinn Fein = 635 Max Votes
Gov't forces united (Confidence motion only)
313 Tories - Eleanor Laing - Two tellers (Wendy Morton/Craig Whittaker) + DUP (10)
= 320
Which leaves 315 for the opposition if they were to fully unite.
So 3 switchers from the Tories would sink the Gov't in a VONC potentially.
Michael Younghusband was banned from the profession in July 2014 after being convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to supply. The geography and maths teacher was jailed after being caught out carrying a £30,000 cocaine deal.
The panel stated this was a “fundamental breach of the high standards of personal and professional conduct” required by the teaching standards. The report added: “Teachers have to conduct themselves as role models to both pupils and the general public.”
The other three teachers banned for being caught with cocaine also had other offences on their records. Two more cases involved teachers being caught with drugs other than cocaine, with another two relating to production of drugs.
Another teacher, Tamsin Connolly, was spared a teaching ban in November 2013 for using class A and B drugs because she was of good character, and had showed regret and insight into the matter.
The last of those if is the nearest to Gove's case, except that in his case it was a long time ago.
Laboue had 262 in 2017. Remove two Deputy Speakers lowers that to 260. Eight have defected to Tig gives 252. Others have resigned Whip or had it removed - O'Mara , Field, Hopkins,Dudley MP , Williamson, Lewis, Woodcock. That would leave 245 - though I may have missed someone!
We did warn you at the time, that if you thought bending rules was perfectly acceptable then we in turn also would. With a Leaver in the executive, that time is fast approaching.
Don't be absurd.
I wonder if there's a market for the shortest ever PM? George Canning I believe currently holds that honour: April to August 1827
Would be spectacular if Boris took the crown and lost his seat in the process.
NEW THREAD
Much depends on external forces . What’s happening to the pound, have some large manufacturers come out and said they’ll leave in the event of no deal .
If there’s a sense of panic and some chaos politically it gives more cover , it also puts pressure on the PM to pull back .
Note: they are using the updated version of trigger ballot. Sitting AMs are triggered (aka full open selection contest) if either 1/3 of the party branches or 1/3 of the affiliates branches vote to trigger the ballot.
Previously, just like MPs, party branches (in this case CLPs; in MPs case wards) and affiliates branches were considered together. And to be triggered it was required to lose the vote in 50% of them. Given affiliates (mainly unions) often vote for reselection of everyone, it was difficult to deselect sitting members, also because affiliates usually outnumber party branches.
Back to London...
3 constituency AMs are retiring: Andrew Dismore (Barnet and Camden), Navin Shah (Brent and Harrow) and Janette Arnold (North East)
The "trigger ballot" situation for CLPs section (let's assume none of them will have troubles with affiliates) is as follows:
City and East (Unmesh Desai): he won in Bethnall Green & Bow, Poplar & Limehouse, Dagenham & Rainham, Barking, Cities of London. West Ham and East still to come. So he is 5/7. Already above the 2/3 threshold required regardless of the outcome of Newham CLPs
Ealing and Hillingdon (Onkar Sahota): he won Eailing Southall and Ruislip & North Pinner . Lost in Ealing Central. Ealing North, Hayes & Harlington and Uxbridge/South Ruislip etc still to vote. He needs to win all of them
Enfield and Haringey (Joanne McCartney): she won in Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield Southgate. Enfiled North and Horney/Wood Green still to come. Winning in 1 of them is enough.
Greenwich and Lewisham (Len Duvall). CLPs part finished. He won in Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Greenwich/Woolwich, Eltham and Erith. He lost in Lewisham Deptford. So 5/6. Save.
Lambeth and Southwark (Florence Eshalomi): she won in Vauxhall and lost in Streatham. Dulwich/West Norwood, Camberwell/Peckham and Bermondsey/Old Southwark still to come. She needs to win all of them.
Merton and Wandsworth (Leonie Cooper): she won Putney and Mitcham & Morden. Wimbledon, Tooting and Battersea left. She can afford to lose one of them.
The backstop is a reasonably good starting point for that negotiation, but the representative parts are missing because of the "precious Union" rhetoric, which meant that the UK government went for something less ambitious and UK-wide rather than NI-specific.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to enter into a no-change transition period and negotiate such a special status for NI, with the backstop representing the foundation of this future special status.
However, with Leavers intent on trashing any agreement with the EU it's very hard to see how any such negotiation can work. If any agreement with the EU is betrayal then I might as well be called a traitor for Remaining altogether.
No food to be imported, because the ports are blocked with sanitary and phytosanitary checks being carried out (even if our Government abandons them, abdicating one of the core responsibilities over its borders, the EU would quite rightly carry them out - after all, with no recognised veterinary checks done on our food exports (as we do not have any deals recognising each others standards), God only knows what we could be sending out. Any chancer in the country could try their hand. No exports allowed because they ain't buying from us - China or any other third party country could easily try to flood their market with whatever they want to bypass all regulatory standards and tariffs and they can't trust us to prevent that (especially not with all the noising off about getting around delays by abandoning any checks or tariffs).
So - do you advocate bombing Paris until they allow us slots at Charles de Gaulle airport and taking our pilots and aircraft just on trust? Naval bombardment of Antwerp until they agree not to check anything we send them? Nuclear missile launch against Berlin to be threatened until they agree to buy our stuff sight unseen?
What about the ones on the regional list - is Nicky Gavron for example retiring?