Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
It may be that the one development the GFA really struggles with is the growth of those in NI - mainly from the Unionist side - who now describe themselves as non-aligned. You do not get to 58% support for the backstop solely with Nationalist/Republican backing.
I don't blame them. I have more sympathy with Calvinistic Presbyterianism than most PBers. Even so, I can see that anyone in Northern Ireland wanting a more socially liberal, tolerant place to live looks enviously south of the border. Ireland 50 years ago was an inward looking social backwater. Those days have gone.
The Irish tricolour has the white of peace between the orange and the green. It will get there in the end, and the modernisation of Ireland over recent decades will be its foundation.
One of the few positives of the rampant English nationalism of present times is the ending of our colonialism in Ireland and Scotland. Wales may have to wait a bit longer.
There is no colonialism. Northern Irish and Scottish Britons have exactly the same rights and privileges as the English do in a single union.
The issue arises due to disproportionately in population size. Because England is 80%+ of the population of the UK it tends to dominate (albeit it didn't do so under Gordon Brown's administration) but that absolutely isn't colonialism, and there is much devolution to compensate as well.
The history of Wales, Ireland and Scotland is one of English conquest, that much is surely undeniable.
Certainly there are equal rights now, but the legacy of those conquests live on. I am not a Nationalist, and find Nationalist politics intrinsically divisive, but I do understand their appeal. Perhaps it is because I have ancestry from all 4 home nations that I am less well disposed to English Nationalism than most.
In that case you might want to choose your words a little more carefully.
Language like you used earlier about English colonialism only stokes the flames of nationalism.
We need to face a lot of uncomfortable truths about our own history if we want to move on.
There's a lot to be proud of in our history too.
I'm not sure where you want to move on to but I wouldn't necessarily share it.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
I seem to remember that to maximise payoffs MPs need to seek re-election.
Equally I think the Lib Dems need to ensure there is a suitable "Refugee" policy implemented to give wavering MPs an incentive to switch party.
Deselecting over the heads of local constituency associaiotns just seems deranged to me. I cannot see how it ends well. But, then, I am not a genius like our de facto PM.
Cyclefree: "I do enjoy watching some of the usual suspects getting excited over the polls, though. Most seem to have forgotten the enormous leads Mrs May had in the early days of her premiership and what then happened at the GE."
Ahem - 3 of the last 4 thread headers have been about polling which questioned the popularity of the government. Are these the 'usual suspects' you mean?
Lo and behold Survation suggests something different and we want to ignore them all of a sudden.
Remember the exit poll at 10pm GE 2017
Your face must have been a picture.
Why do you say that? I am not a Tory. I voted Lib Dem. As it happens, I was out that evening so don’t remember the poll at all. I only caught up much much later. And as you don’t recall, I said on here a few days before the election that I had a feeling that Corbyn might well do it. So I was more right than many of those expecting a Tory majority.
I knew in my heart it wasn't going well and secretly suspected it was all over as soon as I saw the exit poll, which I knew would be right as well.
I can recall you saying it was going to be a shit show days before the election so it obviously wasn't a complete surprise to those tories that were paying attention.
There was also somebody else (can't remember who) making increasingly shrill demands that the campaign be focused on Corbo's historical hard on for the IRA as the polls narrowed. That was properly lolsome.
To be fair, I thought that'd be pretty fatal for him. Even our deputy editor did.
It turned out - much to my surprise - that many under 35s simply didn't care, particularly female voters.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
A relevant point here is that unless the rules hve changed, you forfeit your redundancy pay (aka resettlement allowance) if you stand down voluntarily (just like in private life you don't get anything if you simply resign your job), whereas you get a reasonably hefty settlement if you lose - on average £15,000, tax free.
So a deselected MP has a significant incentive to stand for another party or as an independent - even if they don't campaign and just get 5% (name recognition etc.), they money will either be personally welcome or they can give it to a good cause, such as the European Movement .
That would, I think, make a number of apparently safe Tory seats winnable for someone else. You'd have to be a very loyal Tory to feel sad about that if they've just kicked you out. And in some circumstances I can see Tory rebels getting LibDem backing and winning.
Blimey, it's a bit of a slog - 64 questions and no going back if you make a mistake.
Definitely only for lefties - the language of some of the questions is likely to give a few PB Tories a siezure (though it would be interesting to see what some of our resident neoliberals come out as!)
Somewhat boringly, I'm a Democratic Socialist apparently. Shocked, I am.
Doesnt hold back by opening with questions on revolution. I come out as a social Democrat
I have honestly answered all 64 questions and came out as 'Utopian' whatever that conveys
It even works on tories!
Well, we don't know yet. It's yet to be tried by one.
As I commented I do believe this forum is out of step with the public at present
It's dominated by Europhile Conservatives and Labour centrists. One of its few Liberal Democrat posters is a Leaver.
That on its own says it all.
I remember after the 2015 general election OGH did a survey and while PB had about the same number of Tory and Labour supporters as the national average it had significantly more LD supporters and significantly fewer UKIP supporters than was the case nationally in 2015 (Richard Tyndall one of the few exceptions).
Hence PB was more supportive of the Coalition than the national average but is more opposed to No Deal over further extension than the national average too
To be fair, the UKIP supporters knew how to press the buttons of the (LibDem centric) mods - and so rapidly got themselves banned....
Some truth there, about 5 years ago I was pretty close to the PB median, now I am well to the PB right
That's cos you used to be a Cameroon, now you are a Bozoite.
Well Nick Palmer used to be a Blairite and is now a Corbynite too
I once slightly mischievously remarked that Nick was the Richard Nabavi of the Labour party, as both would courteously and reasonably defend whatever nonsense the party was currently promulgating.
Since then, Richard has completely undermined the premise of the comparison by resigning his membership - along with several other posters here.
Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
The current solution where NI is both British and Irish seems the right one to be and I can't see anything to be gained by changing it.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
A relevant point here is that unless the rules hve changed, you forfeit your redundancy pay (aka resettlement allowance) if you stand down voluntarily (just like in private life you don't get anything if you simply resign your job), whereas you get a reasonably hefty settlement if you lose - on average £15,000, tax free.
So a deselected MP has a significant incentive to stand for another party or as an independent - even if they don't campaign and just get 5% (name recognition etc.), they money will either be personally welcome or they can give it to a good cause, such as the European Movement .
That would, I think, make a number of apparently safe Tory seats winnable for someone else. You'd have to be a very loyal Tory to feel sad about that if they've just kicked you out. And in some circumstances I can see Tory rebels getting LibDem backing and winning.
Giving someone who is totally unaccountable and is not even a member of the Conservative party the ability to deselect Tory MPs over the heads of local constituency associations just seems like complete madness to me.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
I seem to remember that to maximise payoffs MPs need to seek re-election.
Equally I think the Lib Dems need to ensure there is a suitable "Refugee" policy implemented to give wavering MPs an incentive to switch party.
To take the example of Justine Greening, she probably has a better chance of holding her seat as an independent with LD support than she would as a Tory. Not sure that Dom is as clever as he thinks he is.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
A relevant point here is that unless the rules hve changed, you forfeit your redundancy pay (aka resettlement allowance) if you stand down voluntarily (just like in private life you don't get anything if you simply resign your job), whereas you get a reasonably hefty settlement if you lose - on average £15,000, tax free.
So a deselected MP has a significant incentive to stand for another party or as an independent - even if they don't campaign and just get 5% (name recognition etc.), they money will either be personally welcome or they can give it to a good cause, such as the European Movement .
That would, I think, make a number of apparently safe Tory seats winnable for someone else. You'd have to be a very loyal Tory to feel sad about that if they've just kicked you out. And in some circumstances I can see Tory rebels getting LibDem backing and winning.
Exactly what I said but far more eloquently written.
It is without doubt the stupidest thing from No 10 this week and that includes the proroguing.
Blimey, it's a bit of a slog - 64 questions and no going back if you make a mistake.
Definitely only for lefties - the language of some of the questions is likely to give a few PB Tories a siezure (though it would be interesting to see what some of our resident neoliberals come out as!)
Somewhat boringly, I'm a Democratic Socialist apparently. Shocked, I am.
Doesnt hold back by opening with questions on revolution. I come out as a social Democrat
I have honestly answered all 64 questions and came out as 'Utopian' whatever that conveys
It even works on tories!
It’s certainly possible to complete - though non socialists will find themselves selecting ‘neutral’ on quite a few questions whose premise they simple don’t accept.
And the line between scientific/utopian seems to have been defined on a rather non scientific basis.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
Since when was Cummings elected to the head of the Tory party.
And if he is the head of the Tory party why is he doing a civil service role.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
I seem to remember that to maximise payoffs MPs need to seek re-election.
Equally I think the Lib Dems need to ensure there is a suitable "Refugee" policy implemented to give wavering MPs an incentive to switch party.
To take the example of Justine Greening, she probably has a better chance of holding her seat as an independent with LD support than she would as a Tory. Not sure that Dom is as clever as he thinks he is.
As long as the No Deal Tory loons think he is blindingly smart - and remember they still believe the EU is going to fold and give the UK what it wants - then Cummings will be fine, especially as Johnson is bone idle and needs someone to do all the work for him.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
I seem to remember that to maximise payoffs MPs need to seek re-election.
Equally I think the Lib Dems need to ensure there is a suitable "Refugee" policy implemented to give wavering MPs an incentive to switch party.
To take the example of Justine Greening, she probably has a better chance of holding her seat as an independent with LD support than she would as a Tory. Not sure that Dom is as clever as he thinks he is.
As long as the No Deal Tory loons think he is blindingly smart - and remember they still believe the EU is going to fold and give the UK what it wants - then Cummings will be fine, especially as Johnson is bone idle and needs someone to do all the work for him.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
Since when was Cummings elected to the head of the Tory party.
And if he is the head of the Tory party why is he doing a civil service role.
The overwhelming majority of Tory voters and members back Brexit on October 31st and oppose further extension so Cummings reflects the views of the party.
Plus of course given Momentum have moved to deselect Del Piero, Umunna, Field, Hoey etc Labour can hardly criticise if the Tories deselect the likes of Grieve
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
Blimey, it's a bit of a slog - 64 questions and no going back if you make a mistake.
Definitely only for lefties - the language of some of the questions is likely to give a few PB Tories a siezure (though it would be interesting to see what some of our resident neoliberals come out as!)
Somewhat boringly, I'm a Democratic Socialist apparently. Shocked, I am.
Doesnt hold back by opening with questions on revolution. I come out as a social Democrat
I have honestly answered all 64 questions and came out as 'Utopian' whatever that conveys
So did I - and utopian is just wrong. The questions weren't quite framed around the interests of centrist one nation Burkean conservatives. But it was interesting to see what these strange people thought important. No wonder they are hard to keep entertained and amused.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
A relevant point here is that unless the rules hve changed, you forfeit your redundancy pay (aka resettlement allowance) if you stand down voluntarily (just like in private life you don't get anything if you simply resign your job), whereas you get a reasonably hefty settlement if you lose - on average £15,000, tax free.
So a deselected MP has a significant incentive to stand for another party or as an independent - even if they don't campaign and just get 5% (name recognition etc.), they money will either be personally welcome or they can give it to a good cause, such as the European Movement .
That would, I think, make a number of apparently safe Tory seats winnable for someone else. You'd have to be a very loyal Tory to feel sad about that if they've just kicked you out. And in some circumstances I can see Tory rebels getting LibDem backing and winning.
Giving someone who is totally unaccountable and is not even a member of the Conservative party the ability to deselect Tory MPs over the heads of local constituency associations just seems like complete madness to me.
Grieve and Lee have already lost confidence votes from their Associations
Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
The current solution where NI is both British and Irish seems the right one to be and I can't see anything to be gained by changing it.
I agree, but the Brexiteers seem hell bent on taking that option off the table and going back to British OR Irish.
Surely that could cost them the election? If well known MPs stand as independents or are forced to defect... the Tories could do without losing ANY seats given how Scotland looks.
Also in the event of no election they would be throwing away control of the House.
A relevant point here is that unless the rules hve changed, you forfeit your redundancy pay (aka resettlement allowance) if you stand down voluntarily (just like in private life you don't get anything if you simply resign your job), whereas you get a reasonably hefty settlement if you lose - on average £15,000, tax free.
So a deselected MP has a significant incentive to stand for another party or as an independent - even if they don't campaign and just get 5% (name recognition etc.), they money will either be personally welcome or they can give it to a good cause, such as the European Movement .
That would, I think, make a number of apparently safe Tory seats winnable for someone else. You'd have to be a very loyal Tory to feel sad about that if they've just kicked you out. And in some circumstances I can see Tory rebels getting LibDem backing and winning.
Giving someone who is totally unaccountable and is not even a member of the Conservative party the ability to deselect Tory MPs over the heads of local constituency associations just seems like complete madness to me.
Grieve and Lee have already lost confidence votes from their Associations
It wouldn't just be Grieve and Lee would it, though? If constituency associaiotns want to deslect, that is one thing. Telling them they have no choice is a very different matter.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
Since when was Cummings elected to the head of the Tory party.
And if he is the head of the Tory party why is he doing a civil service role.
The overwhelming majority of Tory voters and members back Brexit on October 31st and oppose further extension so Cummings reflects the views of the party.
Plus of course given Momentum have moved to deselect Del Piero, Umunna, Field, Hoey etc Labour can hardly criticise if the Tories deselect the likes of Grieve
My guess is that Labour and the LibDems will be absolutely delighted with anything that might split the Tory vote.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All Cummings has done is make next week's decisions career defining.
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All Cummings has done is make next week's decisions career defining.
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
And not just career defining - for instance, I think the word for Javid is now gimp.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
I think it is the latter too. The strategy would have been better suited to a VONK, and that's probably what they were hoping for, but in the absence of one, they've tied it to this vote instead.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
Since when was Cummings elected to the head of the Tory party.
And if he is the head of the Tory party why is he doing a civil service role.
The overwhelming majority of Tory voters and members back Brexit on October 31st and oppose further extension so Cummings reflects the views of the party.
Plus of course given Momentum have moved to deselect Del Piero, Umunna, Field, Hoey etc Labour can hardly criticise if the Tories deselect the likes of Grieve
My guess is that Labour and the LibDems will be absolutely delighted with anything that might split the Tory vote.
It won't split the Tory vote, it will further collapse the Brexit Party vote in the Tories favour while maybe splitting the die hard Remainer vote further
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All Cummings has done is make next week's decisions career defining.
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
Javid is not seen as loyal, he is seen as powerless. Everyone now knows that he is someone who is told what to do and will do it. I suspect that is precisely the message that Cummings wanted to send. It will have been heard by every member of the cabinet. He is in control. Not them.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
Since when was Cummings elected to the head of the Tory party.
And if he is the head of the Tory party why is he doing a civil service role.
The overwhelming majority of Tory voters and members back Brexit on October 31st and oppose further extension so Cummings reflects the views of the party.
Plus of course given Momentum have moved to deselect Del Piero, Umunna, Field, Hoey etc Labour can hardly criticise if the Tories deselect the likes of Grieve
My guess is that Labour and the LibDems will be absolutely delighted with anything that might split the Tory vote.
It won't split the Tory vote, it will further collapse the Brexit Party vote in the Tories favour while maybe splitting the die hard Remainer vote further
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
I think it is the latter too. The strategy would have been better suited to a VONK, and that's probably what they were hoping for, but in the absence of one, they've tied it to this vote instead.
It might also have the side effect that such MPs might be more inclined to support Corbyn as a caretaker PM.
Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
The current solution where NI is both British and Irish seems the right one to be and I can't see anything to be gained by changing it.
I agree, but the Brexiteers seem hell bent on taking that option off the table and going back to British OR Irish.
Just not true that NI is both British and Irish, or in both UK and Ireland. UK (ie GB + NI) is in Nato, Ireland is not. NI is not Schrodinger's cat.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
I think it is the latter too. The strategy would have been better suited to a VONK, and that's probably what they were hoping for, but in the absence of one, they've tied it to this vote instead.
It might also have the side effect that such MPs might be more inclined to support Corbyn as a caretaker PM.
I have a feeling Ken Clarke may be independent by close of play on Tuesday.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
I think it is the latter too. The strategy would have been better suited to a VONK, and that's probably what they were hoping for, but in the absence of one, they've tied it to this vote instead.
It might also have the side effect that such MPs might be more inclined to support Corbyn as a caretaker PM.
The pile of problems that the Tories are piling up for themselves should No Deal not be as easily manageable as they say it will be is growing almost by the minute. I just do not see how deselections - actual or threatened - helps. The ERG and the rest of the Brexit loons will love it, but even now they are a minority among Tory MPs, I suspect.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
Parliament now has the opportunity to assert its authority by 1) passing legislation requiring the Government to ask for an extension; and 2) refusing to endorse any subsequent call for a GE. How would Cummins respond to that?
What else do you expect the United Kingdom govt. to do?
What UK govt? There is an English govt in Westminster and it seems to be a govt of none-of-the-talents with an unelected outsider apparently controlling the party machine.
From where I sit, it looks like Dictator Cummings is in charge. Whatever it is, it is not a UK govt.
Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
The current solution where NI is both British and Irish seems the right one to be and I can't see anything to be gained by changing it.
I agree, but the Brexiteers seem hell bent on taking that option off the table and going back to British OR Irish.
Just not true that NI is both British and Irish, or in both UK and Ireland. UK (ie GB + NI) is in Nato, Ireland is not. NI is not Schrodinger's cat.
NI is very obviously both UK and Irish, why NATO membership has anything to do with it I have no idea, and can we please have a moratorium on references to Schrodinger's fecking cat - and Occam's fecking razor while we're about it,
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
If the Tory manifesto says with a deal or no deal then TBP will stand in all mainland constituencies on a pure brexit basis
I once slightly mischievously remarked that Nick was the Richard Nabavi of the Labour party, as both would courteously and reasonably defend whatever nonsense the party was currently promulgating.
Since then, Richard has completely undermined the premise of the comparison by resigning his membership - along with several other posters here.
I missed that original post - funny, and not entirely unfair. There were occasions as an MP when I was dubious about the argument but enjoyed being the more reasonable-sounding participant. Although Anna Soubry eventually won, it was on a small swing and one reason for that is that she always sounded unreasonably angry even when she was probably right, so not particularly political people were put off.
Nowadays, I just say what I think - who cares, really?
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
Parliament now has the opportunity to assert its authority by 1) passing legislation requiring the Government to ask for an extension; and 2) refusing to endorse any subsequent call for a GE. How would Cummins respond to that?
Maybe he'll sack Boris Johnson and get a new Prime Minister.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
Because Corbyn will gamble. He might win. Also, can the Cult dare admit that they cannot face an election because their policies are too unpopular? What is the point of the Cult if you know it is a loser?
The pile of problems that the Tories are piling up for themselves should No Deal not be as easily manageable as they say it will be is growing almost by the minute. I just do not see how deselections - actual or threatened - helps. The ERG and the rest of the Brexit loons will love it, but even now they are a minority among Tory MPs, I suspect.
Even if Kamikaze Brexit isn't that bad in the end, as a party the Tories appear to be hopelessly divided, and in thrall to another party altogether. The only thing that shelters the Tories is Corbyn opposite them, if Corbyn goes I expect that the country will boot out the Tories at the following general election, rather like in 1997.
What else do you expect the United Kingdom govt. to do?
What UK govt? There is an English govt in Westminster and it seems to be a govt of none-of-the-talents with an unelected outsider apparently controlling the party machine.
From where I sit, it looks like Dictator Cummings is in charge. Whatever it is, it is not a UK govt.
What nonsense you're spouting. We have elections for a UK-wide Parliament. It is acting in that capacity. I haven't ever had a vote for an English-only Parliament, with powers to govern England. Unlike, the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
EU matters are UK government matters. Exclusively.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
Parliament now has the opportunity to assert its authority by 1) passing legislation requiring the Government to ask for an extension; and 2) refusing to endorse any subsequent call for a GE. How would Cummins respond to that?
Maybe he'll sack Boris Johnson and get a new Prime Minister.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
Because Corbyn will gamble. He might win. Also, can the Cult dare admit that they cannot face an election because their policies are too unpopular? What is the point of the Cult if you know it is a loser?
Corbyn won't gamble at the moment as it makes zero sense to do so.
Next week the Tories will become a minority Government and with the opposition able to control the Parliamentary agenda it makes political sense to keep Boris sat there until October as impotent as Javid now is.
Then after Boris fails to get a Queens speech past, a VoNC in late October will allow Corbyn to take power long enough to get an extension and announce a late November election.
Boris is than sat having failed to leave in October trying to win a majority with former Tory MPs standing to make things very difficult.
Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
The current solution where NI is both British and Irish seems the right one to be and I can't see anything to be gained by changing it.
I agree, but the Brexiteers seem hell bent on taking that option off the table and going back to British OR Irish.
Just not true that NI is both British and Irish, or in both UK and Ireland. UK (ie GB + NI) is in Nato, Ireland is not. NI is not Schrodinger's cat.
Actually, it is very true that it is British and Irish. That is why the GFA was a success. EU membership effectively rubbed out the border in most people's minds.
From a legalistic standpoint the border is still there and people know it, but the perception is that for most people it does not really matter and perceptions are what people run on rather than facts.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All things point to Cummings wanting to run a very tight ship and ruthless in making sure this happens. So sign up or get out.
More interestingly this implies Cummings is under no illusion that his Brexit means scorched earth. He's making sure that every Conservative is bound into that outcome. He doesn't want any of them saying afterwards they were glad they voted against the disaster. Cummings plays by Mafia rules.
Raab was suggesting that proroguation cover the whole of September and October until the start of November so Parliament literally couldn't sit or vote at all prior to Brexit until it was too late.
Boris has scheduled a normal Queen's Speech prorogation, straddling an annual recess as there is precedence for, over a period of 4 sitting days and Parliament is literally sitting both before and after that prior to Brexit.
That's literally two very different things.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense about 4 sitting days, as if prostration is equivalent to a Commons recess? The House of Lords would have continued sitting and committees in both Houses would have carried on.
Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
The current solution where NI is both British and Irish seems the right one to be and I can't see anything to be gained by changing it.
I agree, but the Brexiteers seem hell bent on taking that option off the table and going back to British OR Irish.
Just not true that NI is both British and Irish, or in both UK and Ireland. UK (ie GB + NI) is in Nato, Ireland is not. NI is not Schrodinger's cat.
Actually, it is very true that it is British and Irish. That is why the GFA was a success. EU membership effectively rubbed out the border in most people's minds.
From a legalistic standpoint the border is still there and people know it, but the perception is that for most people it does not really matter and perceptions are what people run on rather than facts.
Perceptions about NATO membership are not enough in a war.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
Because Corbyn will gamble. He might win. Also, can the Cult dare admit that they cannot face an election because their policies are too unpopular? What is the point of the Cult if you know it is a loser?
Corbyn won't gamble at the moment as it makes zero sense to do so.
Next week the Tories will become a minority Government and with the opposition able to control the Parliamentary agenda it makes political sense to keep Boris sat there until October as impotent as Javid now is.
Then after Boris fails to get a Queens speech past, a VoNC in late October will allow Corbyn to take power long enough to get an extension and announce a late November election.
Boris is than sat having failed to leave in October trying to win a majority with former Tory MPs standing to make things very difficult.
Then sit back and watch the Labour Leave seats fall to the Tories like skittles and Boris waltz back into No 10 with a majority if Corbyn extends again and Boris opposes extension, even if not all Labour Leave voters go Tory plenty will go Brexit Party gifting the Tories the seat
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
How do the Tories get that election, though? If everyone knows that is what they want, why will they give it to them?
Parliament now has the opportunity to assert its authority by 1) passing legislation requiring the Government to ask for an extension; and 2) refusing to endorse any subsequent call for a GE. How would Cummins respond to that?
Maybe he'll sack Boris Johnson and get a new Prime Minister.
It would be funny if Cummings deselects Johnson with his new arbitrary power of deselection.
Orange Order scream and whine and complain that we simply must let them march outside Catholic churches, sing about killing Catholics and tolerate vandalism but one fucking pro IRA march and they riot.
Hipocrites as well as being bigots.
Note: this isn't condoning the pro IRA marchers, they're wankers too.
Im more fascinated though by why you cant cope with duality of background. You get worked up that you will lose your european identity but somehow others have to be forced in to a binary choice.
Most of the stuff I see posted on here bears little resemblence to whats happening in NI on the griond, its simply the lazy parroting of 1960s slogans. NI has moved on, in most cases social attitudes are in line with mainland UK or RoI. Only the politicians are stuck in the past.
Attitudes have been tracked for the best part of this century in the NI Life and Times survey. Its probably the best source of how views have changed.
If NI has moved on why havent the politicians? The people of NI continually reward them, reinforcing them. Politicians change if forced to, apparently they have not been.
Because voters think Sinn Féin and the DUP represent people like them. It's tribal.
James Nesbitt and I are of similar ages and backgrounds and grew up within more or less the same area (South Antrim vs Mid Antrim). I think he expresses a viewpoint that I feel agrees closely with my own. When I was younger I had many of the same thoughts that he says he experienced.
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
The current solution where NI is both British and Irish seems the right one to be and I can't see anything to be gained by changing it.
I agree, but the Brexiteers seem hell bent on taking that option off the table and going back to British OR Irish.
Just not true that NI is both British and Irish, or in both UK and Ireland. UK (ie GB + NI) is in Nato, Ireland is not. NI is not Schrodinger's cat.
Actually, it is very true that it is British and Irish. That is why the GFA was a success. EU membership effectively rubbed out the border in most people's minds.
From a legalistic standpoint the border is still there and people know it, but the perception is that for most people it does not really matter and perceptions are what people run on rather than facts.
Perceptions about NATO membership are not enough in a war.
We are not in a war. Whatever Brexit is, it is not a war.
Fair enough, deselection would only apply if you vote to extend again over Brexit on October 31st. You can still refuse to vote for No Deal but vote against extension and avoid deselection e.g. by saying you back Boris' plan for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
How do we know what’s being voted on apart from a possible attempt to force an extension? I wasn’t aware their is to be a vote on leaving with no deal. Even if there were such a vote what point would there be voting against something that was going to happen anyway without an extension. And no there is not an alternative proposal as yet agreed with The EU that mak s the backstop unnecessary.
The Tories manifesto for a likely autumn general election will have a commitment to Leave the EU Deal or No Deal, if you refuse to support that manifesto you are better off in the LDs anyway.
If the Tory manifesto says with a deal or no deal then TBP will stand in all mainland constituencies on a pure brexit basis
Yes so what, the Brexit Party are now polling 10 to 15% with the Tories on 30%+, under May the Brexit Party were polling 20 to 25% and the Tories 20%
What else do you expect the United Kingdom govt. to do?
What UK govt? There is an English govt in Westminster and it seems to be a govt of none-of-the-talents with an unelected outsider apparently controlling the party machine.
From where I sit, it looks like Dictator Cummings is in charge. Whatever it is, it is not a UK govt.
What nonsense you're spouting. We have elections for a UK-wide Parliament. It is acting in that capacity. I haven't ever had a vote for an English-only Parliament, with powers to govern England. Unlike, the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
EU matters are UK government matters. Exclusively.
Ah, those halcyon days when Tories at least made a half arsed attempt to pretend to take the 'home nations' not England seriously.
'David Mundell claims Brexit will enhance Scottish devolution'
I once slightly mischievously remarked that Nick was the Richard Nabavi of the Labour party, as both would courteously and reasonably defend whatever nonsense the party was currently promulgating.
Since then, Richard has completely undermined the premise of the comparison by resigning his membership - along with several other posters here.
I missed that original post - funny, and not entirely unfair. There were occasions as an MP when I was dubious about the argument but enjoyed being the more reasonable-sounding participant. Although Anna Soubry eventually won, it was on a small swing and one reason for that is that she always sounded unreasonably angry even when she was probably right, so not particularly political people were put off.
Nowadays, I just say what I think - who cares, really?
Agreed. I would have faced an impossible choice had I lived in your constituency and probably just spoiled my ballot.
Threatening deselection like this makes the parliamentary route harder to pass but the VONC easier, since the government burns the rebels' bridges for them on the earlier non-confidence matter. I guess that's consistent with what we've seen so far, that they really want the VONC route, and definitely don't want the parliamentary route.
The pile of problems that the Tories are piling up for themselves should No Deal not be as easily manageable as they say it will be is growing almost by the minute. I just do not see how deselections - actual or threatened - helps. The ERG and the rest of the Brexit loons will love it, but even now they are a minority among Tory MPs, I suspect.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All Cummings has done is make next week's decisions career defining.
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
Javid is not seen as loyal, he is seen as powerless. Everyone now knows that he is someone who is told what to do and will do it. I suspect that is precisely the message that Cummings wanted to send. It will have been heard by every member of the cabinet. He is in control. Not them.
Reminds me of a similar Big Chief before the 2017GE.
What else do you expect the United Kingdom govt. to do?
What UK govt? There is an English govt in Westminster and it seems to be a govt of none-of-the-talents with an unelected outsider apparently controlling the party machine.
From where I sit, it looks like Dictator Cummings is in charge. Whatever it is, it is not a UK govt.
What nonsense you're spouting. We have elections for a UK-wide Parliament. It is acting in that capacity. I haven't ever had a vote for an English-only Parliament, with powers to govern England. Unlike, the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
EU matters are UK government matters. Exclusively.
The executive is packed full of English nationalists. An unelected outsider is apparently running No. 10 whilst the PM is, I presume, busy spaffing (whatever that is).
You have to wonder a bit about Oxford University's quality control processes if somebody as dense as Dominic Cummings could get a first.
Did the criteria include oral sex on the examiners, or maybe who could come the hardest when masturbating? After all, he's demonstrating he is a great wanker.
Quick question. The Conservative Party used to be very decentralised, to the extent that you could actually debate whether is was a single entity. I think the organisation has changed over the past decade or two to tighten that up, but I'm not sure how far it goes.
So i need to ask: can Cummings actually carry out his threat?
If Conservative Association X said "Alan is our candidate and he is the Conservative candidate", but Conservative Central Office Y said "No, Zak is the candidate and he is the Conservative candidate", then how will Zac and Alan be labelled on the voting slip?
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All Cummings has done is make next week's decisions career defining.
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
Javid is not seen as loyal, he is seen as powerless. Everyone now knows that he is someone who is told what to do and will do it. I suspect that is precisely the message that Cummings wanted to send. It will have been heard by every member of the cabinet. He is in control. Not them.
We lapsing into Wizard of Oz territory here. DC isn't an omnipotent mastermind; he's just a Baldrick looking geek with a wordy blog and a hotline to Lubyanska ploshchad'.
The fact that prorogation has an even split 40% against 39% for despite almost all the coverage about it being negative shows that whatever the merits or drawbacks of a policy the country will with time split in to their respective tribes on any issue.
I dont believe this happened before Brexit to such an extent.
Boris could say the sky is green and within a few days of the dear leader repeating this half the country would agree the sky is indeed green.
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears......"
Quick question. The Conservative Party used to be very decentralised, to the extent that you could actually debate whether is was a single entity. I think the organisation has changed over the past decade or two to tighten that up, but I'm not sure how far it goes.
So i need to ask: can Cummings actually carry out his threat?
If Conservative Association X said "Alan is our candidate and he is the Conservative candidate", but Conservative Central Office Y said "No, Zak is the candidate and he is the Conservative candidate", then how will Zac and Alan be labelled on the voting slip?
Depends who owns the political registration which almost certainly is CCO
We lapsing into Wizard of Oz territory here. DC isn't an omnipotent mastermind; he's just a Baldrick looking geek with a wordy blog and a hotline to Lubyanska ploshchad'.
I wonder if he brought his own curtain to hide behind? UK govt issue curtains are probably too thin...
Threatening deselection like this makes the parliamentary route harder to pass but the VONC easier, since the government burns the rebels' bridges for them on the earlier non-confidence matter. I guess that's consistent with what we've seen so far, that they really want the VONC route, and definitely don't want the parliamentary route.
Effectively they've made the Parliamentary route and the VONC route equally career limiting. Clearly they expect the latter will lead to the former (they'll ignore it to force the VONC) hence they get the VONC and election they want. But before or after Oct 31? After would be a true outrage, unlike the synthetic current row.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All Cummings has done is make next week's decisions career defining.
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
Javid is not seen as loyal, he is seen as powerless. Everyone now knows that he is someone who is told what to do and will do it. I suspect that is precisely the message that Cummings wanted to send. It will have been heard by every member of the cabinet. He is in control. Not them.
We lapsing into Wizard of Oz territory here. DC isn't an omnipotent mastermind; he's just a Baldrick looking geek with a wordy blog and a hotline to Lubyanska ploshchad'.
That's unfair to Baldrick. His cunning plans were a whole lot more realistic than Cummings' plans.
And, yes, that includes the one about how to avoid execution.
That would render pointless Hammond's attempt to use a previously secret meeting of his constituency executive to be reselected. As it stood, being reselected on Monday would have left Hammond with more leeway to defy the government later in the week when parliament resumes. Now he will have to consider the consequences, as he clearly wishes to stay on as an MP.
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that: 1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or 2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
All Cummings has done is make next week's decisions career defining.
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
Javid is not seen as loyal, he is seen as powerless. Everyone now knows that he is someone who is told what to do and will do it. I suspect that is precisely the message that Cummings wanted to send. It will have been heard by every member of the cabinet. He is in control. Not them.
We lapsing into Wizard of Oz territory here. DC isn't an omnipotent mastermind; he's just a Baldrick looking geek with a wordy blog and a hotline to Lubyanska ploshchad'.
DC won the biggest number of votes in post-war history for Leave, defeating most of the establishment in the process
You have to wonder a bit about Oxford University's quality control processes if somebody as dense as Dominic Cummings could get a first.
There are a lot of clever people who aren't wise.
Unwisdom is one thing, but in all the nine years I have been watching him, he's never come up with anything that betrayed even the least amount of intellect. A well-developed fantasy and imagination, but not intellect.
DC won the biggest number of votes in post-war history for Leave, defeating most of the establishment in the process
Well, it seems that he pedalled a complete fantasy liberally laced with half-truths about the NHS and Turkish immigration to an audience of elderly xenophobes in declining health who composed the bulk of those of always vote.
Raab was suggesting that proroguation cover the whole of September and October until the start of November so Parliament literally couldn't sit or vote at all prior to Brexit until it was too late.
Boris has scheduled a normal Queen's Speech prorogation, straddling an annual recess as there is precedence for, over a period of 4 sitting days and Parliament is literally sitting both before and after that prior to Brexit.
That's literally two very different things.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense about 4 sitting days, as if prostration is equivalent to a Commons recess? The House of Lords would have continued sitting and committees in both Houses would have carried on.
And Johnson has taken away MPs' right to decide whether they have a recess in the first place.
Threatening deselection like this makes the parliamentary route harder to pass but the VONC easier, since the government burns the rebels' bridges for them on the earlier non-confidence matter. I guess that's consistent with what we've seen so far, that they really want the VONC route, and definitely don't want the parliamentary route.
Effectively they've made the Parliamentary route and the VONC route equally career limiting. Clearly they expect the latter will lead to the former (they'll ignore it to force the VONC) hence they get the VONC and election they want. But before or after Oct 31? After would be a true outrage, unlike the synthetic current row.
As it is clear Boris and co cannot be trusted there is zero sense going for a VONC until you have a replacement lined up ready to go.
So I suspect it will be October 22nd when we see the VONC as the will be the first day after the proroguing and the Queen's speech.
Cyclefree: "I do enjoy watching some of the usual suspects getting excited over the polls, though. Most seem to have forgotten the enormous leads Mrs May had in the early days of her premiership and what then happened at the GE."
Ahem - 3 of the last 4 thread headers have been about polling which questioned the popularity of the government. Are these the 'usual suspects' you mean?
Lo and behold Survation suggests something different and we want to ignore them all of a sudden.
Remember the exit poll at 10pm GE 2017
Your face must have been a picture.
I was pleased that Corbyn had lost. He is a loser.
Comments
I would support a federal Ireland. Two distinct countries within the EU, but Nesbitt is right - the term "United Ireland" is too politically loaded.
I'm not sure where you want to move on to but I wouldn't necessarily share it.
It turned out - much to my surprise - that many under 35s simply didn't care, particularly female voters.
So a deselected MP has a significant incentive to stand for another party or as an independent - even if they don't campaign and just get 5% (name recognition etc.), they money will either be personally welcome or they can give it to a good cause, such as the European Movement
That would, I think, make a number of apparently safe Tory seats winnable for someone else. You'd have to be a very loyal Tory to feel sad about that if they've just kicked you out. And in some circumstances I can see Tory rebels getting LibDem backing and winning.
Since then, Richard has completely undermined the premise of the comparison by resigning his membership - along with several other posters here.
So it would guarantee deselection for the likes of Grieve, Greening and Gyimah etc who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal and for extension and EUref2 but not necessarily for Gauke, Hammond, Clark, Burt, Stewart etc who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement but just oppose No Deal
It is without doubt the stupidest thing from No 10 this week and that includes the proroguing.
And the line between scientific/utopian seems to have been defined on a rather non scientific basis.
My strongest split was on the eco questions (no surprise), yet it had me down as a Marxist Centralist.
As for the optics to the general public of the govt "firing" MPs when it seems to be gearing up for an election.
BTW - what is the correct name for an unelected zealot ruling in the background through a process of initimidation and fear?
And if he is the head of the Tory party why is he doing a civil service role.
https://twitter.com/ZoeZebedee/status/1167709415174299648?s=20
It is a moot point how to interpret No 10's tactics. Is it that:
1. They genuinely feel they have a chance of winning votes to head off legislation to close down the no deal option and they are therefore putting pressure on Tory MPs to choose in order to maximise the government vote or
2. They want to eliminate future rebels within their ranks, and would therefore be at least sanguine about a rebellion which would in effect represent a self-inflicted purge of the Gaukeward squad, making inevitable the removal of the whip and eliminating them as Conservative GE candidates more efficiently than would be achieved by relying on constituency reselection procedures.
I think it is more likely to be the latter, on the grounds that the government is relying on the restricted parliamentary timetable rather than the outcome of parliamentary votes to head off legislation.
https://order-order.com/2019/08/29/hammonds-constituency-uproar-sneaky-secret-re-selection-bid/
Plus of course given Momentum have moved to deselect Del Piero, Umunna, Field, Hoey etc Labour can hardly criticise if the Tories deselect the likes of Grieve
In the same way that Javid is now seen as completely loyal (and so utterly useless as an independent director when he moves into retirement / opposition) a few MPs may be deciding whether they still want to be in Parliament in future.
Ours is just a Day Pupil (so second class) at a boarding school.
From where I sit, it looks like Dictator Cummings is in charge. Whatever it is, it is not a UK govt.
Nowadays, I just say what I think - who cares, really?
EU matters are UK government matters. Exclusively.
Next week the Tories will become a minority Government and with the opposition able to control the Parliamentary agenda it makes political sense to keep Boris sat there until October as impotent as Javid now is.
Then after Boris fails to get a Queens speech past, a VoNC in late October will allow Corbyn to take power long enough to get an extension and announce a late November election.
Boris is than sat having failed to leave in October trying to win a majority with former Tory MPs standing to make things very difficult.
From a legalistic standpoint the border is still there and people know it, but the perception is that for most people it does not really matter and perceptions are what people run on rather than facts.
More interestingly this implies Cummings is under no illusion that his Brexit means scorched earth. He's making sure that every Conservative is bound into that outcome. He doesn't want any of them saying afterwards they were glad they voted against the disaster. Cummings plays by Mafia rules.
Hipocrites as well as being bigots.
Note: this isn't condoning the pro IRA marchers, they're wankers too.
Referendum outcome, anyone?
Get a grip.
'David Mundell claims Brexit will enhance Scottish devolution'
https://tinyurl.com/yxwuxn4c
Did the criteria include oral sex on the examiners, or maybe who could come the hardest when masturbating? After all, he's demonstrating he is a great wanker.
Other than the most obsessive of political junkies like us on here 99% population won't have the first idea who he is?
So i need to ask: can Cummings actually carry out his threat?
If Conservative Association X said "Alan is our candidate and he is the Conservative candidate", but Conservative Central Office Y said "No, Zak is the candidate and he is the Conservative candidate", then how will Zac and Alan be labelled on the voting slip?
I dont believe this happened before Brexit to such an extent.
Boris could say the sky is green and within a few days of the dear leader repeating this half the country would agree the sky is indeed green.
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears......"
Same goes for the corbyn cult.
I wonder if he brought his own curtain to hide behind? UK govt issue curtains are probably too thin...
Go figure!
And, yes, that includes the one about how to avoid execution.
Novelists are often popular....
Hmm. No markets up on Ladbrokes yet.
So I suspect it will be October 22nd when we see the VONC as the will be the first day after the proroguing and the Queen's speech.