I’m a Utopian Socialist, with strong leanings towards decentralisation and ecology. Apparently.
Go figure!
Same here!
Utopian Socialism Utopian Socialism is a form of pre-Marxist socialism that belives highly in an egalitarian, moralistic and idealistic foundation for a socialist society. Utopian Socialists generally reject violent revolution and often believe the ruling class can be convinced to adopt socialism
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.
It's awful. I think it's gone way too far.
It will probably win the Tories the next election, but then what? At some point it all begins to come home to roost. At that point, winning the election may not turn out to seem as worth it as it does now. As others have observed, running a country is very different to running a referendum campaign. Crucially, it is an ongoing exercise, not time-limited.
This forum is more informed than the public at large obviously, but what makes sense to less informed people matters. (I know this is patronising. I am sorry.).
Is this forum really more informed than the public at large? Everyone likes to think themselves better informed than everyone else. But it’s a nonsense isn’t it. You and most others here are more informed about what matters to globalist liberals. But you are likely pretty uninformed about what matters to “the public at large”. How else to explain the wide spread shock when brexit won?
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
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.
Strikes me that the phrase "too clever by half" applies.
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.
The bizarre thing is the reputation he has for being a master strategist. In both, his MO was to grab and rush, and not think about move 3. His masterstroke at Vote Leave was to forbid concrete discussion of what Leave meant. That maximised the vote, but is the root cause of the hell of the last three years.
This forum is more informed than the public at large obviously, but what makes sense to less informed people matters. (I know this is patronising. I am sorry.).
Is this forum really more informed than the public at large? Everyone likes to think themselves better informed than everyone else. But it’s a nonsense isn’t it. You and most others here are more informed about what matters to globalist liberals. But you are likely pretty uninformed about what matters to “the public at large”. How else to explain the wide spread shock when brexit won?
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
The fact that so many here typically make £1000s predicting the outcome of political events (Including Leave winning the referendum) suggests a high degree of informed-ness
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.
The bizarre thing is the reputation he has for being a master strategist. In both, his MO was to grab and rush, and not think about move 3. His masterstroke at Vote Leave was to forbid concrete discussion of what Leave meant. That maximised the vote, but is the root cause of the hell of the last three years.
Perhaps he should take up acting. He'd make a superb Richard III.
The pile of problems that the Tories are piling up for themselves should No Deal not spect.
It's awful. I think it's gone way too far.
It will probably win the Tories the next election, but then what? At some point it all begins to come home to roost. At that point, winning the election may not turn out to seem as worth it as it does now. As others have observed, running a country is very different to running a referendum campaign. Crucially, it is an ongoing exercise, not time-limited.
As long as Brexit is delivered and Corbyn beaten it does not matter too much what happens after that, the pendulum will turn again as it always does anyway.
However if Brexit is not delivered and the Leave vote not respected and Corbyn then wins as the Brexit Party split the Tory vote that would be far more serious
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
Very very much less so these days: even membership is effectively centralised. Ultimately, the Centre can assume control, dissolve the Association, and impose their own candidate. Something very similar happened as far back as 2005 when Michael Howard decreed that Howard Flight, then shadow Chief Secretary, would not be a candidate in the election.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
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.
It's awful. I think it's gone way too far.
It will probably win the Tories the next election, but then what? At some point it all begins to come home to roost. At that point, winning the election may not turn out to seem as worth it as it does now. As others have observed, running a country is very different to running a referendum campaign. Crucially, it is an ongoing exercise, not time-limited.
It is also not binary. Sometimes an opponent on one issue is an ally on another. But not if you have sacked, deselected or utterly alienated them.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
Because one has to consider circumstances, cause and effect.
I’m a Utopian Socialist, with strong leanings towards decentralisation and ecology. Apparently.
Go figure!
Same here!
Utopian Socialism Utopian Socialism is a form of pre-Marxist socialism that belives highly in an egalitarian, moralistic and idealistic foundation for a socialist society. Utopian Socialists generally reject violent revolution and often believe the ruling class can be convinced to adopt socialism
Ditto except I’m “very reformist” and “very decentralist”
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.
It's awful. I think it's gone way too far.
It will probably win the Tories the next election, but then what? At some point it all begins to come home to roost. At that point, winning the election may not turn out to seem as worth it as it does now. As others have observed, running a country is very different to running a referendum campaign. Crucially, it is an ongoing exercise, not time-limited.
It is also not binary. Sometimes an opponent on one issue is an ally on another. But not if you have sacked, deselected or utterly alienated them.
I think it was well expressed by whoever posted recently that we have to “vanquish” our political opponents. Not a democratic mindset.
There will undoubtedly be protests over this decision. Boris Johnson will be accused of purging the Tory party of those opposed to no deal. But the tactics are not dissimilar to those used by John Major to get the Maastricht treaty through in 1993 in the face of opposition from Tory Eurosceptics.
This forum is more informed than the public at large obviously, but what makes sense to less informed people matters. (I know this is patronising. I am sorry.).
Is this forum really more informed than the public at large? Everyone likes to think themselves better informed than everyone else. But it’s a nonsense isn’t it. You and most others here are more informed about what matters to globalist liberals. But you are likely pretty uninformed about what matters to “the public at large”. How else to explain the wide spread shock when brexit won?
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
You're muddling together a number of completely different things - information, "what matters" and self-interest.
As far as information goes, I've no doubt that people here are far better informed about the Brexit process than the public at large, and about the likely consequences. (I would except some of the extreme Brexiteers here, if I thought they really believed the stuff they came out with.)
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
I don't know about the Conservative party but in the Lib Dems the national registered nominating officer has authorised me ' to issue certificates on my behalf authorising the use of the Party's registered name or one of its registered descriptions for any divisions or wards of any Principal Local Authority and any Town, Parish or Community Council contained within XXXXXX Council and also the parliamentary constituency of YYYYY.' So if I issued such a certificate to a candidate could it be revoked by the national officer?
On that timetable, I would expect the Government to announce its intention on Thursday to schedule a general election (by the 2/3rds route) in order for the debate and vote to be scheduled on Friday, the date of the election being scheduled for the beginning of November.
Friday's parliamentary business would then be scuppered.
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.
It's awful. I think it's gone way too far.
It will probably win the Tories the next election, but then what? At some point it all begins to come home to roost. At that point, winning the election may not turn out to seem as worth it as it does now. As others have observed, running a country is very different to running a referendum campaign. Crucially, it is an ongoing exercise, not time-limited.
It is also not binary. Sometimes an opponent on one issue is an ally on another. But not if you have sacked, deselected or utterly alienated them.
I think it was well expressed by whoever posted recently that we have to “vanquish” our political opponents. Not a democratic mindset.
It's a classic pre-reformation mindset of us versus them when in reality compromise is the best way forward.
Come the end of this mess I suspect we are going to have a very different electoral system..
On that timetable, I would expect the Government to announce its intention on Thursday to schedule a general election (by the 2/3rds route) in order for the debate and vote to be scheduled on Friday, the date of the election being scheduled for the beginning of November.
Friday's parliamentary business would then be scuppered.
How does it do that if Parliament has control o the schedule.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
This forum is more informed than the public at large obviously, but what makes sense to less informed people matters. (I know this is patronising. I am sorry.).
Is this forum really more informed than the public at large? Everyone likes to think themselves better informed than everyone else. But it’s a nonsense isn’t it. You and most others here are more informed about what matters to globalist liberals. But you are likely pretty uninformed about what matters to “the public at large”. How else to explain the wide spread shock when brexit won?
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
There is perhaps an element of truth in that (though as a businessperson in a small town in Yorkshire, I’m not exactly a metropolitan liberal). But if you look at Big_G’s post, it was about a desire to get on with Brexit whatever the consequences, and a complete absence of interest in any detail. The uninformed-ness is a choice.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He's already a huge member. Why would he need to join the Tories?
On that timetable, I would expect the Government to announce its intention on Thursday to schedule a general election (by the 2/3rds route) in order for the debate and vote to be scheduled on Friday, the date of the election being scheduled for the beginning of November.
Friday's parliamentary business would then be scuppered.
How does it do that if Parliament has control o the schedule.
Can it call a VONC in itself?!? That takes priority over all other business.....
This forum is more informed than the public at large obviously, but what makes sense to less informed people matters. (I know this is patronising. I am sorry.).
Is this forum really more informed than the public at large? Everyone likes to think themselves better informed than everyone else. But it’s a nonsense isn’t it. You and most others here are more informed about what matters to globalist liberals. But you are likely pretty uninformed about what matters to “the public at large”. How else to explain the wide spread shock when brexit won?
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
There is perhaps an element of truth in that (though as a businessperson in a small town in Yorkshire, I’m not exactly a metropolitan liberal). But if you look at Big_G’s post, it was about a desire to get on with Brexit whatever the consequences, and a complete absence of interest in any detail. The uninformed-ness is a choice.
The BOB* vote is entirely understandable, and indeed I sympathise myself. It may deliver Brexit, but almost certainly No Deal, which by definition means instant work on a new arrangement. In the unlikely event of a revised Deal passing, we then get 18 months discussion of how an FTA works.
There is simply no escape from Brexit Groundhog Day by that means, indeed possibly any means.
On that timetable, I would expect the Government to announce its intention on Thursday to schedule a general election (by the 2/3rds route) in order for the debate and vote to be scheduled on Friday, the date of the election being scheduled for the beginning of November.
Friday's parliamentary business would then be scuppered.
How does it do that if Parliament has control o the schedule.
True, Bercow is capable of sinking to new depths of outrageous partisanship by refusing to give precendence to a vote to dissolve parliament or even to a VONC in the government.
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.
It's awful. I think it's gone way too far.
It will probably win the Tories the next election, but then what? At some point it all begins to come home to roost. At that point, winning the election may not turn out to seem as worth it as it does now. As others have observed, running a country is very different to running a referendum campaign. Crucially, it is an ongoing exercise, not time-limited.
It is also not binary. Sometimes an opponent on one issue is an ally on another. But not if you have sacked, deselected or utterly alienated them.
I think it was well expressed by whoever posted recently that we have to “vanquish” our political opponents. Not a democratic mindset.
It's a classic pre-reformation mindset of us versus them when in reality compromise is the best way forward.
Come the end of this mess I suspect we are going to have a very different electoral system..
In the end, it is the fundamental difference between tactics and strategy. A referendum needs a tactician, the strategy is to win it. Hence the deliberate lack of any Leave plan for afterwards. Cummings' tactics thus far, are working. But the strategy (get an election by VONC so Boris can fight it against Parliament), is not only hideously limited (hence "what then"), but ludicrously obvious to all.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
On that timetable, I would expect the Government to announce its intention on Thursday to schedule a general election (by the 2/3rds route) in order for the debate and vote to be scheduled on Friday, the date of the election being scheduled for the beginning of November.
Friday's parliamentary business would then be scuppered.
How does it do that if Parliament has control o the schedule.
True, Bercow is capable of sinking to new depths of outrageous partisanship by refusing to give precendence to a vote to dissolve parliament or even to a VONC in the government.
I can see Bercow allowing the vote with a very short debate first while the Labour, Lib Dems and SNP hold an emergency meeting to ensure there isn't 440 MPs available to vote for the election
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
He can derive his power by proxy from Boris. If Boris says "Cummings is my representative on Earth and speaks with my voice" then there you go...
He also acts as a useful cut-out/fuse. If things get too rough for Boris he can always fire Cummings and say "It woz Dom wot did it". Plausible Deniability as the Smoking Man used to say .
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
Cummings won’t be able to enforce the threat in any event. Any decision on the abrupt and enforced deselection of an errant Tory MP following the Commons vote(s) will be taken by Johnson, the Chief Whip and the Party Chairman.
... plus Gavin Williamson knows all the dirt on those who might be tempted to not support the government. What’s the betting someone has some dirt released on them in the coming weeks pour encourager les autres?
This forum is more informed than the public at large obviously, but what makes sense to less informed people matters. (I know this is patronising. I am sorry.).
Is this forum really more informed than the public at large? Everyone likes to think themselves better informed than everyone else. But it’s a nonsense isn’t it. You and most others here are more informed about what matters to globalist liberals. But you are likely pretty uninformed about what matters to “the public at large”. How else to explain the wide spread shock when brexit won?
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
There is perhaps an element of truth in that (though as a businessperson in a small town in Yorkshire, I’m not exactly a metropolitan liberal). But if you look at Big_G’s post, it was about a desire to get on with Brexit whatever the consequences, and a complete absence of interest in any detail. The uninformed-ness is a choice.
And the irony of the just get on with it approach is that October 31st isn't the end of it, it's likely to not even to be the end of the beginning.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
Cummings won’t be able to enforce the threat in any event. Any decision on the abrupt and enforced deselection of an errant Tory MP following the Commons vote(s) will be taken by Johnson, the Chief Whip and the Party Chairman.
You think there's a cigarette paper between any of them on this?
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
Cummings won’t be able to enforce the threat in any event. Any decision on the abrupt and enforced deselection of an errant Tory MP following the Commons vote(s) will be taken by Johnson, the Chief Whip and the Party Chairman.
But as the example of Javid has illustrated, even the most senior party functionaries appear willing to be Cummings’ gimps.
... plus Gavin Williamson knows all the dirt on those who might be tempted to not support the government. What’s the betting someone has some dirt released on them in the coming weeks pour encourager les autres?
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.
This forum is more informed than the public at large obviously, but what makes sense to less informed people matters. (I know this is patronising. I am sorry.).
Is this forum really more informed than the public at large? Everyone likes to think themselves better informed than everyone else. But it’s a nonsense isn’t it. You and most others here are more informed about what matters to globalist liberals. But you are likely pretty uninformed about what matters to “the public at large”. How else to explain the wide spread shock when brexit won?
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
There is perhaps an element of truth in that (though as a businessperson in a small town in Yorkshire, I’m not exactly a metropolitan liberal). But if you look at Big_G’s post, it was about a desire to get on with Brexit whatever the consequences, and a complete absence of interest in any detail. The uninformed-ness is a choice.
And the irony of the just get on with it approach is that October 31st isn't the end of it, it's likely to not even to be the end of the beginning.
No kidding. That is what I mean by deliberately uninformed.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
Parliament has had 3 years to sort out Brexit. 86% of MPs were elected on a platform that we would to leave in order to respect the public vote. They passed votes that put in place a default position that we voted unconditionally to leave on 31st March 2019 and then on 31st October 2019. They in the meantime voted down every attempt by the previous government to leave under terms which the EU was prepared to agree to, yet are now intent to vote down an attempt to leave before terms with the EU have been agreed.
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.
In other words , he is pure evil!
Well, he's certainly running a tight ship. Everyone's already pretty pissed with him.
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.
Indeed but then that happens every year on proroguation.
This is cheeky yes and it is seeking advantage but it is playing within the rules - incidentally rules chosen by Grieves as its his amendment that chose the Oct 14 date. There is still time before and after proroguation for Parliament to act before Brexit, its just tougher.
What Raab was proposing would have denied Parliament any chance to act whatsoever.
Its like Raab was saying in a football match that it needed to be terminated now with a goal lead and have no chance to continue, whereas Boris is within the rules timewasting and kicking the ball to the corner flag.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
Cummings won’t be able to enforce the threat in any event. Any decision on the abrupt and enforced deselection of an errant Tory MP following the Commons vote(s) will be taken by Johnson, the Chief Whip and the Party Chairman.
But as the example of Javid has illustrated, even the most senior party functionaries appear willing to be Cummings’ gimps.
But a Spad not an MP. Cummings will not be a decision maker on the deselection of Tory MPs should that arise in practice.I have no love for the man - quite the opposite - and he does wield an unhealthy and excessive authority. But I’m counselling against over statement as to its reach.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
Cummings won’t be able to enforce the threat in any event. Any decision on the abrupt and enforced deselection of an errant Tory MP following the Commons vote(s) will be taken by Johnson, the Chief Whip and the Party Chairman.
But as the example of Javid has illustrated, even the most senior party functionaries appear willing to be Cummings’ gimps.
While Javid was publically humiliated, and had to eat his own words live on Radio 4 this morning, at least he had the gumption to appear. The lack of government spokespeople on other bits of the news is quite telling. Quite what the mix of fear and annoyance is, we may never know.
I recently went to NI and had a tour around the stormont parliament building. An interesting remark that the tour guide made releated to the suspension of devolved government. He said people though if "the chuckle brothers were still with us, the present situation would be resolved". I think the implication of his comment is the current leaderships of the DUP and Sinn Fien are the problem and i dont see that changing....
I would say to anyone interested in politics the free tour around stormont is an enjoyable hour and would encourage anyone with the time to go.
On that timetable, I would expect the Government to announce its intention on Thursday to schedule a general election (by the 2/3rds route) in order for the debate and vote to be scheduled on Friday, the date of the election being scheduled for the beginning of November.
Friday's parliamentary business would then be scuppered.
How does it do that if Parliament has control o the schedule.
True, Bercow is capable of sinking to new depths of outrageous partisanship by refusing to give precendence to a vote to dissolve parliament or even to a VONC in the government.
Whether you like it or not, his job is to speak for the Commons. And the Commons is the ultimate arbiter of its own procedure.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
We have a new PM who has not had the opportunity to set out his programme to Parliament. Why should he not be allowed to do that?
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
Parliament has had 3 years to sort out Brexit. 86% of MPs were elected on a platform that we would to leave in order to respect the public vote. They passed votes that put in place a default position that we voted unconditionally to leave on 31st March 2019 and then on 31st October 2019. They in the meantime voted down every attempt by the previous government to leave under terms which the EU was prepared to agree to, yet are now intent to vote down an attempt to leave before terms with the EU have been agreed.
All true, but irrelevant. Bozo has formed a new government and strategy, yet has curtailed democratic scrutiny. He faced Parliament for a single day before running away.
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.
Indeed but then that happens every year on proroguation.
This is cheeky yes and it is seeking advantage but it is playing within the rules - incidentally rules chosen by Grieves as its his amendment that chose the Oct 14 date. There is still time before and after proroguation for Parliament to act before Brexit, its just tougher.
What Raab was proposing would have denied Parliament any chance to act whatsoever.
Its like Raab was saying in a football match that it needed to be terminated now with a goal lead and have no chance to continue, whereas Boris is within the rules timewasting and kicking the ball to the corner flag.
No, it’s like Johnson carrying the ball out of play and refusing to return it until five minutes before the whistle.
OT, but if Hurricane Dorian hits Mar-a-Lago, will this be considered divine judgment on Trump? Or not?
I doubt Trump would want to use nuclear bombs on the hurricane if it did hit track toward his florida resort! Trump might glow in the dark for different reasons!
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
Cummings won’t be able to enforce the threat in any event. Any decision on the abrupt and enforced deselection of an errant Tory MP following the Commons vote(s) will be taken by Johnson, the Chief Whip and the Party Chairman.
But as the example of Javid has illustrated, even the most senior party functionaries appear willing to be Cummings’ gimps.
While Javid was publically humiliated, and had to eat his own words live on Radio 4 this morning, at least he had the gumption to appear. The lack of government spokespeople on other bits of the news is quite telling. Quite what the mix of fear and annoyance is, we may never know.
Which is why I said gimp. If forced to, they will cheerfully eat shit in public.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
We have a new PM who has not had the opportunity to set out his programme to Parliament. Why should he not be allowed to do that?
So prorogue Parliament on Monday and introduce a new Queen's speech on Wednesday.
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
That is a fair point. It is, however, not too hard to draw up a list of those who could issue such a diktat.
1. Boris 2. Cummings 3. Errr....
If the threat was ever actually issued - was it? - it would have had to be expressly approved by Johnson even (as would likely be the case) it entered the public domain via Cummings.
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
As a matter of interest, is Cummings actually a member of the Conservative Party himself?
He certainly wasn’t immediately prior to his appointment and I would greatly doubt that he has joined since. In that respect, entirely dissimilar to Campbell.
If so, how can a non-member issue such a threat to members?
Cummings won’t be able to enforce the threat in any event. Any decision on the abrupt and enforced deselection of an errant Tory MP following the Commons vote(s) will be taken by Johnson, the Chief Whip and the Party Chairman.
But as the example of Javid has illustrated, even the most senior party functionaries appear willing to be Cummings’ gimps.
But a Spad not an MP. Cummings will not be a decision maker on the deselection of Tory MPs should that arise in practice.I have no love for the man - quite the opposite - and he does wield an unhealthy and excessive authority. But I’m counselling against over statement as to its reach.
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
Parliament has had 3 years to sort out Brexit. 86% of MPs were elected on a platform that we would to leave in order to respect the public vote. They passed votes that put in place a default position that we voted unconditionally to leave on 31st March 2019 and then on 31st October 2019. They in the meantime voted down every attempt by the previous government to leave under terms which the EU was prepared to agree to, yet are now intent to vote down an attempt to leave before terms with the EU have been agreed.
All true, but irrelevant. Bozo has formed a new government and strategy, yet has curtailed democratic scrutiny. He faced Parliament for a single day before running away.
I think I'm right in saying that Michael Gove is now the only surviving member of the first coalition cabinet, and even he hasn't been in the cabinet continuously since 2010. Hammond, May and Hunt were the others.
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.
In other words , he is pure evil!
Well, he's certainly running a tight ship. Everyone's already pretty pissed with him.
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
I suspect there are few very remainer associations as newcomers (of the Brexity type) will have joined recently./
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
I recently went to NI and had a tour around the stormont parliament building. An interesting remark that the tour guide made releated to the suspension of devolved government. He said people though if "the chuckle brothers were still with us, the present situation would be resolved". I think the implication of his comment is the current leaderships of the DUP and Sinn Fien are the problem and i dont see that changing....
I would say to anyone interested in politics the free tour around stormont is an enjoyable hour and would encourage anyone with the time to go.
I suspect there's something in that. Neither MacGuiness nor Paisley had anything more to prove.
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
They wouldn’t be able to use:
1) data 2) the Conservative party logo or brand
That’s a pretty strong disincentive
I can think of certain constituencies where (2) would be a definite positive right now, starting with most seats in Scotland.
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.
In other words , he is pure evil!
Well, he's certainly running a tight ship. Everyone's already pretty pissed with him.
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
When i was involved with the Tories within the last 5 years. The association was in charge and had ownership of the assets. They pais CCHQ for services and a one off fee. It may have changed but i have no reason to see why it might have been adjusted.
When the Liberals split in the last century they had competing blocks. I cannot see why a Remain Tory could not be returned in a Remain area in the 'forthcoming election'.
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
They wouldn’t be able to use:
1) data 2) the Conservative party logo or brand
That’s a pretty strong disincentive
I can think of certain constituencies where (2) would be a definite positive right now, starting with most seats in Scotland.
When it comes to the polling booth, I don’t agree.
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
They wouldn’t be able to use:
1) data 2) the Conservative party logo or brand
That’s a pretty strong disincentive
I can think of certain constituencies where (2) would be a definite positive right now, starting with most seats in Scotland.
When it comes to the polling booth, I don’t agree.
Boris seems to have picked an effective backroom team.
I can see this is proving to be very upsetting to his opponents.
Both internal and external. Cummings is a loose canon and this will end badly.
He won’t be around by Xmas - he has said so himself.
Hopefully his imminent surgery will see him off.
You cannot possibly hate Dominic Cummings more than I do, but even I wouldn't wish that on him. That's all too horribly reminiscent of some of the things you wished on Theresa May.
I recently went to NI and had a tour around the stormont parliament building. An interesting remark that the tour guide made releated to the suspension of devolved government. He said people though if "the chuckle brothers were still with us, the present situation would be resolved". I think the implication of his comment is the current leaderships of the DUP and Sinn Fien are the problem and i dont see that changing....
I would say to anyone interested in politics the free tour around stormont is an enjoyable hour and would encourage anyone with the time to go.
I suspect there's something in that. Neither MacGuiness nor Paisley had anything more to prove.
Indeed. Also 'the troubles' were damaging economically and curtailed an individuals safety. Only an extremist would want to return to the days of fear. I think the chuckle brothers had invested much political capital in the project and would not wish to return to the bad old days.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
We have a new PM who has not had the opportunity to set out his programme to Parliament. Why should he not be allowed to do that?
So prorogue Parliament on Monday and introduce a new Queen's speech on Wednesday.
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
When i was involved with the Tories within the last 5 years. The association was in charge and had ownership of the assets. They pais CCHQ for services and a one off fee. It may have changed but i have no reason to see why it might have been adjusted.
When the Liberals split in the last century they had competing blocks. I cannot see why a Remain Tory could not be returned in a Remain area in the 'forthcoming election'.
To whom does the data belong? the Association or the Central Party?
Dominic Cumming's "game theory" is quite interesting. He seems to be quite clear that Brexit is in fact a cliff edge and is quite happy to throw everyone including himself off it. He despises May for being unwilling to jump.
It is strategy that involves a high degree of dishonesty. For example that this government is doing serious No Deal planning the previous one was unwilling to do, and it will all be alright.
It is a strategy that depends totally on people that loathe Cummings and Johnson with every fibre of their body doing exactly what Cummings wants them to do. Maybe they will. It's pretty high risk, I would say.
Boris seems to have picked an effective backroom team.
I can see this is proving to be very upsetting to his opponents.
Both internal and external. Cummings is a loose canon and this will end badly.
He won’t be around by Xmas - he has said so himself.
Hopefully his imminent surgery will see him off.
Says far more about you than him.
Cummings had to make a proper sacrifice to take the job; Johnson talked him into cancelling a surgical procedure, serious enough to warrant general anaesthetic, which had been scheduled for three days later, when Johnson formally became PM.
He promised his wife, the journalist Mary Wakefield, that he would reschedule the operation for the week following 31 October and only after the op would he then discuss with Johnson what – if any – his future role in government would be.
I cannot judge whether Cummings will return after the surgery. I understand it depends on his health, the views of his wife, and whether he and Johnson can agree on a long-term role that would suit them both. Pimpernel-like, he may vanish again.
Boris seems to have picked an effective backroom team.
I can see this is proving to be very upsetting to his opponents.
Both internal and external. Cummings is a loose canon and this will end badly.
He won’t be around by Xmas - he has said so himself.
Hopefully his imminent surgery will see him off.
You cannot possibly hate Dominic Cummings more than I do, but even I wouldn't wish that on him. That's all too horribly reminiscent of some of the things you wished on Theresa May.
I suspect that the Spad sacked this week would not be unhappy to hear of his demise!
Boris seems to have picked an effective backroom team.
I can see this is proving to be very upsetting to his opponents.
Both internal and external. Cummings is a loose canon and this will end badly.
He won’t be around by Xmas - he has said so himself.
Hopefully his imminent surgery will see him off.
Disgraceful post. Very very unchristian.
Would you have said the same of surgery re- Hitler - Himmler - Heydrich? He has much in common with them - is clearly a monster.
How many people has he killed? How many violent protests has he sponsored? How many terrorist groups has he supported? How much money has he embezzled?
If you don't have these answers: 'millions; thousands; dozens; billions:' then you are making an asinine comparison, and given your remarkable knowledge of history you must know that.
You can - and I do - freely compare Johnson and Cummings to Corbyn and Milne, or to Trump and Bannon, or verily Chavez and Maduro, but Hitler (or Stalin as @Foxy did) is going ridiculously too far.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
We have a new PM who has not had the opportunity to set out his programme to Parliament. Why should he not be allowed to do that?
So prorogue Parliament on Monday and introduce a new Queen's speech on Wednesday.
Queen's still in Balmoral.
That's Boris's problem (and potentially the monarchy's in the medium term).
What’s the legal structure of the Tory party and its assets these days? Is it still a “federation” of local associations or something more centralized?
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
When i was involved with the Tories within the last 5 years. The association was in charge and had ownership of the assets. They pais CCHQ for services and a one off fee. It may have changed but i have no reason to see why it might have been adjusted.
When the Liberals split in the last century they had competing blocks. I cannot see why a Remain Tory could not be returned in a Remain area in the 'forthcoming election'.
I do not know anything about the Tories. But, in the past, before central membership, local Labour Parties were really local, "owned" by the membership [ "shareholders" ] and the General Committee roughly exercising the powers of the "Board of Directors". Obviously, you cannot compare with company articles but, broadly speaking, that is how it is.
OT unless it turns out not to be, David Cameron will be hitting the interview circuit in a couple of weeks to plug his book.
His take on things might be interesting. Given politics has moved on so much since his resignation. It might not get the sales it might have achieved a year ago. Timing is key to everything in life imo...
Boris seems to have picked an effective backroom team.
I can see this is proving to be very upsetting to his opponents.
Both internal and external. Cummings is a loose canon and this will end badly.
He won’t be around by Xmas - he has said so himself.
Hopefully his imminent surgery will see him off.
Disgraceful post. Very very unchristian.
Would you have said the same of surgery re- Hitler - Himmler - Heydrich? He has much in common with them - is clearly a monster.
How many people has he killed? How many violent protests has he sponsored? How many terrorist groups has he supported? How much money has he embezzled?
If you don't have these answers: 'millions; thousands; dozens; billions:' then you are making an asinine comparison, and given your remarkable knowledge of history you must know that.
You can - and I do - freely compare Johnson and Cummings to Corbyn and Milne, or to Trump and Bannon, or verily Chavez and Maduro, but Hitler (or Stalin as @Foxy did) is going ridiculously too far.
Some people are too ugly on the inside to engage with.
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
We have a new PM who has not had the opportunity to set out his programme to Parliament. Why should he not be allowed to do that?
So prorogue Parliament on Monday and introduce a new Queen's speech on Wednesday.
Queen's still in Balmoral.
That's Boris's problem (and potentially the monarchy's in the medium term).
Not at all. He had the courtesy to wait for her to return before expecting her to give an important speech
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.
Why is it that some Remainers such as yourself consider that it would be an unprecedented constitutional outrage if the prorogation of the longest sitting parliament on record is not postponed for even longer than it has already been postponed?
The fact is that we have had a new PM and a nearly entire turnover of cabinet, with a different approach to Brexit. That new PM has faced Parliament for a single day, and not for any substantive business. Axing the majority of the remaining time is the move of an autocrat who is afraid of Parliamentary scrutiny.
We have a new PM who has not had the opportunity to set out his programme to Parliament. Why should he not be allowed to do that?
So prorogue Parliament on Monday and introduce a new Queen's speech on Wednesday.
Boris seems to have picked an effective backroom team.
I can see this is proving to be very upsetting to his opponents.
Both internal and external. Cummings is a loose canon and this will end badly.
He won’t be around by Xmas - he has said so himself.
Hopefully his imminent surgery will see him off.
Disgraceful post. Very very unchristian.
Would you have said the same of surgery re- Hitler - Himmler - Heydrich? He has much in common with them - is clearly a monster.
How many people has he killed? How many violent protests has he sponsored? How many terrorist groups has he supported? How much money has he embezzled?
If you don't have these answers: 'millions; thousands; dozens; billions:' then you are making an asinine comparison, and given your remarkable knowledge of history you must know that.
You can - and I do - freely compare Johnson and Cummings to Corbyn and Milne, or to Trump and Bannon, or verily Chavez and Maduro, but Hitler (or Stalin as @Foxy did) is going ridiculously too far.
With respect , I would be surprised if there are not Tory MPs who - in private - would jump for joy if they heard such news.
Comments
Utopian Socialism
Utopian Socialism is a form of pre-Marxist socialism that belives highly in an egalitarian, moralistic and idealistic foundation for a socialist society. Utopian Socialists generally reject violent revolution and often believe the ruling class can be convinced to adopt socialism
There’s no right or wrong to these issues, only self interest and everyone else’s interest.
His masterstroke at Vote Leave was to forbid concrete discussion of what Leave meant. That maximised the vote, but is the root cause of the hell of the last three years.
However if Brexit is not delivered and the Leave vote not respected and Corbyn then wins as the Brexit Party split the Tory vote that would be far more serious
By the way, apart from that tweet by Tolhurst, is there any actual evidence that Cummings issued that diktat?
https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1167703467718303747?s=20
But not if you have sacked, deselected or utterly alienated them.
Not a democratic mindset.
There will undoubtedly be protests over this decision. Boris Johnson will be accused of purging the Tory party of those opposed to no deal. But the tactics are not dissimilar to those used by John Major to get the Maastricht treaty through in 1993 in the face of opposition from Tory Eurosceptics.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/tory-mps-who-vote-for-the-extension-legislation-will-be-barred-from-standing-for-the-party-at-the-next-election/
As far as information goes, I've no doubt that people here are far better informed about the Brexit process than the public at large, and about the likely consequences. (I would except some of the extreme Brexiteers here, if I thought they really believed the stuff they came out with.)
So if I issued such a certificate to a candidate could it be revoked by the national officer?
1. Boris
2. Cummings
3. Errr....
Friday's parliamentary business would then be scuppered.
Come the end of this mess I suspect we are going to have a very different electoral system..
But I agree that Cummings wields more power than most Cabinet ministers, very similar to Alastair Campbell in his prime (sic) and that is not a good thing.
But if you look at Big_G’s post, it was about a desire to get on with Brexit whatever the consequences, and a complete absence of interest in any detail.
The uninformed-ness is a choice.
Betting PostF1: backed Hamilton to be fastest in qualifying, at 7.5, each way (fifth the odds top three).
https://twitter.com/SavLocal/status/1167497692953681920?s=20
There is simply no escape from Brexit Groundhog Day by that means, indeed possibly any means.
*BOB = Bored Of Brexit.
But the strategy (get an election by VONC so Boris can fight it against Parliament), is not only hideously limited (hence "what then"), but ludicrously obvious to all.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1167764240893206529?s=20
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/08/belgium-pre-qualifying-2019.html
Off for a bit, shall return later.
He also acts as a useful cut-out/fuse. If things get too rough for Boris he can always fire Cummings and say "It woz Dom wot did it". Plausible Deniability as the Smoking Man used to say .
That is what I mean by deliberately uninformed.
This is cheeky yes and it is seeking advantage but it is playing within the rules - incidentally rules chosen by Grieves as its his amendment that chose the Oct 14 date. There is still time before and after proroguation for Parliament to act before Brexit, its just tougher.
What Raab was proposing would have denied Parliament any chance to act whatsoever.
Its like Raab was saying in a football match that it needed to be terminated now with a goal lead and have no chance to continue, whereas Boris is within the rules timewasting and kicking the ball to the corner flag.
I recently went to NI and had a tour around the stormont parliament building. An interesting remark that the tour guide made releated to the suspension of devolved government. He said people though if "the chuckle brothers were still with us, the present situation would be resolved". I think the implication of his comment is the current leaderships of the DUP and Sinn Fien are the problem and i dont see that changing....
I would say to anyone interested in politics the free tour around stormont is an enjoyable hour and would encourage anyone with the time to go.
If forced to, they will cheerfully eat shit in public.
My point being, could a Remainer Tory MP in a Remain constituency with a largely-Remainer association rebel, be expelled but take their association with them so to speak? Or is it all organized now that the central party retains ownership of the association’s assets even if the association leaves the party en masse
1) data
2) the Conservative party logo or brand
That’s a pretty strong disincentive
I can see this is proving to be very upsetting to his opponents.
When the Liberals split in the last century they had competing blocks. I cannot see why a Remain Tory could not be returned in a Remain area in the 'forthcoming election'.
It is strategy that involves a high degree of dishonesty. For example that this government is doing serious No Deal planning the previous one was unwilling to do, and it will all be alright.
It is a strategy that depends totally on people that loathe Cummings and Johnson with every fibre of their body doing exactly what Cummings wants them to do. Maybe they will. It's pretty high risk, I would say.
Cummings had to make a proper sacrifice to take the job; Johnson talked him into cancelling a surgical procedure, serious enough to warrant general anaesthetic, which had been scheduled for three days later, when Johnson formally became PM.
He promised his wife, the journalist Mary Wakefield, that he would reschedule the operation for the week following 31 October and only after the op would he then discuss with Johnson what – if any – his future role in government would be.
I cannot judge whether Cummings will return after the surgery. I understand it depends on his health, the views of his wife, and whether he and Johnson can agree on a long-term role that would suit them both. Pimpernel-like, he may vanish again.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/dominic-cummings-wont-blink-over-no-deal-but-will-boris-johnson/
If you don't have these answers: 'millions; thousands; dozens; billions:' then you are making an asinine comparison, and given your remarkable knowledge of history you must know that.
You can - and I do - freely compare Johnson and Cummings to Corbyn and Milne, or to Trump and Bannon, or verily Chavez and Maduro, but Hitler (or Stalin as @Foxy did) is going ridiculously too far.
Obviously, you cannot compare with company articles but, broadly speaking, that is how it is.