No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
Think how different life would be right now if May had, on losing the first vote, stripped the ERG of the whip, extended A50, and then called an election with all candidates pledged to vote for her deal and otherwise we would leave without one.
She wouldn't have won a majority, but she would probably still have been in government and Boris, Mogg, Baker, Francois, Patel and Raab would have been finished.
She was a weak, weak PM, taking such advice as she did from idiot advisors.
Anyway, I sadly have a job to get to. I will see you at some point - I don't know when. Please try and keep Justin from expressing homicidal views too often. Would be most embarrassing for OGH if he was arrested.
The question Prof O’Hara does not address (quite appropriately for reasons of space) is “what is their alternative?”
Have Johnson/Cummings chosen the least worst option if their objective is to deliver BREXIT?
If they genuinely believe Remainers within and without Parliament are effectively blocking renegotiation by the EU, what else should they do?
Their renegotiation aim of WA minus Back Stop is the only thing the House has voted in favour of.
What will more delay lead to other than further uncertainty?
One thing I am sure of - this House is no longer fit for purpose and the sooner it - and its Speaker - are replaced, the better. As for which government that leads to - who the heck knows?
The next House will largely be made up of the same people, or very similar ones, possibly be of very similar political composition, and will have the same Speaker.
There was some weekend talk about the Tories running against Bercow. I’d imagine this might be a futile exercise ? Though I don’t really know anything about his constituency.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
What do you imagine this new consensus is going to look like after leaving? Because right now I don’t see any grounds for expecting any kind of consensus.
Nor did anyone in 1981. It may not happen, history doesn't exactly repeat itself. But the prognostications of doom are overstated.
To give you a more serious answer I expect that we will end up with a much closer relationship with the EU than many ERG types now think, that we will find what we have more valuable than what we might get and work to keep as much of it as possible, that the closeness of our relationship with the EU will vary depending upon the flavour of our governments but that there will be a wariness about getting caught up in the machinations of EU institutions again.
And which party do you imagine might navigate their way to such a solution ?
If there is a consensus then they all will, that is what a consensus means. So monetarism and the new employment law consensus survived Blair's first 2 terms at least (and the employment law consensus remains to this day).
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
Leaving aside that DavidL is a Scottish lawyer, when you say the courts politically cannot be seen to ignore the effects of no deal Brexit are you in fact saying the Scottish courts would make their decision based not on the law but politics? Thats a bit insulting to them.
Now, for all I know the law as they see it will be in favour of those bringing the case, but I certainly hope senior judges dont make calls based on political convenience.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
LOL. I am a Scottish advocate who sat in a part of the hearing last week and read the written submissions of the petitioners. Lord Doherty will refuse the petition tomorrow. He probably spent most of his weekend preparing his draft.
I expect so too. What is also not in doubt is a firm consensus in Scotland against an imposed No Deal Brexit and a developing consensus for Scotland to go its own way if that's what happens.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
"Your policy" was never campaigned for. At the end of this process, what is going to be the Conservative pitch to those - currently it seems a clear majority - who are opposed to no deal Brexit?
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
What do you imagine this new consensus is going to look like after leaving? Because right now I don’t see any grounds for expecting any kind of consensus.
Nor did anyone in 1981. It may not happen, history doesn't exactly repeat itself. But the prognostications of doom are overstated.
To give you a more serious answer I expect that we will end up with a much closer relationship with the EU than many ERG types now think, that we will find what we have more valuable than what we might get and work to keep as much of it as possible, that the closeness of our relationship with the EU will vary depending upon the flavour of our governments but that there will be a wariness about getting caught up in the machinations of EU institutions again.
I don't think a new consensus did emerge after the 1981 budget. Indeed the deindustrialisation of the North, the Midlands, Wales and Scotland in favour of a Southern economy based on financial services set up the socio-economic divide that led to Brexit.
There is some irony in Corbyn, an extreme idealogue his entire life, triangulating and twisting Labs position on brexit. They have ended with a centrist position against Remain (LD) and Leave (Tory). However, by trying to appeal to all, they appeal to none.
Brexit was a binary choice. The Tories get this. The LibDems get this. Question, voters: do you want the lights switched on, or do you want the lights turned off? Tories off, LibDems on.
Labour thought they were being clever by asking "what if we installed dimmers?" All whilst Corbyn is quietly rummaging around looking for the fuse box....
The view in No.10 might be that when faced with the prospect of Jezza and a nationalised Tesco sensible people would coalesce around the ever reliable, business-friendly, economically sound Tories. But those days have gone.
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
LOL. I am a Scottish advocate who sat in a part of the hearing last week and read the written submissions of the petitioners. Lord Doherty will refuse the petition tomorrow. He probably spent most of his weekend preparing his draft.
I expect so too. What is also not in doubt is a firm consensus in Scotland against an imposed No Deal Brexit and a developing consensus for Scotland to go its own way if that's what happens.
Maybe, maybe not but that is for politicians to decide, not courts.
The question Prof O’Hara does not address (quite appropriately for reasons of space) is “what is their alternative?”
Have Johnson/Cummings chosen the least worst option if their objective is to deliver BREXIT?
If they genuinely believe Remainers within and without Parliament are effectively blocking renegotiation by the EU, what else should they do?
Their renegotiation aim of WA minus Back Stop is the only thing the House has voted in favour of.
What will more delay lead to other than further uncertainty?
One thing I am sure of - this House is no longer fit for purpose and the sooner it - and its Speaker - are replaced, the better. As for which government that leads to - who the heck knows?
The next House will largely be made up of the same people, or very similar ones, possibly be of very similar political composition, and will have the same Speaker.
On topic - I couldn't agree more with the good Prof. The Conservatives seem determine to hitch themselves to demographic oblivion in the most conspicuous way possible. And that's being charitable and making the heroic assumption that the plan is going to work in the very short term.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
"Your policy" was never campaigned for. At the end of this process, what is going to be the Conservative pitch to those - currently it seems a clear majority - who are opposed to no deal Brexit?
The policy is to leave. That is consistent with the 2017 manifesto that the likes of Grieve was elected on. It was Labour's policy too of course.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
"Your policy" was never campaigned for. At the end of this process, what is going to be the Conservative pitch to those - currently it seems a clear majority - who are opposed to no deal Brexit?
The policy is to leave. That is consistent with the 2017 manifesto that the likes of Grieve was elected on. It was Labour's policy too of course.
The people being threatened with expulsion voted to leave three times. The current Prime Minister sabotaged their efforts.
Labours brexit policy is unnecessarily open to attack because so many of its members and mps dont care about the renegotiation phase which is therefore a waste of time - just say it'll be the WA as is vs remain - but my notoriously unreliable gut tells me that while there will be no formal alliance there will be massive pressure on no deal opponents to be tactical, and it will be enough to cobble together enough to best Boris. there'll probably be a site like the one telling people which unionist party is best placed to beat the snp.
That the Tories are busy attacking themselves, with the joyful backing of the largest part of its membership, only adds to that feeling.
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
What idiocy. People are going to lose their careers - just so they can point at Boris and say "Ha! October 31st "do or die" huh? Hahahaha....." Because nothing else material comes out of it. Maybe a few big investment opportunities get delayed. Or scrapped. But hey, point and laugh at Boris.
Really, that just strengthens Boris - as he looks to camera and says "See what I'm up against folks?"
We need an election. We need a significantly new Parliament.
Surely Do-or-Die Bozo will have to resign if we don't leave at the end of October? That's what the 'Die' bit implies, no?
He was referring to us not him.
Or more likely he just knew the tories were dead at that point, not thst he would quit.
One further point. Boris Johnson can threaten anti-no dealers with expulsion. But once they're gone, they're gone. They won't be coming back, they'll be looking for a new home (almost certainly the Lib Dems in the long term).
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
What do you imagine this new consensus is going to look like after leaving? Because right now I don’t see any grounds for expecting any kind of consensus.
Nor did anyone in 1981. It may not happen, history doesn't exactly repeat itself. But the prognostications of doom are overstated.
To give you a more serious answer I expect that we will end up with a much closer relationship with the EU than many ERG types now think, that we will find what we have more valuable than what we might get and work to keep as much of it as possible, that the closeness of our relationship with the EU will vary depending upon the flavour of our governments but that there will be a wariness about getting caught up in the machinations of EU institutions again.
And which party do you imagine might navigate their way to such a solution ?
If there is a consensus then they all will, that is what a consensus means. So monetarism and the new employment law consensus survived Blair's first 2 terms at least (and the employment law consensus remains to this day).
‘If there is a consensus’ is begging the question. It’s quite clear that whatever is left of the Tory party after the next election will be ideologically opposed to any such thing; the Lib Dems are committed to rejoining; a post Corbyn Labour party, just possibly.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
That doesn't make it right. The EU was a central policy under Major, but the bastards still repeatedly voted against Major and the party.
And I hope that Johnson and his fellow bastards don't have a government soon, either.
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
What's startling about it? As with the non Corbynites most give up when defeated and the others wont all find a ready made home elsewhere so fight in the best way they can, by seeking to be wreckers.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
"Your policy" was never campaigned for. At the end of this process, what is going to be the Conservative pitch to those - currently it seems a clear majority - who are opposed to no deal Brexit?
The policy is to leave. That is consistent with the 2017 manifesto that the likes of Grieve was elected on. It was Labour's policy too of course.
The people being threatened with expulsion voted to leave three times. The current Prime Minister sabotaged their efforts.
It is rather depressing that BoJo is gleefully presenting all his opponents as if they were Corbyn or Grieve, and the membership buy it.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
I am not so sure.. the way the ERG act makes one wonder.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
They are gold-plated, self-seeking hypocrites seeking to impose a policy for which they have no mandate. Most voters supported parties that explicitly rejected No Deal in the 2017 election.
The question Prof O’Hara does not address (quite appropriately for reasons of space) is “what is their alternative?”
Have Johnson/Cummings chosen the least worst option if their objective is to deliver BREXIT?
If they genuinely believe Remainers within and without Parliament are effectively blocking renegotiation by the EU, what else should they do?
Their renegotiation aim of WA minus Back Stop is the only thing the House has voted in favour of.
What will more delay lead to other than further uncertainty?
One thing I am sure of - this House is no longer fit for purpose and the sooner it - and its Speaker - are replaced, the better. As for which government that leads to - who the heck knows?
The next House will largely be made up of the same people, or very similar ones, possibly be of very similar political composition, and will have the same Speaker.
There was some weekend talk about the Tories running against Bercow. I’d imagine this might be a futile exercise ? Though I don’t really know anything about his constituency.
A rural English seat which i presume is nominally strongly Tory but with all non tories voting for Bercow?
They should stand. The convention on not contesting the Speaker is not always followed anyway, and it was disappointing the LDs said they would last time then changed their minds.
This would be a really difficult situation for the HoC to cope with, and I could easily see that Swinson says the LDs will support Labour but not with Corbyn as PM.
I think that's the likeliest option too.
But how do you then get Labour to dump a leader who's just "led" the party to something close to victory? It'd take weeks going on months for a leadership contest - and the current Labour membership would probably vote Corbyn back.
Is it even possible for Labour to keep Corbyn as leader, but have (say) Starmer as PM? Because - Sturgeon not being an MP - the only acceptable alternative would be Swinson as PM of a coalition in which the LDs were the minority party.
Which, to put it politely, would be a turnup for the books
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
It will be implemented by matter of treaty (Scotland will not be a member of the EU)
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
LOL. I am a Scottish advocate who sat in a part of the hearing last week and read the written submissions of the petitioners. Lord Doherty will refuse the petition tomorrow. He probably spent most of his weekend preparing his draft.
I expect so too. What is also not in doubt is a firm consensus in Scotland against an imposed No Deal Brexit and a developing consensus for Scotland to go its own way if that's what happens.
Maybe, maybe not but that is for politicians to decide, not courts.
The point is, the court case has an effect at driving that consensus if it's lost. It would be better for the UK government for the case to be won, as far as their authority over Scotland is concerned. It's a mistake of the kind Professor O'Hara refers to in his article Proroguing parliament isn't just an anti-democratic move against the elective body. By trampling over constitutional convention it attacks the Union itself, which is already in a fragile state.
The view in No.10 might be that when faced with the prospect of Jezza and a nationalised Tesco sensible people would coalesce around the ever reliable, business-friendly, economically sound Tories. But those days have gone.
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
The election will be fought on what No Deal means in reality. The Tories will have to spend six weeks lying, day in and day out. That’s what will destroy them if they win. If they lose, they will destroy themselves in short time.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
No. What 'leave' meant in the referendum was unclear, and May's deal satisfied it for many leavers, including many prominent ones on here. It was a typically British compromise. The 2017 Conservative manifesto was mainly about a deal. The Conservative leadership election was infiltrated by entryists, as we saw on here. And the polling is not exactly favourable for no-deal.
So given the potential consequences of a no-deal, I'd say going for one given the above is utterly undemocratic. But at least we know you'll be safe of the consequences, whatever happens.
'Scum' is very constructive when talking about people threatening others for actions they have just done themselves. And those who support them knowing this.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
It will be implemented by matter of treaty (Scotland will not be a member of the EU)
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
Time the Treaty of Union was revoked, then we do not need to worry about Dictators laws from Westminster
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
"Your policy" was never campaigned for. At the end of this process, what is going to be the Conservative pitch to those - currently it seems a clear majority - who are opposed to no deal Brexit?
The policy is to leave. That is consistent with the 2017 manifesto that the likes of Grieve was elected on. It was Labour's policy too of course.
The policy was to leave with a deal by inference. Besides, Governments regularly have to reign in manifesto promises when the national interest demands it. The alternative is gross stupidity. As for Grieve, he follows in a strong tradition of politicians who don't follow the party manifesto line like some sort of automaton. If you think that is what an MPs constitutional responsibility is, you don't understand our system.
Whilst I think the current Con party is splintering, I think maybe half of the existing BXP voters will love the moves towards authoritarianism, and that resistance against will not coalesce. For once, I'm pretty pessimistic and think Johnson might be able to squeak a majority. Where, I'm not sure, but there do seem to be a number of voters who just want action no matter what...
The question Prof O’Hara does not address (quite appropriately for reasons of space) is “what is their alternative?”
Have Johnson/Cummings chosen the least worst option if their objective is to deliver BREXIT?
If they genuinely believe Remainers within and without Parliament are effectively blocking renegotiation by the EU, what else should they do?
Their renegotiation aim of WA minus Back Stop is the only thing the House has voted in favour of.
What will more delay lead to other than further uncertainty?
One thing I am sure of - this House is no longer fit for purpose and the sooner it - and its Speaker - are replaced, the better. As for which government that leads to - who the heck knows?
The next House will largely be made up of the same people, or very similar ones, possibly be of very similar political composition, and will have the same Speaker.
I wouldn't make diary plans as Speaker into Novmber if I were Bercow.....
Depends if the Tories win the election or not. I think that is 50/50 as I think the polling lead will not bear out thanks to BXP standing, tactical voting and BoJo not being as great a campaigner as he thinks
What idiocy. People are going to lose their careers - just so they can point at Boris and say "Ha! October 31st "do or die" huh? Hahahaha....." Because nothing else material comes out of it. Maybe a few big investment opportunities get delayed. Or scrapped. But hey, point and laugh at Boris.
Really, that just strengthens Boris - as he looks to camera and says "See what I'm up against folks?"
We need an election. We need a significantly new Parliament.
Surely Do-or-Die Bozo will have to resign if we don't leave at the end of October? That's what the 'Die' bit implies, no?
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
There would be no difference between it and a BXP one.
The view in No.10 might be that when faced with the prospect of Jezza and a nationalised Tesco sensible people would coalesce around the ever reliable, business-friendly, economically sound Tories. But those days have gone.
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
The election will be fought on what No Deal means in reality. The Tories will have to spend six weeks lying, day in and day out. That’s what will destroy them if they win. If they lose, they will destroy themselves in short time.
Keep asking the question why threatening the EU with the prospect of no deal is so damaging for them that they will give us what we want and on the other hand no deal is no problem with only a few bumps in the road. They can’t both be true.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
We need to implement the result of the last GE in 2017 which is 5 years of this parliament. Anything else is an insult to democracy. The people have already spoken.
We need to implement the result of the last GE in 2017 which is 5 years of this parliament. Anything else is an insult to democracy. The people have already spoken.
There's no reliable evidence that the public have changed their minds since then.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
There would be no difference between it and a BXP one.
I see very little difference now between the BP and the current Executive, and I have been a lifelong Conservative until recently. It is a very worrying development. Equally I loathe the idea of a Corbyn government. My only hope is a hung parliament where the LDs have a strong enough influence to insist that the Conservatives (aka CINO) and the Labour Party present an alternative to their current respective leaders as a price for confidence and supply.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
There would be no difference between it and a BXP one.
Exactly. And kudos to any Conservative MP who votes against the government this week for putting country before their party (and, sadly, their careers).
I don't want a country led by a party with an anti-Semite in charge. Neither do I want one where the likes of Jacob Rees-Worm is Kingmaker.
The question Prof O’Hara does not address (quite appropriately for reasons of space) is “what is their alternative?”
Have Johnson/Cummings chosen the least worst option if their objective is to deliver BREXIT?
If they genuinely believe Remainers within and without Parliament are effectively blocking renegotiation by the EU, what else should they do?
Their renegotiation aim of WA minus Back Stop is the only thing the House has voted in favour of.
What will more delay lead to other than further uncertainty?
One thing I am sure of - this House is no longer fit for purpose and the sooner it - and its Speaker - are replaced, the better. As for which government that leads to - who the heck knows?
The next House will largely be made up of the same people, or very similar ones, possibly be of very similar political composition, and will have the same Speaker.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
"Your policy" was never campaigned for. At the end of this process, what is going to be the Conservative pitch to those - currently it seems a clear majority - who are opposed to no deal Brexit?
The policy is to leave. That is consistent with the 2017 manifesto that the likes of Grieve was elected on. It was Labour's policy too of course.
The policy was to leave with a deal by inference.
The manifesto was quite explicit about leaving with a deal.
We need to implement the result of the last GE in 2017 which is 5 years of this parliament. Anything else is an insult to democracy. The people have already spoken.
The result of the last election was that no one won. Parliament has reflected that.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
Are you really suggesting that judges should be sacked for making a ruling the Scottish government doesn’t like?
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Also, monetarism had a lot more going for it than Brexitism does. Britain was being strangled by inflation.
Whereas pre-Vote, the U.K. was the fastest growing economy in the G7 and the only economist the Brexiters can line up is Patrick Minford who advocates “closing down the North”.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
Are you really suggesting that judges should be sacked for making a ruling the Scottish government doesn’t like?
Yes, that would be like haranguing them and calling them Enemies of the People.
We need to implement the result of the last GE in 2017 which is 5 years of this parliament. Anything else is an insult to democracy. The people have already spoken.
The result of the last election was that no one won. Parliament has reflected that.
Exactly, it's as divided over Brexit as the rest of the population is and is now tending towards extremes are part of the population already are.
One further point. Boris Johnson can threaten anti-no dealers with expulsion. But once they're gone, they're gone. They won't be coming back, they'll be looking for a new home (almost certainly the Lib Dems in the long term).
And in the short term they'll have a very strong motivation to resist an early election.
The view in No.10 might be that when faced with the prospect of Jezza and a nationalised Tesco sensible people would coalesce around the ever reliable, business-friendly, economically sound Tories. But those days have gone.
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
The election will be fought on what No Deal means in reality. The Tories will have to spend six weeks lying, day in and day out. That’s what will destroy them if they win. If they lose, they will destroy themselves in short time.
Keep asking the question why threatening the EU with the prospect of no deal is so damaging for them that they will give us what we want and on the other hand no deal is no problem with only a few bumps in the road. They can’t both be true.
Exactly. If the UK can “easily manage” a No Deal Brexit, so can everyone else. But UK citizens and businesses will be less free than they are now, and the UK government will have less control.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
It will be implemented by matter of treaty (Scotland will not be a member of the EU)
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
Time the Treaty of Union was revoked, then we do not need to worry about Dictators laws from Westminster
This is the issue dereliction of what duty? The Scots have not voted for Brexit and made it clear they are opposed to no deal. The English Tories are prepared to ignore Parliament but expect the Scots to respect their rules. I rarely agree with Malcolm but in this case is he is right. The Scots can just say and will say no.
The view in No.10 might be that when faced with the prospect of Jezza and a nationalised Tesco sensible people would coalesce around the ever reliable, business-friendly, economically sound Tories. But those days have gone.
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
The election will be fought on what No Deal means in reality. The Tories will have to spend six weeks lying, day in and day out. That’s what will destroy them if they win. If they lose, they will destroy themselves in short time.
Keep asking the question why threatening the EU with the prospect of no deal is so damaging for them that they will give us what we want and on the other hand no deal is no problem with only a few bumps in the road. They can’t both be true.
Johnson knows that a deal will only happen if he agrees to the backstop. The logic is that he will have to agree sooner or later, so it looks like he wants to win his election first. This means getting the votes of those who like him have made a totem out of the backstop.
The view in No.10 might be that when faced with the prospect of Jezza and a nationalised Tesco sensible people would coalesce around the ever reliable, business-friendly, economically sound Tories. But those days have gone.
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
The election will be fought on what No Deal means in reality. The Tories will have to spend six weeks lying, day in and day out. That’s what will destroy them if they win. If they lose, they will destroy themselves in short time.
Keep asking the question why threatening the EU with the prospect of no deal is so damaging for them that they will give us what we want and on the other hand no deal is no problem with only a few bumps in the road. They can’t both be true.
Exactly. If the UK can “easily manage” a No Deal Brexit, so can everyone else. But UK citizens and businesses will be less free than they are now, and the UK government will have less control.
It's like the difference between an octopus having one leg chopped off and an octopus having eight legs chopped off.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Unemployment fell sharply after the 1981 budget until a second recession in the late 80’s. I checked my memory of this this morning before posting but can’t access the table on my phone.
The question Prof O’Hara does not address (quite appropriately for reasons of space) is “what is their alternative?”
Have Johnson/Cummings chosen the least worst option if their objective is to deliver BREXIT?
If they genuinely believe Remainers within and without Parliament are effectively blocking renegotiation by the EU, what else should they do?
Their renegotiation aim of WA minus Back Stop is the only thing the House has voted in favour of.
What will more delay lead to other than further uncertainty?
One thing I am sure of - this House is no longer fit for purpose and the sooner it - and its Speaker - are replaced, the better. As for which government that leads to - who the heck knows?
The next House will largely be made up of the same people, or very similar ones, possibly be of very similar political composition, and will have the same Speaker.
Deselection would make the key difference
It might, but possibly to a backlash against an authoritarian approach. It depends on whether the voters wake up to the authoritarian direction that such a move would take us in. As a country we used to pride ourselves in having a number of independently minded MPs.
If we want to change that, perhaps a good place to start would be to have any MP who has rebelled against their front bench resign with immediate effect. Oh, hang on....
The question Prof O’Hara does not address (quite appropriately for reasons of space) is “what is their alternative?”
Have Johnson/Cummings chosen the least worst option if their objective is to deliver BREXIT?
If they genuinely believe Remainers within and without Parliament are effectively blocking renegotiation by the EU, what else should they do?
Their renegotiation aim of WA minus Back Stop is the only thing the House has voted in favour of.
What will more delay lead to other than further uncertainty?
One thing I am sure of - this House is no longer fit for purpose and the sooner it - and its Speaker - are replaced, the better. As for which government that leads to - who the heck knows?
The next House will largely be made up of the same people, or very similar ones, possibly be of very similar political composition, and will have the same Speaker.
Deselection would make the key difference
Not necessarily to the Tories' advantage if opposition to them is further marshalled. In which case Bercow probably remains Speaker.
BoJo has gone all or nothing. I'd like to think that will bite him, but I acknowledge it could work.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
There would be no difference between it and a BXP one.
I see very little difference now between the BP and the current Executive, and I have been a lifelong Conservative until recently. It is a very worrying development. Equally I loathe the idea of a Corbyn government. My only hope is a hung parliament where the LDs have a strong enough influence to insist that the Conservatives (aka CINO) and the Labour Party present an alternative to their current respective leaders as a price for confidence and supply.
It’s an absolute disaster, just as we predicted. Actually it’s worse. I never realistically expected a No Deal and a deliberate attempt to suborn parliament in order to collapse the economy for a generation.
We need to implement the result of the last GE in 2017 which is 5 years of this parliament. Anything else is an insult to democracy. The people have already spoken.
The result of the last election was that no one won. Parliament has reflected that.
But the people voted they must stay put for five years as anything else is anti democratic. No second general election till 2022
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
"Your policy" was never campaigned for. At the end of this process, what is going to be the Conservative pitch to those - currently it seems a clear majority - who are opposed to no deal Brexit?
The policy is to leave. That is consistent with the 2017 manifesto that the likes of Grieve was elected on. It was Labour's policy too of course.
The policy was to leave with a deal by inference. Besides, Governments regularly have to reign in manifesto promises when the national interest demands it. The alternative is gross stupidity. As for Grieve, he follows in a strong tradition of politicians who don't follow the party manifesto line like some sort of automaton. If you think that is what an MPs constitutional responsibility is, you don't understand our system.
We need a second referendum to undo the damage of a very poorly designed first question. Whilst deceptively simple it failed in one key respect. Other less catastrophic referenda have pitched the status quo vs a clearly defined new end state. By failing to do that, the 2016 referendum created this mess.
We need to pitch the possible end states against one another, including an option to remain partly to ensure full participation, but also to recognise the vagueness of the first question. Something has to win now and a vote is the fairest way to do it IMO. There will be pain and outrage with any outcome. This is the least bad outcome.
Far chance of course whilst this government is bent on forcing its will through all possible parliamentary tactics and abuse of positional power.
Much of our village was without landline phone lines, or the Internet, for six days because scrap metal thieves stole cables. It seems the 2013 scrap metal dealers act might need a little tightening up.
We lost our landlline, but thankfully not t'Internet.
It's particularly sad as they get a relative pittance for the scrap (particularly given the work and danger involved in stealing and stripping it), yet the costs in replacement and disruption are orders of magnitude higher.
Witness also the theft of lead from church roofs. One I know of has been attacked twice, yet they apparently cannot replace it with lead-substitute for 'heritage' reasons. Though that might be local legend rather than reality ...
Only someone with the most entitled of backgrounds would be doing what Johnson is doing and what Cameron did. Consequences are for the little people. The privileged always get to walk away. The UK’s impoverishment and its end will have been made on the playing fields of Eton.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
In what sense are those threatened with deselection "moderates"? Grieve a moderate? He is the most extreme of Europhiles. Ditto Clarke. They snobbishly believe their views top trump those of their voters. They are wrong.
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
Think how different life would be right now if May had, on losing the first vote, stripped the ERG of the whip, extended A50, and then called an election with all candidates pledged to vote for her deal and otherwise we would leave without one.
She wouldn't have won a majority, but she would probably still have been in government and Boris, Mogg, Baker, Francois, Patel and Raab would have been finished.
Its what she should have done but can kicking was always her preference.
Only someone with the most entitled of backgrounds would be doing what Johnson is doing and what Cameron did. Consequences are for the little people. The privileged always get to walk away. The UK’s impoverishment and its end will have been made on the playing fields of Eton.
Forced back into the same simplistic classed based tropes that didn’t storm Ed M into No 10? Makes me think this coming election really might solve things....
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
Brexit was a binary choice. The Tories get this. The LibDems get this. Question, voters: do you want the lights switched on, or do you want the lights turned off? Tories off, LibDems on.
You have used this crap analogy before.
What the Leave campaign promised was to keep the lights on without paying the bill.
Now BoZo and the Govester are claiming you will still be able to see in the dark, and that's what you voted for...
There is some irony in Corbyn, an extreme idealogue his entire life, triangulating and twisting Labs position on brexit. They have ended with a centrist position against Remain (LD) and Leave (Tory). However, by trying to appeal to all, they appeal to none.
While the outcome of hypothetical Oct GE seems uncertain, I think it boils down to the issues. If BJ manages to make focus brexit, he wins (See polls). If like GE17 Corbyn gains traction on other issues I can see a Lab minority govt.
Then, who is the better campaigner? Methinks Boris by a nose.
Neither Boris or Corbyn have any scruples when it comes to obtaining power.
Corbyn was very lucky last time as he was facing May, who at least has (had?) some dignity and believed in such things as honesty and respect. Neither Boris or Corbyn do, it will be a bloodbath general election.
Perhaps making our country even more divided than the Referendum.
We need a second referendum to undo the damage of a very poorly designed first question. Whilst deceptively simple it failed in one key respect. Other less catastrophic referenda have pitched the status quo vs a clearly defined new end state. By failing to do that, the 2016 referendum created this mess.
We need to pitch the possible end states against one another, including an option to remain partly to ensure full participation, but also to recognise the vagueness of the first question. Something has to win now and a vote is the fairest way to do it IMO. There will be pain and outrage with any outcome. This is the least bad outcome.
Far chance of course whilst this government is bent on forcing its will through all possible parliamentary tactics and abuse of positional power.
It will be fascinating to see exactly when the losers vote brigade realise it isn’t going to happen. Will Brexit actually convince them that it won’t? I remain unconvinced...
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
Think how different life would be right now if May had, on losing the first vote, stripped the ERG of the whip, extended A50, and then called an election with all candidates pledged to vote for her deal and otherwise we would leave without one.
She wouldn't have won a majority, but she would probably still have been in government and Boris, Mogg, Baker, Francois, Patel and Raab would have been finished.
Its what she should have done but can kicking was always her preference.
Somewhere, there's a happy medium between can kicking and do or die.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
In what sense are those threatened with deselection "moderates"? Grieve a moderate? He is the most extreme of Europhiles. Ditto Clarke. They snobbishly believe their views top trump those of their voters. They are wrong.
They are moderates by any reasonable definition of the word. Hammond even used to be on the Eurosceptic wing.
The thing that unites them is simply that they are patriots.
One further point. Boris Johnson can threaten anti-no dealers with expulsion. But once they're gone, they're gone. They won't be coming back, they'll be looking for a new home (almost certainly the Lib Dems in the long term).
If (which I acknowledge is Spartan) you assume that post Brexit the Tories will adopt a more traditional posture then they will come back over time (eg Emma Nicholson is a Tory peer).
What has interested me in the conversations I’ve had is the number of donors and supporters who don’t like Boris one bit and yet are backing him because there needs to be resolution
Deep thought: If you've got 20 ex-Tories in their own independent group, that feels like enough to form an actual new coalition government, not a GoNAfaE. Execute on the Corbyn plan, get Brexit done or undone depending on the vote, *then* dissolve the thing and have a GE. Or if it's going OK, serve out the full term.
I know people have reservations about Corbyn but say there's a GE and it goes as well as the remain side can reasonably, there's still no possible outcome you can reasonably hope for with better arithmetic than now, ie a remainer majority with a Moderate Con blocking minority that can restrain Corbyn. If Boris wins that's bad, if you lose your seat (likely) that's bad, and if Corbyn wins big that's also bad.
We need a second referendum to undo the damage of a very poorly designed first question. Whilst deceptively simple it failed in one key respect. Other less catastrophic referenda have pitched the status quo vs a clearly defined new end state. By failing to do that, the 2016 referendum created this mess.
We need to pitch the possible end states against one another, including an option to remain partly to ensure full participation, but also to recognise the vagueness of the first question. Something has to win now and a vote is the fairest way to do it IMO. There will be pain and outrage with any outcome. This is the least bad outcome.
Far chance of course whilst this government is bent on forcing its will through all possible parliamentary tactics and abuse of positional power.
It will be fascinating to see exactly when the losers vote brigade realise it isn’t going to happen. Will Brexit actually convince them that it won’t? I remain unconvinced...
Well that’s helpful. Who’s the losers brigade? May? Farage? This minority government? All of us? No one looks like a winner to me.
It’s important to identify the root cause. The fact three years on Leavers can’t agree what Leave means is the key problem.
One further point. Boris Johnson can threaten anti-no dealers with expulsion. But once they're gone, they're gone. They won't be coming back, they'll be looking for a new home (almost certainly the Lib Dems in the long term).
If (which I acknowledge is Spartan) you assume that post Brexit the Tories will adopt a more traditional posture then they will come back over time (eg Emma Nicholson is a Tory peer).
What has interested me in the conversations I’ve had is the number of donors and supporters who don’t like Boris one bit and yet are backing him because there needs to be resolution
You can add voters to that list, too. Just like Cameron wasn’t universally liked in 2015, Boris is seen as the best choice.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
Think how different life would be right now if May had, on losing the first vote, stripped the ERG of the whip, extended A50, and then called an election with all candidates pledged to vote for her deal and otherwise we would leave without one.
She wouldn't have won a majority, but she would probably still have been in government and Boris, Mogg, Baker, Francois, Patel and Raab would have been finished.
Its what she should have done but can kicking was always her preference.
Somewhere, there's a happy medium between can kicking and do or die.
We need a second referendum to undo the damage of a very poorly designed first question. Whilst deceptively simple it failed in one key respect. Other less catastrophic referenda have pitched the status quo vs a clearly defined new end state. By failing to do that, the 2016 referendum created this mess.
We need to pitch the possible end states against one another, including an option to remain partly to ensure full participation, but also to recognise the vagueness of the first question. Something has to win now and a vote is the fairest way to do it IMO. There will be pain and outrage with any outcome. This is the least bad outcome.
Far chance of course whilst this government is bent on forcing its will through all possible parliamentary tactics and abuse of positional power.
It will be fascinating to see exactly when the losers vote brigade realise it isn’t going to happen. Will Brexit actually convince them that it won’t? I remain unconvinced...
Well that’s helpful. Who’s the losers brigade? May? Farage? This minority government? All of us? No one looks like a winner to me.
Nope, the people who keep talking up a second referendum...
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject. The No deal fringe can not be compromised with, and the idea that we should crash the constitution, economy and the union for the benefit of the off shore press and the hedge fund managers is one that only Cummings could find congenial.
I guess that the vast majority of old fashioned, mainstream, conservative Conservatives are as appalled as the rest of us. I would say that we might put our hope in them, but the truth is that these people value party loyalty almost above all else, so I'm not holding my breathe that the Tories will revolt against the catastrophe they are creating before us.
Unless they have the courage of their convictions, then yes indeed, the idea that the Tories have a long term future is not one I would put money on.
As it is, they are sowing the wind and will reap the whirlwind. Cummings, a man who was in contempt of Parliament, has now humiliated the Queen insulted her ministers and demonstrated an arrogance that has seen no equal in an unelected bureaucrat since Thomas Cromwell was beheaded.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
LOL. I am a Scottish advocate who sat in a part of the hearing last week and read the written submissions of the petitioners. Lord Doherty will refuse the petition tomorrow. He probably spent most of his weekend preparing his draft.
I expect so too. What is also not in doubt is a firm consensus in Scotland against an imposed No Deal Brexit and a developing consensus for Scotland to go its own way if that's what happens.
Can you see any high-profile SCon, SLab or SLD personalities coming out for Yes in the coming weeks?
Judy Steel was an eye-opener. I wonder if there might be more eye-openers around the corner.
Only someone with the most entitled of backgrounds would be doing what Johnson is doing and what Cameron did. Consequences are for the little people. The privileged always get to walk away. The UK’s impoverishment and its end will have been made on the playing fields of Eton.
Forced back into the same simplistic classed based tropes that didn’t storm Ed M into No 10? Makes me think this coming election really might solve things....
Sadly, I think it is the reality. Johnson and Cameron have never had to deal with consequences. They do not understand (Cameron) or care (Johnson) that millions of others - less privileged, less fortunate - have to. And that’s because they have never known a day’s struggle in their lives.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
In what sense are those threatened with deselection "moderates"? Grieve a moderate? He is the most extreme of Europhiles. Ditto Clarke. They snobbishly believe their views top trump those of their voters. They are wrong.
Wrong, they just don't suddenly say, like some sort of moron, "oh a small majority thought this in 2016, and as I now believe in groupspeak we must all now follow that line". The reality is that the current "new establishment" view (which is the old establishment with far right policies) is that we must snobbishly follow a far right agenda that feels it has no need to re-consult "the people" on what is now a completely different proposition that people were led to believe they were voting for.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
They are gold-plated, self-seeking hypocrites seeking to impose a policy for which they have no mandate. Most voters supported parties that explicitly rejected No Deal in the 2017 election.
Comments
Better? No.
Though I don’t really know anything about his constituency.
Now, for all I know the law as they see it will be in favour of those bringing the case, but I certainly hope senior judges dont make calls based on political convenience.
Labour thought they were being clever by asking "what if we installed dimmers?" All whilst Corbyn is quietly rummaging around looking for the fuse box....
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
https://twitter.com/AlistairBurtUK/status/1168300427412168704
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
That the Tories are busy attacking themselves, with the joyful backing of the largest part of its membership, only adds to that feeling.
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/01/tories-no-deal-choose-career-conscience
Or more likely he just knew the tories were dead at that point, not thst he would quit.
It’s quite clear that whatever is left of the Tory party after the next election will be ideologically opposed to any such thing; the Lib Dems are committed to rejoining; a post Corbyn Labour party, just possibly.
And I hope that Johnson and his fellow bastards don't have a government soon, either.
They should stand. The convention on not contesting the Speaker is not always followed anyway, and it was disappointing the LDs said they would last time then changed their minds.
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
So given the potential consequences of a no-deal, I'd say going for one given the above is utterly undemocratic. But at least we know you'll be safe of the consequences, whatever happens.
'Scum' is very constructive when talking about people threatening others for actions they have just done themselves. And those who support them knowing this.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
Michael Gove has of course assured us the public do not want an election.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/13/theladywasforturning
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22070491
I don't want a country led by a party with an anti-Semite in charge. Neither do I want one where the likes of Jacob Rees-Worm is Kingmaker.
Whereas pre-Vote, the U.K. was the fastest growing economy in the G7 and the only economist the Brexiters can line up is Patrick Minford who advocates “closing down the North”.
If we want to change that, perhaps a good place to start would be to have any MP who has rebelled against their front bench resign with immediate effect. Oh, hang on....
BoJo has gone all or nothing. I'd like to think that will bite him, but I acknowledge it could work.
Actually it’s worse. I never realistically expected a No Deal and a deliberate attempt to suborn parliament in order to collapse the economy for a generation.
We need to pitch the possible end states against one another, including an option to remain partly to ensure full participation, but also to recognise the vagueness of the first question. Something has to win now and a vote is the fairest way to do it IMO. There will be pain and outrage with any outcome. This is the least bad outcome.
Far chance of course whilst this government is bent on forcing its will through all possible parliamentary tactics and abuse of positional power.
Much of our village was without landline phone lines, or the Internet, for six days because scrap metal thieves stole cables. It seems the 2013 scrap metal dealers act might need a little tightening up.
We lost our landlline, but thankfully not t'Internet.
It's particularly sad as they get a relative pittance for the scrap (particularly given the work and danger involved in stealing and stripping it), yet the costs in replacement and disruption are orders of magnitude higher.
Witness also the theft of lead from church roofs. One I know of has been attacked twice, yet they apparently cannot replace it with lead-substitute for 'heritage' reasons. Though that might be local legend rather than reality ...
What the Leave campaign promised was to keep the lights on without paying the bill.
Now BoZo and the Govester are claiming you will still be able to see in the dark, and that's what you voted for...
Corbyn was very lucky last time as he was facing May, who at least has (had?) some dignity and believed in such things as honesty and respect. Neither Boris or Corbyn do, it will be a bloodbath general election.
Perhaps making our country even more divided than the Referendum.
The thing that unites them is simply that they are patriots.
What has interested me in the conversations I’ve had is the number of donors and supporters who don’t like Boris one bit and yet are backing him because there needs to be resolution
I know people have reservations about Corbyn but say there's a GE and it goes as well as the remain side can reasonably, there's still no possible outcome you can reasonably hope for with better arithmetic than now, ie a remainer majority with a Moderate Con blocking minority that can restrain Corbyn. If Boris wins that's bad, if you lose your seat (likely) that's bad, and if Corbyn wins big that's also bad.
It’s important to identify the root cause. The fact three years on Leavers can’t agree what Leave means is the key problem.
I guess that the vast majority of old fashioned, mainstream, conservative Conservatives are as appalled as the rest of us. I would say that we might put our hope in them, but the truth is that these people value party loyalty almost above all else, so I'm not holding my breathe that the Tories will revolt against the catastrophe they are creating before us.
Unless they have the courage of their convictions, then yes indeed, the idea that the Tories have a long term future is not one I would put money on.
As it is, they are sowing the wind and will reap the whirlwind. Cummings, a man who was in contempt of Parliament, has now humiliated the Queen insulted her ministers and demonstrated an arrogance that has seen no equal in an unelected bureaucrat since Thomas Cromwell was beheaded.
Judy Steel was an eye-opener. I wonder if there might be more eye-openers around the corner.
The reality is that the current "new establishment" view (which is the old establishment with far right policies) is that we must snobbishly follow a far right agenda that feels it has no need to re-consult "the people" on what is now a completely different proposition that people were led to believe they were voting for.
No deal is what remains