"What does this all mean? Chakrabarti seems to be setting up to three conditions.
1) The Benn bill, designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, would have to pass. That is what getting the legislation “locked down” implies. But there is no chance of that bill becoming law before Wednesday, when Johnson wants to hold a vote on an early election if he loses tonight.
If accurate, that just means that Johnson will be disappointed.
Those BOT detectors aren't brilliant. They seem to work in part on volume. So very politically engaged trolls like HYUFD get labelled as bots, because they post angry invective on average 11 times a day for years on end. S/he isn't normal, and is doubtless toxic, but that does not a bot make.
That is unnecessarily unpleasant. HYUFD is strident, loyal and partisan. But s/he is also quite insightful and sometimes has insider info. Cf the proroguing,
"Toxic" is way over the top. Tsk.
Suggesting approvingly that Loyalist enclaves in NI would take up arms to defend their Britishness, or that Westminster would send the riot police to Scotland to truncheon indy supporting grannies Rajoy stylee, would be toxic if they weren't quite so cretinous.
Pretty standard Brit Nat fare these days. They consider the Irish, Scots and Welsh to be vermin that must be controlled.
Really? How widespread do you think that is? Sounds to me like you are fantasising Stuart.
Don't know if anyone cares but the £ just went below 1.20 against the $
Booking hotel for trade show in San Francisco. £400 a night for basic 3 star hotel
SF is ludicrous
I’m going out there in Jan and even with a bulk discount the cheapest hotel we can get (the Hyatt) is over $700 a night
All my friends who’ve been there recently say it is also quite horrible. The only people who can afford to live there are stupidly wealthy but boring techies - and the homeless. The streets are full of bums and crackheads and the overpriced coffee shops are full of nerds with nothing to say.
It is a horrible place. The number of homeless, and their absolute destitution, is like nothing else I have seen anywhere outside of India.
From the reports I've read, the rich in SF are in total denial about the state of their city. They don't want to admit that it's a become a place which only consists of very rich and very poor people, with almost nothing in between.
Am I right in thinking there is a lot of defecating in the streets.
That same article offers the astonishing statistic that SF has 7000+ homeless. For comparison, London (which has its own unpleasant homeless problem) has half that. Maybe 3,500.
And London is TWELVE times the size of Frisco. Ooof.
It's not just that these people are homeless, it is that they are literally in rags and often barefoot, too. They re filthy and haunted and have nowhere to go for help or consolation. They are the living dead. And there are children on the streets, too. The last time i was there I saw a mother and a baby, wearing next to nothing, covered from head to toe in filth. It was precisely how you imagine the worst parts of the east End to have been during the 19th century. It is obscene. I have not been to Seattle, but colleagues tell me it is pretty much the same there. These are among the richest places on earth.
When I was in SF about 5 years ago I was told that the homeless have access to free healthcare there which is one reason why there are so many - don't know if its true.
"What does this all mean? Chakrabarti seems to be setting up to three conditions.
1) The Benn bill, designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, would have to pass. That is what getting the legislation “locked down” implies. But there is no chance of that bill becoming law before Wednesday, when Johnson wants to hold a vote on an early election if he loses tonight.
So by insisting that has to be law before a 14th October general election Shami is basically telling us Labout expect to lose the general election before it's even called?
The Next Scottish Conservative Leader market has been up for a few days now, but still zero activity. I’d have thought some insider would have snapped up a tasty price:
Carlaw 3/1 Fraser 3/1 Tomkins 5/1 Cameron 10/1 Golden 12/1 Hamilton 12/1 Briggs 16/1 Jack (Scottish Sec) 16/1 Wells 16/1 Clark 25/1 Kerr 25/1 Lamont 25/1 Thomson 33/1
What's the fucking point in taking quotes like this, at face value? Why do you people always believe whatever the EU says, but presume that No 10 is lying?
Of course the EU will say that No progress has been made. They want Brexit cancelled, and the British brought to heel. They can see they are close to this goal, by watching the same TV as us, and reading the same tweets.
How does it benefit them, to throw Boris a lifeline and say Talks are going great? Answer: it doesn't. So they imply he is a liar. Because this suits them.
I’m more inclined to believe the EU than Boris Johnson.
I'm not. EUrocrats never have to face the electorate. They can say whatever shit suits them with impunity.
Whereas Boris's shit can come back to haunt him.
Wow, using this argument you would believe Mr Johnson more than you would the Pope or the Archboshop of Canterbury.
Yeah, Boris has never said voices in his head tell him to do stuff.
The Next Scottish Conservative Leader market has been up for a few days now, but still zero activity. I’d have thought some insider would have snapped up a tasty price:
Carlaw 3/1 Fraser 3/1 Tomkins 5/1 Cameron 10/1 Golden 12/1 Hamilton 12/1 Briggs 16/1 Jack (Scottish Sec) 16/1 Wells 16/1 Clark 25/1 Kerr 25/1 Lamont 25/1 Thomson 33/1
What's the fucking point in taking quotes like this, at face value? Why do you people always believe whatever the EU says, but presume that No 10 is lying?
Of course the EU will say that No progress has been made. They want Brexit cancelled, and the British brought to heel. They can see they are close to this goal, by watching the same TV as us, and reading the same tweets.
How does it benefit them, to throw Boris a lifeline and say Talks are going great? Answer: it doesn't. So they imply he is a liar. Because this suits them.
The point is that there is no evidence to the contrary. Do you know a single respected and impartial commentator who believes progress is being made? I have strong views on Brexit but also follow it objectively as part of my job, and to the extent it is possible to be objective I have to tell you that my view based on what I consider to be informed opinion is that no progress is being made.
See my point waaay down the thread. Of course no progress is being made. It won't be made - if ever - until the EU believes that No Deal is our only alternative, and we are prepared to do it. i.e. mid October.
Will Boris admit that? No. It's politics. He can't say "I'm doing nothing". He has to lie.
But does that mean I trust the EU an inch further? No. They are just as capable of lying, and they are playing hardball politics as well - with the added advantage, as Marquee points out, that they don't have to answer to any voters.
I think it is a realistic scenario to believe, in a snap GE before Brexit, that: Tories would get 30 - 35%, Lab 25 - 28%, LD 18 - 20%, BXP 10 - 15% and then odds and sods to Greens, PC, SNP etc.
This looks like another hung parliament, but Tories still likely the largest party. What Tories cannot do in another hung parliament scenario, though, is govern. Labour / SNP / LD probably could govern, and indeed even those who dislike LDs because they are remainers and the Nats because, well, they're Nats, would admit that they would be a moderating force on any Corbyn government.
To me, a Lab / LD / SNP gov looks the most stable and likely popular position. Indeed, whilst many don't like Corbyn now, I think if he had to govern in coalition with LDs and made some populist demsoc reforms, reformed voting etc. he would become quite popular quite quickly. The main issues would be getting Brexit and IndyRef 2 out the way, but I think IndyRef 2 under a Labour government makes it much more likely they remain in the union, and Brexit negotiations with Lab leading, and LDs wanting to remain make a soft / no Brexit more likely (which will really annoy about a third to two-fifths of the country, but will actually unify and mollify the rest)
If there is a Lab/LD/SNP arrangement and Brexit is cancelled then so, too, is any prospect of IndyRef2. IndyRef2 is premised on a "material change" having taken place after IndyRef1, ie, Brexit, particularly of the hard sort. Support in Scotland for a second go will plummet like a stone if Brexit and Boris bite the dust. For the SNP this will be yet another example of the law of unintended consequences around Brexit, such as the loss of all those seats in 2017.
At least we've moved on to Tories accepting that there just might conceivably be justification for IndyRef2.
Is there a way of viewing this site without seeing the repetitive and very dull Twitter scraping? The value here should be in posters’ considered views and taking the temperature of people risking their own money - not excitable posting of every thought (without any value add) from every Twitter user, regardless of merit?
Yes. By default, I have Javascript and Cookies disables for ALL sites, and then whitelist what I want. So Vanilla gets whitelisted, but Twitter isn't, so Scott P's posts for me show up as his name, post count and then just a link. It doesn't load, because cookies and Javascript are disabled for Twitter.
"What does this all mean? Chakrabarti seems to be setting up to three conditions.
1) The Benn bill, designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, would have to pass. That is what getting the legislation “locked down” implies. But there is no chance of that bill becoming law before Wednesday, when Johnson wants to hold a vote on an early election if he loses tonight.
So by insisting that has to be law before a 14th October general election Shami is basically telling us Labout expect to lose the general election before it's even called?
It's more likely to be additional insurance against the election date being postponed.
Tell me, why do you think Johnson didn't include the proposed election date in his speech, but had it given out by an anonymous spokesman?
FWIW I think there will be a great deal of tactical voting by remainers if there is an early election - this will keep seats like Battersea, where the Lib Dems have never been active and could not hope to win, in the Labour column.
You've still got to get those LibDems over the line of voting for an anti-semitic party.
Is there ever a more useless politician than Dominic Raab
Totally silent on Hong Kong.
What do you want him to say? It's not in the interests of the new Global Britain to raise the ire of China. Shutting the fuck up is probably the only, and coincidentally the best, thing he can do about it.
Better to shut up rather than prove he is an ineffectual fool and as you say, what could they do to China in any event. Time to sort this out was when they were giving Hong Kong away.
Return it as per terms of the lease, you mean Malc.
Only part of it needed to be returned.
But Malc is being unreasonable, it was sorted out when we gave Hong Kong away. China has gradually reneged on their commitments which is no shock but what else could have been done?
Philip , not unreasonable just realistic, we at best can huff and puff and upset China or accept that it is none of our business.
What's the fucking point in taking quotes like this, at face value? Why do you people always believe whatever the EU says, but presume that No 10 is lying?
Of course the EU will say that No progress has been made. They want Brexit cancelled, and the British brought to heel. They can see they are close to this goal, by watching the same TV as us, and reading the same tweets.
How does it benefit them, to throw Boris a lifeline and say Talks are going great? Answer: it doesn't. So they imply he is a liar. Because this suits them.
I’m more inclined to believe the EU than Boris Johnson.
A smart person would be skeptical of both sources. But you are not that smart.
No, it's entirely rational to be more inclined to believe the EU. That is not the same thing as unconditional credulity.
For a start, the EU requires the acquiescence of all its members to any renegotiated position, so although it's entirely possible they can be somewhat disingenuous in negotiation, there are significant constraints on that. Set against that, we have a reasonable amount of evidence that Boris's renegotiation plan is a sham with no real purpose beyond establishing a position for internal UK politics.
One can be sceptical of both, while strongly inclined to believe one more than the other.
that made sense until you added the word strongly.
That's a matter of opinion, but I concede the point. Fairly strongly would perhaps be more accurate - the difference between the two sides' credibility is not particularly slim.
What's the fucking point in taking quotes like this, at face value? Why do you people always believe whatever the EU says, but presume that No 10 is lying?
Of course the EU will say that No progress has been made. They want Brexit cancelled, and the British brought to heel. They can see they are close to this goal, by watching the same TV as us, and reading the same tweets.
How does it benefit them, to throw Boris a lifeline and say Talks are going great? Answer: it doesn't. So they imply he is a liar. Because this suits them.
I’m more inclined to believe the EU than Boris Johnson.
I'm not. EUrocrats never have to face the electorate. They can say whatever shit suits them with impunity.
Whereas Boris's shit can come back to haunt him.
He seems to have done ok on the shit haunting stuff so far despite the copious amounts of it.
He's got helpers and he's convenient for certain interest groups. The second he turns away from delivering for them, he'll be left to haul his own baggage. This is why you should never vote for someone you think might be compromised. Their loyalty will lie with those who can exploit them. See also Trump, Donald J.
I think it is a realistic scenario to believe, in a snap GE before Brexit, that: Tories would get 30 - 35%, Lab 25 - 28%, LD 18 - 20%, BXP 10 - 15% and then odds and sods to Greens, PC, SNP etc.
This looks like another hung parliament, but Tories still likely the largest party. What Tories cannot do in another hung parliament scenario, though, is govern. Labour / SNP / LD probably could govern, and indeed even those who dislike LDs because they are remainers and the Nats because, well, they're Nats, would admit that they would be a moderating force on any Corbyn government.
To me, a Lab / LD / SNP gov looks the most stable and likely popular position. Indeed, whilst many don't like Corbyn now, I think if he had to govern in coalition with LDs and made some populist demsoc reforms, reformed voting etc. he would become quite popular quite quickly. The main issues would be getting Brexit and IndyRef 2 out the way, but I think IndyRef 2 under a Labour government makes it much more likely they remain in the union, and Brexit negotiations with Lab leading, and LDs wanting to remain make a soft / no Brexit more likely (which will really annoy about a third to two-fifths of the country, but will actually unify and mollify the rest)
If there is a Lab/LD/SNP arrangement and Brexit is cancelled then so, too, is any prospect of IndyRef2. IndyRef2 is premised on a "material change" having taken place after IndyRef1, ie, Brexit, particularly of the hard sort. Support in Scotland for a second go will plummet like a stone if Brexit and Boris bite the dust. For the SNP this will be yet another example of the law of unintended consequences around Brexit, such as the loss of all those seats in 2017.
Moreover, if Brexit is annulled and we stay in the EU, then a second Sindy referendum would certainly be lost, by a big margin - because exiting the UK would also mean instantly exiting the EU. And we all now know, too well, what that means. The SNP would not be able to gloss over this, as they did last time.
Sturgeon, paradoxically, needs Boris to win this election. And win it well. Delicious irony.
Those BOT detectors aren't brilliant. They seem to work in part on volume. So very politically engaged trolls like HYUFD get labelled as bots, because they post angry invective on average 11 times a day for years on end. S/he isn't normal, and is doubtless toxic, but that does not a bot make.
That is unnecessarily unpleasant. HYUFD is strident, loyal and partisan. But s/he is also quite insightful and sometimes has insider info. Cf the proroguing,
"Toxic" is way over the top. Tsk.
Suggesting approvingly that Loyalist enclaves in NI would take up arms to defend their Britishness, or that Westminster would send the riot police to Scotland to truncheon indy supporting grannies Rajoy stylee, would be toxic if they weren't quite so cretinous.
Pretty standard Brit Nat fare these days. They consider the Irish, Scots and Welsh to be vermin that must be controlled.
Really? How widespread do you think that is? Sounds to me like you are fantasising Stuart.
Very widespread indeed. Commonplace. And not just on daft blogs.
I don't rate the chances of civil war but a Farage government would seem a more worrying possibility. Not least since it's unclear if he is at all restrained by his party's constitution.
After purging Hammond, Stewart, Clarke, Gauke et al from the party there is little to stop a Bluekip and Brexit Party merger in the next couple of years. Probably just the egos of the two leaders.
I think it is a realistic scenario to believe, in a snap GE before Brexit, that: Tories would get 30 - 35%, Lab 25 - 28%, LD 18 - 20%, BXP 10 - 15% and then odds and sods to Greens, PC, SNP etc.
This looks like another hung parliament, but Tories still likely the largest party. What Tories cannot do in another hung parliament scenario, though, is govern. Labour / SNP / LD probably could govern, and indeed even those who dislike LDs because they are remainers and the Nats because, well, they're Nats, would admit that they would be a moderating force on any Corbyn government.
To me, a Lab / LD / SNP gov looks the most stable and likely popular position. Indeed, whilst many don't like Corbyn now, I think if he had to govern in coalition with LDs and made some populist demsoc reforms, reformed voting etc. he would become quite popular quite quickly. The main issues would be getting Brexit and IndyRef 2 out the way, but I think IndyRef 2 under a Labour government makes it much more likely they remain in the union, and Brexit negotiations with Lab leading, and LDs wanting to remain make a soft / no Brexit more likely (which will really annoy about a third to two-fifths of the country, but will actually unify and mollify the rest)
If there is a Lab/LD/SNP arrangement and Brexit is cancelled then so, too, is any prospect of IndyRef2. IndyRef2 is premised on a "material change" having taken place after IndyRef1, ie, Brexit, particularly of the hard sort. Support in Scotland for a second go will plummet like a stone if Brexit and Boris bite the dust. For the SNP this will be yet another example of the law of unintended consequences around Brexit, such as the loss of all those seats in 2017.
I disagree, given the way the Westminster parliament has treated Scotland and the current shenanigans it is obvious the union is a sham, Scotland cannot trust Westminster on devolution or on any matter in future. There will be a referendum and unless people are even thicker than expected they will vote for self determination rather than vassal state.
FWIW I think there will be a great deal of tactical voting by remainers if there is an early election - this will keep seats like Battersea, where the Lib Dems have never been active and could not hope to win, in the Labour column.
You've still got to get those LibDems over the line of voting for an anti-semitic party.
The Tories will not be able to make antisemitism a big issue because it will lead to counter-accusations of islamophobia. And there are far more moslem voters than there are jewish ones so the Tories have much more to lose from a battle about racism.
FWIW I think there will be a great deal of tactical voting by remainers if there is an early election - this will keep seats like Battersea, where the Lib Dems have never been active and could not hope to win, in the Labour column.
You've still got to get those LibDems over the line of voting for an anti-semitic party.
The Tories will not be able to make antisemitism a big issue because it will lead to counter-accusations of islamophobia. And there are far more moslem voters than there are jewish ones so the Tories have much more to lose from a battle about racism.
How many Muslims vote Tory? Granted, the antisemitism stuff is probably a net benefit to Labour, but that's only because people who aren't Jewish don't care all that much about the issue. The same, I suspect, applies to anti-Muslim hate.
Don't know if anyone cares but the £ just went below 1.20 against the $
Booking hotel for trade show in San Francisco. £400 a night for basic 3 star hotel
SF is ludicrous
I’m going out there in Jan and even with a bulk discount the cheapest hotel we can get (the Hyatt) is over $700 a night
All my friends who’ve been there recently say it is also quite horrible. The only people who can afford to live there are stupidly wealthy but boring techies - and the homeless. The streets are full of bums and crackheads and the overpriced coffee shops are full of nerds with nothing to say.
It is a horrible place. The number of homeless, and their absolute destitution, is like nothing else I have seen anywhere outside of India.
From the reports I've read, the rich in SF are in total denial about the state of their city. They don't want to admit that it's a become a place which only consists of very rich and very poor people, with almost nothing in between.
Am I right in thinking there is a lot of defecating in the streets.
That same article offers the astonishing statistic that SF has 7000+ homeless. For comparison, London (which has its own unpleasant homeless problem) has half that. Maybe 3,500.
And London is TWELVE times the size of Frisco. Ooof.
It's not just that these people are homeless, it is that they are literally in rags and often barefoot, too. They re filthy and haunted and have nowhere to go for help or consolation. They are the living dead. And there are children on the streets, too. The last time i was there I saw a mother and a baby, wearing next to nothing, covered from head to toe in filth. It was precisely how you imagine the worst parts of the east End to have been during the 19th century. It is obscene. I have not been to Seattle, but colleagues tell me it is pretty much the same there. These are among the richest places on earth.
Went to SF in 2015; didn't see much like that described, although we didn't go very far from Fisherman's Wharf, apart from a couple of round the town trips. Can't recall how much the hotel was, but it wasn't anything like that quoted, and no, it wasn't a backpackers hostel.
FWIW I think there will be a great deal of tactical voting by remainers if there is an early election - this will keep seats like Battersea, where the Lib Dems have never been active and could not hope to win, in the Labour column.
You've still got to get those LibDems over the line of voting for an anti-semitic party.
The Tories will not be able to make antisemitism a big issue because it will lead to counter-accusations of islamophobia. And there are far more moslem voters than there are jewish ones so the Tories have much more to lose from a battle about racism.
Therein lies Labour's justification for anti-semitism - "the Tories have more to lose from raising it." It's all about the votes.
I don't agree. I find them really useful. It's like having your own twitter filter: a handpicked selection of politically pertinent posts that save me hours of twittersphere trawling.
I started posting this morning because when I logged on there were no comments about the most astonishing political interview in years
what interview was that
Hammond one on R4 I assume.
Kuenssberg: The former chancellor has certainly had his Shreddies this morning.
He was almost interesting. It was weird. There was a bit when he was talking about being in the Conservative party for 45 years when he sounded dangerously close to passionate.
Johnson yesterday said that he doesn't want an election and neither does the public. So why should Labour be afraid of not voting for one. They can simply say "as a wise prime minister once said, the public don't want an election, so we won't have one". The idea Labour will be seen as frit is based on conventional thinking that has long since stopped applying to British politics. Its obvious that an election is in Labour's best interest after they render Boris as impotent as possible in office, don't let him set the narrative.
Now Corbyn could well back one anyway, he's not exactly known for his 4D chess skills. And I think they would stand a good chance of a minority administration if they do go for an election, but the more they can get the Tories divided and BXP fighting them first, the better.
I voted Conservative in 2010 because I wanted the Coalition to continue. However this government must be the worst in living memory or beyond. I would hope that the PM is totally embarressed this week, loses today and then Labour withold voting for an election on Wednesday, will he then resign or seek a vote of no confidence, the latter he will probably lose because of the Conservative MPs who have nothing to fear, like Justine Greening, Jeremy Le Foy etc. Bring on Ken Clarke and quickly.
The Coalition did not exist at the time of the 2010 election! It was formed five days later.
Justine Greening is a huge loss, she was the symbol of a resurgent Tory party in 2005. For her to no longer feel at home in the party should be a massive wake up call.
Interestingly, at the time, very much elected as a Eurosceptic.
As one of her constituents, I'm not too surprised to learn that Justine will not be standing again in Putney at the forthcoming General Election. her ministerial career had faltered somewhat over recent years, well before Boris came to the fore and she had a very disappointing result at the last GE when her previous majority, in excess of 10,000 came crashing down to just over 1,500, making the seat marginal ... in fact it must have been one of the Tories' worst results in the land. That said she has always been a very hard-working and conscientious MP. I can't help but wonder how much better her career mimight have fared had she represented the good folk of Richmond in her neighbouring constituency, who probably more accurately reflect her own political persuasion.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
I have a very very similar problem. I think both the Labour and Conservative parties have gone off the deep end. I’m tempted to vote LD but I’m not sure given the Tories came second in my seat last time.
Who should I vote for?
I live in Bootle.
Without looking at the figures, can I suggest that you look at the candidates? Both Tory and Labour parties currently have their policies very strongly influenced by the views of individual MPs. If Johnson wins, he will be constrained by what's left of the non-Kipper wing. If Corbyn wins, he'll be constrained by the majority of centre-left Labour MPs. As a Corbynista myself, I actually think Corbyn is less likely to be able to do what he wants than Johnson, because he'll also be constrained by LibDems.
And although we tend to sneer at voters who just vote a party line, most people do, and it's demoralising for the candidates. Many MPs are currently showing their mettle as individuals. Why not encourage that by supporting the most convincing candidate who can win, and telling them that's why you're doing it?
My thoughts were somewhat tongue in cheek. Labour have a bigger majority in Bootle than many MPs have as their vote.
This Hammond interview hype reminds me of the hoo hah when Dominic Cummings was apparently so rude while getting into a taxi a few weeks ago that a few here cut up their membership card. When all most people saw was a scruffy bloke trying to get to work.
I was really excited to listen to this Hammond thing, "gloves off", "cold hard fury" etc.. etc... took me ages to track down the segment on the Radio 4 website. And all I heard was the same dull insufferable know-it-all that the country was burdened with the last three years. Cheerio Phil.
As for Greening, always seemed like a nice enough lady but let's be honest, she always seemed well out of her depth at Cabinet. Not saying much given how dire many recent Cabinet ministers have been but I can't imagine anyone wanting to promote her back again. Ergo, make way for someone else please.
What this site seems to be missing this morning is that Britain voted to leave the EU and today we have a Parliament using archaic rules to try to yet again delay this. It is a fact that this Parliament will never vote for any deal with the EU so whilst this Parliament carries on the democratic vote of the British people will continue to be ignored. Is everyone happy with that?
Yes, because it's time to nail this guff with a bucketful of very large nails.
A great man, one Winston Spencer Churchill, who was an MP for a very long time, argued MPs were representatives not delegates. While an MP can be mandated (or coerced and it's not called a Whip for no reason) by their Party to vote a certain way, the MP can defy that Whip with whatever consequences follow.
In the same way, the electorate only chooses MPs - once the MP has sworn the oath, they aren't obliged or bound to do anything. Churchill argued they should "their fair and impartial judgement" to do what was best for the "honour and safety" of the United Kingdom.
The problem is too many people believe the 23/6/16 Referendum bound MPs to follow a course of action - it didn't. There is no mechanism in our democracy for the electorate to force an MP to vote contrary to what they think is best for the "honour and safety" of the UK. There is a mechanism to vote out an MP if you don't like how they have voted in the Commons and that's a General Election.
What this site seems to be missing this morning is that Britain voted to leave the EU and today we have a Parliament using archaic rules to try to yet again delay this. It is a fact that this Parliament will never vote for any deal with the EU so whilst this Parliament carries on the democratic vote of the British people will continue to be ignored. Is everyone happy with that?
Welcome, Mr (I assume) Brick. The British people, subsequent to the referendum, voted for this Parliament. The members are not some alien species, parachuted in from Outer Space. Members of Parliament are not elected as delegates; they are representatives, elected to use their best judgement as the situation develops, and they are often in possession of information not available to the general public, and are supposed. at least, to have given considerable thought to what they are doing.
I know that's very idealistic, but.....
And many of those MPs clearly lied to.their electorate to get elected. Maybe we need an election right now not least so the electorate can clear out those MPs who lied regarding their intents to make sure Brexit happened.
Is there ever a more useless politician than Dominic Raab
Totally silent on Hong Kong.
What do you want him to say? It's not in the interests of the new Global Britain to raise the ire of China. Shutting the fuck up is probably the only, and coincidentally the best, thing he can do about it.
Better to shut up rather than prove he is an ineffectual fool and as you say, what could they do to China in any event. Time to sort this out was when they were giving Hong Kong away.
We did. We agreed a 50 year special status for Hong Kong which is now international law and the Chinese are violating.
As a co-signatory we are obligated to speak out.
The Chinese agreed it. One country two systems. They are operating on the "one country" part of that whereby they see a threat to the functioning of Hong Kong.
What would your thoughts be if Extinction Rebellion shut down LHR for a week? Happy to let them crack on?
They are arresting members of the legislature, refusing to pull an extradiction bill that enjoys virtually no support in Hong Kong and would allow them to pull their political opponents off the street of Hong Kong without trial, and police are using ever increasing means of brutality. Protestors have taken to the streets because the political system isn't listening to them.
They are not honouring the agreement, and your apologising for Beijing both surprises and disgusts me.
I'm not apologising for anyone I'm trying to explain to you the situation in China/Hong Kong as you clearly don't understand the context or content of the Joint Declaration, or the PRC as currently constituted, or the efficacy or otherwise of the UK, the former colonial power, weighing in on the matter.
It seems terribly unfair to you but that's only because you don't understand what's happening.
And your answer to the Extinction Rebellion and LHR question?
I understand all of those things better than you ever will. Your patronising comments do nothing to convince anyone to the contrary.
Your ignorance and cognitive dissonance is outstanding.
The Next Scottish Conservative Leader market has been up for a few days now, but still zero activity. I’d have thought some insider would have snapped up a tasty price:
Carlaw 3/1 Fraser 3/1 Tomkins 5/1 Cameron 10/1 Golden 12/1 Hamilton 12/1 Briggs 16/1 Jack (Scottish Sec) 16/1 Wells 16/1 Clark 25/1 Kerr 25/1 Lamont 25/1 Thomson 33/1
(Ladbrokes)
Some rum coves on that list. You must know you are well and truly f****d as a sub regional party if Carcrash is favourite to be leader. A dearth of talent on display there.
What this site seems to be missing this morning is that Britain voted to leave the EU and today we have a Parliament using archaic rules to try to yet again delay this. It is a fact that this Parliament will never vote for any deal with the EU so whilst this Parliament carries on the democratic vote of the British people will continue to be ignored. Is everyone happy with that?
Welcome, Mr (I assume) Brick. The British people, subsequent to the referendum, voted for this Parliament. The members are not some alien species, parachuted in from Outer Space. Members of Parliament are not elected as delegates; they are representatives, elected to use their best judgement as the situation develops, and they are often in possession of information not available to the general public, and are supposed. at least, to have given considerable thought to what they are doing.
I know that's very idealistic, but.....
And many of those MPs clearly lied to.their electorate to get elected. Maybe we need an election right now not least so the electorate can clear out those MPs who lied regarding their intents to make sure Brexit happened.
Labour MPs were elected on "not this Tory Brexit". Conservative MPs were elected for a "smooth and orderly" Brexit, so who, apart from Boris, would we clear out?
I gather that proceedings in Parliament today commence with ministerial and Prime Ministerial statements. Is it possible that these statements could be extended beyond their scheduled timings (say Boris speaks for 8 hours) so that the rebel application for an emergency debate never gets made?
I gather that proceedings in Parliament today commence with ministerial and Prime Ministerial statements. Is it possible that these statements could be extended beyond their scheduled timings (say Boris speaks for 8 hours) so that the rebel application for an emergency debate never gets made?
Reposting as I put this question in the wrong thread (I’m new!)
Count yourself lucky, I am in what is generally considered a safe seat, so my vote will be ignored, though at least I am free to vote my conscience.
Wooo. FPTP. Encouraging political participation across the board. Making you feel part of it, really represented.
Just think, if you moved to a seat where the MP was not selected by five crusty drunks you've never met, you could spend the next five weeks contemplating which was the lesser of two evils.
Comments
#LabourLoses #Frit
Carlaw 3/1
Fraser 3/1
Tomkins 5/1
Cameron 10/1
Golden 12/1
Hamilton 12/1
Briggs 16/1
Jack (Scottish Sec) 16/1
Wells 16/1
Clark 25/1
Kerr 25/1
Lamont 25/1
Thomson 33/1
(Ladbrokes)
Then I would worry.
Flying to Singapore, probably miss all the fun.
NEW THREAD
Will Boris admit that? No. It's politics. He can't say "I'm doing nothing". He has to lie.
But does that mean I trust the EU an inch further? No. They are just as capable of lying, and they are playing hardball politics as well - with the added advantage, as Marquee points out, that they don't have to answer to any voters.
So Vanilla gets whitelisted, but Twitter isn't, so Scott P's posts for me show up as his name, post count and then just a link. It doesn't load, because cookies and Javascript are disabled for Twitter.
Tell me, why do you think Johnson didn't include the proposed election date in his speech, but had it given out by an anonymous spokesman?
This is why you should never vote for someone you think might be compromised. Their loyalty will lie with those who can exploit them. See also Trump, Donald J.
Sturgeon, paradoxically, needs Boris to win this election. And win it well. Delicious irony.
Scotland cannot trust Westminster on devolution or on any matter in future. There will be a referendum and unless people are even thicker than expected they will vote for self determination rather than vassal state.
Absolutely appalling.
Now Corbyn could well back one anyway, he's not exactly known for his 4D chess skills. And I think they would stand a good chance of a minority administration if they do go for an election, but the more they can get the Tories divided and BXP fighting them first, the better.
That said she has always been a very hard-working and conscientious MP.
I can't help but wonder how much better her career mimight have fared had she represented the good folk of Richmond in her neighbouring constituency, who probably more accurately reflect her own political persuasion.
If Labour lose Bootle, they don't have any MPs.
I was really excited to listen to this Hammond thing, "gloves off", "cold hard fury" etc.. etc... took me ages to track down the segment on the Radio 4 website. And all I heard was the same dull insufferable know-it-all that the country was burdened with the last three years. Cheerio Phil.
As for Greening, always seemed like a nice enough lady but let's be honest, she always seemed well out of her depth at Cabinet. Not saying much given how dire many recent Cabinet ministers have been but I can't imagine anyone wanting to promote her back again. Ergo, make way for someone else please.
A great man, one Winston Spencer Churchill, who was an MP for a very long time, argued MPs were representatives not delegates. While an MP can be mandated (or coerced and it's not called a Whip for no reason) by their Party to vote a certain way, the MP can defy that Whip with whatever consequences follow.
In the same way, the electorate only chooses MPs - once the MP has sworn the oath, they aren't obliged or bound to do anything. Churchill argued they should "their fair and impartial judgement" to do what was best for the "honour and safety" of the United Kingdom.
The problem is too many people believe the 23/6/16 Referendum bound MPs to follow a course of action - it didn't. There is no mechanism in our democracy for the electorate to force an MP to vote contrary to what they think is best for the "honour and safety" of the UK. There is a mechanism to vote out an MP if you don't like how they have voted in the Commons and that's a General Election.
Your ignorance and cognitive dissonance is outstanding.
Just think, if you moved to a seat where the MP was not selected by five crusty drunks you've never met, you could spend the next five weeks contemplating which was the lesser of two evils.