Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Boris Johnson ignores the no deal law then 50/1 on him bein

1356712

Comments

  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.

    The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?
    Aren't we generally seeing a shift to a looser age pf party allegiance? The first time is always the hardest, and all that.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.

    Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
    Au contraire, the problem with most governments is hyperactivity.

    A government that is unable to do much at all is often a blessing for businesses, who are safe in the knowledge that they aren't going to faff around with legislation needlessly, causing unintended consequences, as is exactly what happens 99.9% of the time.
    True, but a common complaint against this and the last government is that it is myopically focused on Brexit.
    At least it stops the clowns getting their grubby incompetent mitts into anything else
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.

    The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?
    I didn't know Labour had published a manifesto! I think you might have been reading too much Brexit supporting media, who make things up...
  • Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post

    It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
    Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc

    But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
    You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
    You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
    If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?

    What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    What evidence for that whiff of tactical voting?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    edited September 2019
    AndyJS said:

    No bails on the stumps FFS.

    Never seen that before. I've seen the heavy bails being used a few times.
    They are trying the heavy bails now – with screws in the end to make them even heavier.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.

    Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
    Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.

    The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.
  • Scott_P said:
    What a shame. I was looking forward to @HYUFD explaining that Tory grandees were in fact LibDems.
  • Scott_P said:
    The ferrets are going back and forth so much today they must feel like shuttles on a loom.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    edited September 2019

    Gabs2 said:

    Gabs2 said:



    This was what I asked for the other day and nobody could find. Clearly I was wrong. But Corbyn would still wait to renegotiate first.

    An extra thought on this. I can not imagine the new Tory Party, expunged of many Remainers both in parliament and in the electorate, will accept the result of a second referendum to Remain. They will say the other side wasn't bound by the previous one so why should they listen? It is highly likely they put a pledge to leave the EU in their manifesto for every GE from now on. Leaving the EU will be as much part of Tory DNA as leaving the UK is for the SNP.
    The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.

    We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.

    As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
    All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.

  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060
    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,892
    eristdoof said:

    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
    If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,892
    Australia would be 5 down by now if Joel Wilson was umpiring.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    Scott_P said:
    So, the masterplan, after losing control of the Commons, is to lose control of the Lords?

    What sort of genius is Cumming supposed to be?
    Cummings is an oppositionist, I don't think much of Boris's judgement in utilising someone like Cummings as it is a completely different skill set being in opposition to being in Government. When a PM makes decisions you will always find opponents internally and externally. The current administration does not seem interested in Governing, just blaming everybody else for the mess they have created.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690

    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    Cummings is heading for a major fall from grace. The Sam Allardyce of politics.
    No, he’s the Klinsmann. Appointed for a short term but specific gig (2006 World Cup hosting and prep) and will then slope off after being quite successful. Anyone worried that Cummings will be running the show in 2021 (or even easter 2020) isn’t paying much attention.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    Chris said:

    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.

    Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
    Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.

    The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.
    Which, leaving the FTPA out of it, is what?

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.

    The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?
    I didn't know Labour had published a manifesto! I think you might have been reading too much Brexit supporting media, who make things up...
    When the next Labour manifesto is published and it does NOT contain any plans for hundreds of billions in extra borrowing and/or money printing, a swathe of hugely expensive (and, in some or all cases, arguably wholly needless) renationalisations, and measures that amount to the expropriation of private property by the state, then I shall withdraw my remarks with a blend of surprise, relief and delight.

    However, I do not presently expect to be surprised, relieved and delighted.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,427
    Surely we should expect some snap polls tonight from the last 24 hrs?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,316
    Pulpstar said:

    eristdoof said:

    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
    If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
    any batshit theory is possible.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    Scott_P said:
    Is there an English translation of this available?
    I've found out what is happening.

    There are 86 amendments currently tabled. Every amendment needs 2 votes - a closure vote to agree that debate should be brought to a close followed by a vote on the amendment.

    This is going to take time so it's a battle of wills - 478 Lords are taking part and the Non- Government Lords outnumber the Government Lords 2 to 1 by the looks of it.

    30 Lords need to be there for a vote to take place and there clearly need to be more Non-government lords than Government Lords.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060



    We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.

    As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.

    Small point of order. Referenda are allowed in Germany, but only at district or state level. You are right that at the federal level they are not allowed.

    But on the main point. I agree, after Dave's big three, we will not be seeing many Referenda in the future.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,657
    edited September 2019
    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    If Cummings can persuade the masses that bien pensant Lib/Lab voters, with their pro-EU hysteria and shameless sense of entitlement, conspired to rob Boris of his democratic due through tactical voting, then perhaps we're talking a Boris landslide.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post

    It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
    Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc

    But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
    You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
    You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
    It didn't cut any ice with those that accused the Treasury for lying when they made the same point in their short term impacts report back in 2016.

    I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.

    Certainly won’t be posted on here either.

    One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.

    Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in

    Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.

    Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    AndyJS said:

    No bails on the stumps FFS.

    Never seen that before. I've seen the heavy bails being used a few times.
    They are trying the heavy bails now – with screws in the end to make them even heavier.
    You could screw them to the stumps to stop them from blowing away!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,892
    eristdoof said:

    Referenda are allowed in Germany, but only at district or state level. You are right that at the federal level they are not allowed.

    Have they been caught out by populist sentiment getting out of hand before ?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380



    The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.

    We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.

    As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.

    I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede.
    The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.

    If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.

    There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible.
    The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    Implied probability of a No Deal Brexit this year down to 26% on Betfair now.

    The betting market doesn't seem to think Johnson will sweep to victory on a No Deal election platform.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    If Cummings can persuade the masses that bien pensant Lib/Lab voters, with their pro-EU hysteria and shameless sense of entitlement, conspired to rob Boris of his democratic due through tactical voting, then perhaps we're talking a Boris landslide.
    Was that (b)ironic?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,892
    eristdoof said:

    AndyJS said:

    No bails on the stumps FFS.

    Never seen that before. I've seen the heavy bails being used a few times.
    They are trying the heavy bails now – with screws in the end to make them even heavier.
    You could screw them to the stumps to stop them from blowing away!
    Not heavy enough for Labuschagne.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Pulpstar said:

    eristdoof said:

    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
    If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
    any batshit theory is possible.
    Cambridge Brewdog spiked drinks with pro Boris mind altering hops.

    So the mad Cat woman told me..
  • TGOHF said:

    I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.

    Certainly won’t be posted on here either.

    One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.

    Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in

    Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.

    Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.

    As I said the other day, HYUFD's vision of a large Conservative majority in the near future is certainly within the realms of possibility. The problem is that a large Corbynite majority is also feasible, as is a Lib Dem/SNP/whatever coalition.

    I'll be darned if I know what'll happen. I don't really have an idea which of the Brexit offerings I'd prefer, and which would be best for the country - but I do know who I don't want to vote, for, and that precludes both Corbyn and Boris.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    TGOHF said:

    I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.

    Certainly won’t be posted on here either.

    One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple ...

    He seems to have enough disciples for a Last Supper.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060
    edited September 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    eristdoof said:

    Referenda are allowed in Germany, but only at district or state level. You are right that at the federal level they are not allowed.

    Have they been caught out by populist sentiment getting out of hand before ?
    Godwin!
  • A reminder that Cameron's memoires will be published in a couple of weeks.

    https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/1169275560956239872
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Pulpstar said:

    eristdoof said:

    kinabalu said:

    I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.

    A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.
    If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?
    any batshit theory is possible.
    Yes, it's batshit, because of the steps taken by this and the previous government to prevent a repeat of that happening...
    although..
    for some reason I've forgotten what steps /were/taken. Can anyone jog my memory?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Scott_P said:
    A new Parliamentary Session opens on October 14th and another attempt could be made then.

  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    FF43 said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post

    It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
    Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc

    But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
    You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
    You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
    It didn't cut any ice with those that accused the Treasury for lying when they made the same point in their short term impacts report back in 2016.

    I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.
    For my sins, I’ve just read the BoE report on No Deal Brexit. To be fair, me, Nabavi and the Guardian are allowed to be confused, because the bank itself is confused. These predictions are so tenuous as to be practically valueless. Also, we have no real idea what might have happened in alternative scenarios, not more than a year or so into the “future”, anyway

    The one thing we can say is that No Deal will be painful. With a potential to be hideously painful. And is really best avoided, if poss.
  • Each header more hysterical than the last.

    Once this has all blown over some of these threads will be looked back on with good-natured amusement and no small amount of embarrassment I suspect.
  • Noo said:



    The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible.

    We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.

    As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.

    I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede.
    The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.

    If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.

    There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible.
    The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
    Yes if Cameron had invited a panel of senior leavers at the time to get togerther 100 civil servants for a year, negotiate with the EU and put a framework together for leave, then the referendum would have been much cleaner and the result either way easier to implement.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post

    It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
    Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc

    But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
    You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
    You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
    If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?

    What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
    Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    algarkirk said:

    All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.

    We can't be certain that Scotland would be independent under such circumstances, because arming the Scottish Parliament with the right to demand independence directly would change the terms of the election of its members and could dissuade some voters from backing pro-independence legislators. But I won't dig any further into the mechanics as this is a wholly hypothetical argument in any event.

    I certainly see no particular reason why secession could not be decided by votes in legislatures rather than direct democracy. We can craft our own rules; after all, we're unusual in entertaining the notion of secession in the first place. In most jurisdictions with formal federal systems in place - the US, Germany and Australia to name but three - the nation is considered indissoluble.
  • TGOHF said:

    I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.

    Certainly won’t be posted on here either.

    One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.

    Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in

    Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.

    Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.

    As I said the other day, HYUFD's vision of a large Conservative majority in the near future is certainly within the realms of possibility. The problem is that a large Corbynite majority is also feasible, as is a Lib Dem/SNP/whatever coalition.

    I'll be darned if I know what'll happen. I don't really have an idea which of the Brexit offerings I'd prefer, and which would be best for the country - but I do know who I don't want to vote, for, and that precludes both Corbyn and Boris.
    I am with you there Mr Jessop
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344

    algarkirk said:

    All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.

    We can't be certain that Scotland would be independent under such circumstances, because arming the Scottish Parliament with the right to demand independence directly would change the terms of the election of its members and could dissuade some voters from backing pro-independence legislators. But I won't dig any further into the mechanics as this is a wholly hypothetical argument in any event.

    I certainly see no particular reason why secession could not be decided by votes in legislatures rather than direct democracy. We can craft our own rules; after all, we're unusual in entertaining the notion of secession in the first place. In most jurisdictions with formal federal systems in place - the US, Germany and Australia to name but three - the nation is considered indissoluble.
    The Scots joined the United Kingdom as a result of decision in their Parliament
  • isam said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post

    It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
    Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc

    But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
    You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
    You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
    If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?

    What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
    Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
    Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,273
    edited September 2019
    Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.

    With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    I'm not keen on referendums, but if you have them there should be rules. I suggest:

    1. Selection of two choices, each of which must be viable and clear in its effect
    2. One option must the status quo
    3. The other option must be a fully enabling Act of Parliament, where the final ratification is the referendum.
  • Scott_P said:
    I think he is the sort of worm that will crack under a bit of pressure and scrutiny. Opposition parties should do all they can to call him to account
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    A new Parliamentary Session opens on October 14th and another attempt could be made then.

    Only one attempt to call an election each session?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Noo said:



    The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible.

    We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.

    As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.

    I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede.
    The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.

    If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.

    There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible.
    The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
    Yes if Cameron had invited a panel of senior leavers at the time to get togerther 100 civil servants for a year, negotiate with the EU and put a framework together for leave, then the referendum would have been much cleaner and the result either way easier to implement.
    Absolutely. The shitshow of Brexit has surely put paid to the idea that “we’re British, we will muddle through, we can wing it and it will be fine, somehow”

    No, we’re not fine, and we’re not muddling through. We needed a plan from the start.

    To be fair to the much-maligned Dom Cummings, he did point this out in his infamous blog.
  • HYUFD said:

    Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.

    With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature

    Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.
  • Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    From the Guardian:
    MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.

    https://twitter.com/JBeattieMirror/status/1169279587588722688
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060
    algarkirk said:

    Chris said:

    algarkirk said:

    RobD said:

    Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.

    Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.
    Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.

    The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.
    Which, leaving the FTPA out of it, is what?

    The outgoing PM is obliged to name a successsor.

    After a sucessfull VoNC there are 14 days to find a successor. The PM would then make the recommendation to the queen.
    As I understand it the PM is not 100% legally compelled to go the queen if there is a VoNC followed by confidence vote in a new PM, but refusing would be a very quick route to the PM being held in contempt and being expelled.

    I do not think the Queen will be impressed if Johnson phones her and says "I'm moving out of Downing Street. The keys are in the post. It's your problem now"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    BoZo about to expel a former Party Chair?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,892

    From the Guardian:
    MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.

    Looks like noone has changed their mind. I include Spelman in that because she probably would have voted with the rebels yesterday but chose not to as they had the numbers in order to be a test case for "Does she lose the whip or not" if she rebels today.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Scott_P said:
    One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    HYUFD said:

    Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.

    With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature

    Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.
    Over 20% - which means over 70% believe the Queen was wrong to assent to proroguing Parliament.

    Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,664
    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is there an English translation of this available?
    I've found out what is happening.

    There are 86 amendments currently tabled. Every amendment needs 2 votes - a closure vote to agree that debate should be brought to a close followed by a vote on the amendment.

    This is going to take time so it's a battle of wills - 478 Lords are taking part and the Non- Government Lords outnumber the Government Lords 2 to 1 by the looks of it.

    30 Lords need to be there for a vote to take place and there clearly need to be more Non-government lords than Government Lords.
    Each vote takes 15 minutes so it's at the very least 30 minutes per amendment plus there must be some time to debate each amendment - even if only 5 to 10 minutes that's a total of 35 to 40 minutes per amendment.

    So it looks like a minimum of approx 50 hours.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited September 2019

    Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.

    Maybe he did not realise how badly his previous advice was going to go down and the fact that the opposition are not playing ball. Given the opposition to a second referendum maybe the penny is beginning to drop the No Deal Brexit is not welcome and he is trying to save Brexit from death? A desperate last throw of the dice! :wink:
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    FF43 said:

    I'm not keen on referendums, but if you have them there should be rules. I suggest:

    1. Selection of two choices, each of which must be viable and clear in its effect
    2. One option must the status quo
    3. The other option must be a fully enabling Act of Parliament, where the final ratification is the referendum.

    The Irish example is the one to follow.

    The Government had a plan they wanted to implement, knew how and when it would be done, and used a referendum for public consent.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    From the Guardian:
    MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.

    One more person than yesterday! The right honourable member for Hallam?
  • Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.

    A second referendum has always been the most likely way to get a no deal brexit.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post

    It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
    Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc

    But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
    You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
    You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
    If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?

    What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
    Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
    Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
    Me personally? It depends which year

    But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.
    Especially if one major party now has a fundamental belief in leaving.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    Scott_P said:
    Enhance your calm. :)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,270
    edited September 2019



    The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.

    We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.

    As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.

    Couldn't disagree more. Plenty of countries make referendums a key part of their legislation and do it very well. And your two examples of failure are spurious.

    In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.

    As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.

    The problem is not referendums it is the MPs.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    Byronic said:

    Scott_P said:
    One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.
    Of course.

    It's like a spouse going through a mid life crisis, threatening to move out, talking about the gorgeous person at work they've been going for drinks with, and fancy moving in with.

    Then coming back in a fit of remorse and saying it was just a phase.

    The other spouse will be understandably treating them as on probation.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Scott_P said:
    By close of play tonight Boris will have lost the same number of Parliamentary votes as Margaret Thatcher did in 11 years.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    RobD said:

    Enhance your calm. :)

    Be well
  • As usual TSE is talking rot. The first to break precedent was the speaker acting on behalf of remainers:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    By close of play tonight Boris will have lost the same number of Parliamentary votes as Margaret Thatcher did in 11 years.
    Is that even a useful comparison? She had a comfortable majority from the outset.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Spellman expelled
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,273
    Scott_P said:
    No it is great news for Boris, Parliament blocking the will of the people and defying 17 million Leave voters as the Tories poll lead grows further
  • eristdoof said:

    From the Guardian:
    MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.

    One more person than yesterday! The right honourable member for Hallam?
    That rabble-rousing radical Dame Caroline Spelman.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    Scott_P said:

    RobD said:

    Enhance your calm. :)

    Be well
    What seems to be your boggle?
  • eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.

    With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature

    Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.
    Over 20% - which means over 70% believe the Queen was wrong to assent to proroguing Parliament.

    Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.
    The Queen acts on the advice of her PM. The truly revolutionary act would have been to refuse Johnson's request (which after all was only for 4 days).

    You people are sowing dragons' teeth with this nonsense...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    By close of play tonight Boris will have lost the same number of Parliamentary votes as Margaret Thatcher did in 11 years.
    Is that even a useful comparison? She had a comfortable majority from the outset.
    It's completely unfair but surely CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1169287207187886081

    Kicking out Spelman is sure to calm some nerves...
  • As usual TSE is talking rot. The first to break precedent was the speaker acting on behalf of remainers:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy

    Look plank, there's a distinction between breaking a precedent, and breaking the law.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555

    Spellman expelled

    Last days of Rome? It’s embarrassing.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited September 2019
    If Cummings had looked back even briefly, he would have seen that there was a good chance the EU would only offer an extension for a "new dispensation" such as a referendum. He would surely have anticipated the forcing of an extension, too, so in fact it seems quite likely he should have factored the combined sequential forcing of a referendum, by parliament and then the EU, into his plans.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post

    It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.
    Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. Etc

    But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
    You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.
    You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growth
    If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?

    What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
    Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labour
    Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?
    Me personally? It depends which year

    But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM
    Trouble is, you expel productive European workers and sack higher rate taxpayers, shrink the economy and wreck trade for decades, you're not going to make life any better for anyone.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060
    HYUFD said:

    Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.

    With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature

    This figure seems very dodgy. Almost everyone knows the Queen approved the proroguing that is the protocol, and not in practice a decision that she makes. The 20% is probably the figure for "Proroguing was right".

    As a follow up the Queen is not going to refuse to give assent to an act that has been approved by both houses.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,664
    edited September 2019
    New Betfair markets just opened - seats under / over for each Party.
  • Each header more hysterical than the last.

    Once this has all blown over some of these threads will be looked back on with good-natured amusement and no small amount of embarrassment I suspect.

    TSE has let it all go to his head and gone a little mad, i fear.
This discussion has been closed.