The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
If made outside Parliament I have little doubt that such a statement would be deemed libellous.
He is attacking the doctor’s integrity and competence by comparing him to Wakefield and unless he can justify those statements it is a libel and a pretty serious one, too.
I think it would struggle in court, but I'm not a lawyer Stupid thing to say though no doubt
No, it doesn’t. For someone who claims to be so keen on democracy you seem to lack the most basic understanding of it. The concept of opposition is integral to it. It is inherent in any democracy that anyone is entitled to disagree with the verdict of the majority and seek to change it. Opposition and disagreement are legitimate, indeed necessary. They do not make you a traitor.
You keep on repeating this. It is wrong. It is tiresome. It is offensive. And it diminishes you.
Your mindset is, I’m afraid to say, not that of a democrat but more akin to those who think there can only be one legitimate way of thinking about a policy. Countries that operate like this tend to be found in the Middle East and similar places. If you want to understand what is really needed for a country to be democratic, read this - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/07/21/cultivating-democracy/. You might even learn something.
You are entitled to fight for your beliefs in an election or referendum campaign, you can even try and reverse the result in a subsequent election or referendum, what you are NOT entitled to do and the reason why so many Leavers (and even a few Remainers) are so angry now is refuse to implement the result of that election or referendum in the first place because you don't like it.
That is the way democracy dies
I profoundly disagree with that - what you are describing is plebiscitary dictatorship - but it's a view.
Where you are demonstrably wrong is to equate voting against the WA and voting for extension over No Deal with a refusal to implement the result of the referendum. You might not like it, and it might be unpopular, but it would be perfectly consistent with the referendum result to argue for more time to be taken and/or for a softer Brexit.
And to go on to claim 'that by definition makes you a traitor to democracy' is simply absurd.
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust.
Most posters on here are men I think - if there were more women we would hear more of that aspect of Johnson's character. It will be a factor in the election, perhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
Build the wall, lock her up, no obstruction no collusion, witch hunt Trump plays purely on these simple messages
Yes, seems obvious to me that’s what Boris is trying to do. His PMQ answers were just simple sound bites that often had nothing at all to do with the question.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
Wakefield is discredited, struck off for unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty and authoring fraudulent research. Let’s see if JRM repeats his remarks outside the house.
So he thinks he is very irresponsible. Where is the slander? He did not say he was more unethical, worse in conduct or fraudulent. I agree hes talking shit but it's not slander.
He is not saying “very irresponsible”. He is saying “as irresponsible as” i.e. a direct comparison with a man who has done all the things described above. That comparison is what is libellous. Those two “as”’s could, if repeated outside the House, prove to be very expensive indeed.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
If made outside Parliament I have little doubt that such a statement would be deemed libellous.
He is attacking the doctor’s integrity and competence by comparing him to Wakefield and unless he can justify those statements it is a libel and a pretty serious one, too.
I think it would struggle in court, but I'm not a lawyer Stupid thing to say though no doubt
Considering Wakefield was struck off the medical register, I don't think it would be a struggle at all. It is libellous.
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust Boris" is such a powerful rallying call forperhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
While being careful about the impact of opinion polls and accompanying hyperbole, I do believe those published this weekend are very important one way or the other. For example, what if they collectively show the Tories actually losing ground, will the Government be as eager for that mid October election? My own hunch is the lead will stay the same or go higher which generates its own huge political pressures ahead of Monday's fateful vote.
Interestingly no one on here seems to have set the usual artificially high expectations bar for the Tories ahead of said polls
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
If you are in medicine I suspect you view point might be rather different.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
Wakefield is discredited, struck off for unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty and authoring fraudulent research. Let’s see if JRM repeats his remarks outside the house.
So he thinks he is very irresponsible. Where is the slander? He did not say he was more unethical, worse in conduct or fraudulent. I agree hes talking shit but it's not slander.
He is not saying “very irresponsible”. He is saying “as irresponsible as” i.e. a direct comparison with a man who has done all the things described above. That comparison is what is libellous. Those two “as”’s could, if repeated outside the House, prove to be very expensive indeed.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
Wakefield is discredited, struck off for unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty and authoring fraudulent research. Let’s see if JRM repeats his remarks outside the house.
So he thinks he is very irresponsible. Where is the slander? He did not say he was more unethical, worse in conduct or fraudulent. I agree hes talking shit but it's not slander.
It would be prima facie defamatory because the innuendo is a discredit to the individual and it causes the regard in which he is held by others to be lowered. This (I think) would be false innuendo - when the meaning suggested through innuendo is generally available to most people and does not require any other knowledge. If the good doctor can get over that hurdle, and show it had caused him significant damage, then it would (if it had been spoken outside Parliament) be for JRM to show that one of the relevant defences applies.
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
If you are in medicine I suspect you view point might be rather different.
No, if I were in medicine I'd still think it was a stupid and misguided thing to say
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
Yes the parties didn't vote for an election because Boris can't be trusted
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
If you are in medicine I suspect you view point might be rather different.
No, if I were in medicine I'd still think it was a stupid and misguided thing to say
Let's hope JRM says it outside Parliament and will find out the answer.
However, would you agree that if JRM refuses to repeat it outside Parliament that it is libel.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
Wakefield is discredited, struck off for unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty and authoring fraudulent research. Let’s see if JRM repeats his remarks outside the house.
So he thinks he is very irresponsible. Where is the slander? He did not say he was more unethical, worse in conduct or fraudulent. I agree hes talking shit but it's not slander.
It would be prima facie defamatory because the innuendo is a discredit to the individual and it causes the regard in which he is held by others to be lowered. This (I think) would be false innuendo - when the meaning suggested through innuendo is generally available to most people and does not require any other knowledge. If the good doctor can get over that hurdle, and show it had caused him significant damage, then it would (if it had been spoken outside Parliament) be for JRM to show that one of the relevant defences applies.
This is why I'm not a lawyer. Ok, I think the consensus is I am wrong on this. Therefore I withdraw the suggestion it isn't slander outside parliament as incorrect
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
The next time JRM is interviewed he’s going to be asked to repeat that slander without the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.
It's not slander. If he thinks he is that irresponsible it's his factual opinion of the man. A worse striker than John Fashanu is not a slander. It's a stupid and misguided opinion though
If you are in medicine I suspect you view point might be rather different.
No, if I were in medicine I'd still think it was a stupid and misguided thing to say
Let's hope JRM says it outside Parliament and will find out the answer.
However, would you agree that if JRM refuses to repeat it outside Parliament that it is libel.
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust Boris" is such a powerful rallying call for his opponents. He is fundamentally an untrustworthy liar, both politically and personally.
My wife, who is not very interested in politics and thought Theresa May was doing her best against the odds, thinks he is a disgusting individual unfit to be PM, not because of Brexit but because of his attitude to women. I am sure she is not alone in taking this view.
Most posters on here are men I think - if there were more women we would hear more of that aspect of Johnson's character. It will be a factor in the election, perhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care if you shag mewling blind hamsters at 4am, as long as you get the job done.
Boris, who is clearly a shit, looks like he wants to get the job done, and has the mojo to do it. Theresa, who was so fundamentally decent she thought running in wheat fields was outrageous, was a shit politician who got nothing done, so the voters decided not to give her a majority, even against Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
Jo Johnson is a diehard Remainer who voted for EUref2 and did not even vote for the Withdrawal Agreement.
It is good for Boris that he is showing he will take on the diehard Remainers trying to deny the will of the people even if one is his own brother
This one is even better than some of your previous masterpieces. How can you even try and spin this as something positive, it is PR disaster for Johnson.
Boris is such a first class wanker and liar that he cannot even retain the loyalty of his brother. I wonder when Johnson senior will disown him!
No, half the Johnson family voted Remain and it is clear Jo is a diehard Remainer who refused to accept the will of the people.
To reassure Leavers it is great news for Boris that even if it costs his brother his political career Boris will not back down from taking on the diehard Remainer traitors and Corbyn who refuse to respect the Leave vote
May I suggest that referring to Remainers as "traitors" is inappropriate. You should take the opportunity to apologise and moderate your language, or perhaps have a cold shower.
Those who betrayed the Leave vote despite voting for the referendum and to trigger article 50 are traitors to democracy and I will continue to describe them as such
How do you define betraying the Leave vote? Voting against May's deal (like the current PM, twice)? Voting to rule out a no deal Brexit (that was never on the ballot paper)? What, exactly, do you mean?
"Traitor to democracy"? That (a) has no meaning and (b) isn't what you said.
Seriously, don't call people traitors. It's language like this that creates the breeding ground for violent extremism, which has already claimed the life of an MP.
Voting against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting for extension over No Deal by definition makes you a traitor to democracy and the Leave vote
Boris voted against the Withdrawal Agreement twice. The referendum didn't mention No Deal, we've never been offered a democratic vote on it.
If you vote against the only available Deal and against No Deal then by basic elimination you have to be voting against Leave altogether. After all we keep being told there is no alternative Deal available.
But I thought the EU had another deal being kept secret that they were going to suddenly produce on the 29th October only once they realised that the UK really would accept no-deal.
In my opinion, democracy dies when you use misleading statistics and misconceptions to whip up nationalistic rage in order to win a referendum.
But hey, we are where we are.
Good job your opinion is wrong then because every Government we have uses misleading statistics and misconceptions to whip up something.
You just happen to not like this particular result and so label it as wrong. I could say the same about any campaign resulting in a Socialist Government in this country. Neither position would be correct or helpful.
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust.
Most posters on here are men I think - if there were more women we would hear more of that aspect of Johnson's character. It will be a factor in the election, perhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
Build the wall, lock her up, no obstruction no collusion, witch hunt Trump plays purely on these simple messages
Yes, seems obvious to me that’s what Boris is trying to do. His PMQ answers were just simple sound bites that often had nothing at all to do with the question.
Do you really think the public are that stupid? Saddening if you are right.
In my opinion, democracy dies when you use misleading statistics and misconceptions to whip up nationalistic rage in order to win a referendum.
But hey, we are where we are.
Good job your opinion is wrong then because every Government we have uses misleading statistics and misconceptions to whip up something.
You just happen to not like this particular result and so label it as wrong. I could say the same about any campaign resulting in a Socialist Government in this country. Neither position would be correct or helpful.
But I thought the EU had another deal being kept secret that they were going to suddenly produce on the 29th October only once they realised that the UK really would accept no-deal.
You are talking to the wrong person about that. My deal was even softer than May's so I have no illusions about the EU position.
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
We tried that and it didn't work. Look at all those alternatives they voted for and not one got a majority
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
We tried that and it didn't work. Look at all those alternatives they voted for and not one got a majority
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust Boris" is such a powerful rallying call forperhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
While being careful about the impact of opinion polls and accompanying hyperbole, I do believe those published this weekend are very important one way or the other. For example, what if they collectively show the Tories actually losing ground, will the Government be as eager for that mid October election? My own hunch is the lead will stay the same or go higher which generates its own huge political pressures ahead of Monday's fateful vote.
Interestingly no one on here seems to have set the usual artificially high expectations bar for the Tories ahead of said polls
Au contraire, the PB Tory trick is to reverse ramp polls (suggest Labour leads etc).
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
We tried that and it didn't work. Look at all those alternatives they voted for and not one got a majority
We didnt! It was a handful of votes short and the payroll vote wasnt allowed to support it. A free vote for every MP and soft Brexit has a comfortable majority.
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust.
Most posters on here are men I think - if there were more women we would hear more of that aspect of Johnson's character. It will be a factor in the election, perhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
Build the wall, lock her up, no obstruction no collusion, witch hunt Trump plays purely on these simple messages
Yes, seems obvious to me that’s what Boris is trying to do. His PMQ answers were just simple sound bites that often had nothing at all to do with the question.
Do you really think the public are that stupid? Saddening if you are right.
Soundbites work and always did. They appear to be becoming more simplistic with time
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
Serious question. Why would he do that and then try to get an election? I do think he genuinely thinks he can win an election in which case the Confidence vote ruse would not have been a ruse at all.
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
Not to protect him. If the opposition wanted and could win an election then he could be out.
Blame the FTPA. He tabled an election motion under the FTPA and Parliament chose to reject it.
It's a post FTPA confidence motion.
No, a post-FTPA confidence motion is a motion that says you have no confidence in the government, and the process after it passes is that someone else can try to form a government.
If he thinks the motion he was defeated on was equivalent of a VONC, he should resign and recommend either the Leader of the Opposition, who may well be able to form a government, or another Tory like Theresa May who had the confidence of the House from the same set of MPs for a long time before she resigned of her own volition.
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust Boris" is such a powerful rallying call forperhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
While being careful about the impact of opinion polls and accompanying hyperbole, I do believe those published this weekend are very important one way or the other. For example, what if they collectively show the Tories actually losing ground, will the Government be as eager for that mid October election? My own hunch is the lead will stay the same or go higher which generates its own huge political pressures ahead of Monday's fateful vote.
Interestingly no one on here seems to have set the usual artificially high expectations bar for the Tories ahead of said polls
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
Not to protect him. If the opposition wanted and could win an election then he could be out.
It's because and let me repeat this again for the hard of thinking
They don't trust Boris and Cummings so won't allow an election to be called until leaving without a deal (i.e. leaving with No Deal) on October 31st is impossible.
At the moment they fear Boris will change the election date to November 7th without Benn's Act being in place.
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
Not to protect him. If the opposition wanted and could win an election then he could be out.
You are entitled to fight for your beliefs in an election or referendum campaign, you can even try and reverse the result in a subsequent election or referendum, what you are NOT entitled to do and the reason why so many Leavers (and even a few Remainers) are so angry now is refuse to implement the result of that election or referendum in the first place because you don't like it.
Boris Johnson refused to implement it because he thought it would help him become Prime Minister. Why don't you condemn him?
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
Not to protect him. If the opposition wanted and could win an election then he could be out.
But they do protect him. He said "this is a confidence motion" knowing full well that (a) he was not going to resign and (b) it was not in his gift to trigger an election. So the old consequences for him of losing a confidence vote were not there. He could (and maybe his supposedly omnicient consigliere "wargamed" it) have predicted that the opposition would not risk an election at this point. So it was a so-called "confidence" motion with very little downside for him but not for those who voted against.
Blame the FTPA. He tabled an election motion under the FTPA and Parliament chose to reject it.
It's a post FTPA confidence motion.
No, a post-FTPA confidence motion is a motion that says you have no confidence in the government, and the process after it passes is that someone else can try to form a government.
If he thinks the motion he was defeated on was equivalent of a VONC, he should resign and recommend either the Leader of the Opposition, who may well be able to form a government, or another Tory like Theresa May who had the confidence of the House from the same set of MPs for a long time before she resigned of her own volition.
And yet the Opposition and the rebels could call a VONC and win it right now. But they choose not to because they fear a GE.
Blame the FTPA. He tabled an election motion under the FTPA and Parliament chose to reject it.
It's a post FTPA confidence motion.
No, a post-FTPA confidence motion is a motion that says you have no confidence in the government, and the process after it passes is that someone else can try to form a government.
If he thinks the motion he was defeated on was equivalent of a VONC, he should resign and recommend either the Leader of the Opposition, who may well be able to form a government, or another Tory like Theresa May who had the confidence of the House from the same set of MPs for a long time before she resigned of her own volition.
And yet the Opposition and the rebels could call a VONC and win it right now. But they choose not to because they fear a GE.
No - currently it's because getting Benn's act into law is more important.
Only when that is done and Royal Assent has been given can you start thinking about a general election or a VONC...
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
We tried that and it didn't work. Look at all those alternatives they voted for and not one got a majority
Edit. Though I wish you were right.
To be fair, did every option provide 'cover' for Ireland. Obviously both, or either of, Single Market and Customs Union do.
19th-century Liberal prime minister who fathered the last of several illegitimate children in his 70s. Disraeli refused to mention this in a campaign against him, saying that if the Tories advertised Palmerston's virility, "he will sweep the country".
Where are you seeing all this 'anger' out of interest? I don't think I live a sheltered life, yet I haven't met a single human being since the vote whom I could describe as 'angry' about Brexit - at worst there might be a kind of eye-rolling, bewildered annoyance.
That genuinely surprises me.
I am still friends on Facebook with a good number of (very) working class schoolmates from Manchester and their feeds, probably unsurprisingly, are full of rage at what is happening.
What I haven't expected is a different sort of disgust from the middle class professional colleagues and friends I now work with who are much more 'remainery' without being on the extreme fringes of the sort you see on here.
It is why I am pretty confident that remainers/Labourites are going to be utterly distraught the morning after the election when reality transpires to be nothing like the one sided twitter-lite echo chamber on here.
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
Serious question. Why would he do that and then try to get an election? I do think he genuinely thinks he can win an election in which case the Confidence vote ruse would not have been a ruse at all.
If he thought the opposition were going to vote against then it wouldn't matter either way would it? By the mere fact he thinks he can win he must realise that it is less likely that the other side of the house would want to go to the polls right now. Apparently he is advised by the greatest political mind since Machiavelli so he would surely have seen that coming?
We tried that and it didn't work. Look at all those alternatives they voted for and not one got a majority
It's true that none of the indicative votes passed but that doesn't mean that nothing *can* pass.
For a start the government wasn't whipping for any of them, which is crazy weird in the British system - hardly anything controversial ever gets into law unless the government whips for it.
And secondly, even if *this* parliament can't pass anything, there's always the option of having an election and changing the parliament. (I know parliament just voted that down too, but they'll vote for it eventually, and there's nothing magical about the Oct 31st leaving date.) A Lib-Lab-SNP government could pass Norway+referendum, and a Con government with a large majority could pass the WA or the NI-only backstop.
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
Would you like £100? Y
Would you like £100 if the only way you can get it, is that your son dies in an accident at work and his employers give you £100 as compensation? N, in those circumstances I would rather not have it.
Aha, so we have established that you DON'T want £100 after all. Gotcha.
[No, actually, I would still like £100.]
It's extraordinary the lengths the local leavers will go to to keep their spirits up. They are actually as appalled as the rest of us - because not to be appalled, is to be insane, pretty much. But they cannot admit the situation without terminally damaging their self-image as 'ard men, FULL OF WIN, right about everything, etcetc. Hence ludicrous arguments like the above (with apols to w.w.jacobs).
19th-century Liberal prime minister who fathered the last of several illegitimate children in his 70s. Disraeli refused to mention this in a campaign against him, saying that if the Tories advertised Palmerston's virility, "he will sweep the country".
But women did not have the vote then.
And most of the recent British examples were defeated. Lloyd George, Major, Steve Norris.
I appreciate BJ would hardly be expecting the Commission to chuck him a bone.. but this must hardly be welcome given the current legislative situation here..
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust Boris" is such a powerful rallying call forperhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
While being careful about the impact of opinion polls and accompanying hyperbole, I do believe those published this weekend are very important one way or the other. For example, what if they collectively show the Tories actually losing ground, will the Government be as eager for that mid October election? My own hunch is the lead will stay the same or go higher which generates its own huge political pressures ahead of Monday's fateful vote.
Interestingly no one on here seems to have set the usual artificially high expectations bar for the Tories ahead of said polls
Au contraire, the PB Tory trick is to reverse ramp polls (suggest Labour leads etc).
I am not sure right wingers will feel this way. Jo Johnson knew his brother's do or die push, so his flip flopping from supporting May to resigning to supporting Boris to resigning makes him look like the untrustworthy one.
It’s possible that Boris made promises about being serious about going for a deal and Jo has now realised that he was being played.
I also wonder how much the expulsion of the 21 has changed matters. It is such a vindictive act.
Please explain how it is vindictive? They were told the consequences, told it was a confidence motion and made their choice.
Are all confidence motions vindictive?
Calling a motion a "confidence" motion in the full knowledge that it, for you, will have none of the traditional adverse consequences of such a motion if you lose, but it will for those who don't follow the whip, is indeed vindictive. Or perhaps cowardly is a better word. It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation. Had this happened in 2010 there would have been a resignation or an election. But there's no resignation, there is no election, and yet they had the whip removed anyway. That's vindicitive.
There's only no election as the opposition rejected it. Boris voted for one.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
He called this a "confidence" motion knowing full well that the old rules applying to confidence motions had been disapplied to protect him.
Not to protect him. If the opposition wanted and could win an election then he could be out.
It's because and let me repeat this again for the hard of thinking
They don't trust Boris and Cummings so won't allow an election to be called until leaving without a deal (i.e. leaving with No Deal) on October 31st is impossible.
At the moment they fear Boris will change the election date to November 7th without Benn's Act being in place.
Are these people entirely stupid or are they deliberately trying not to grasp it??!
Where are you seeing all this 'anger' out of interest? I don't think I live a sheltered life, yet I haven't met a single human being since the vote whom I could describe as 'angry' about Brexit - at worst there might be a kind of eye-rolling, bewildered annoyance.
That genuinely surprises me.
I am still friends on Facebook with a good number of (very) working class schoolmates from Manchester and their feeds, probably unsurprisingly, are full of rage at what is happening.
What I haven't expected is a different sort of disgust from the middle class professional colleagues and friends I now work with who are much more 'remainery' without being on the extreme fringes of the sort you see on here.
It is why I am pretty confident that remainers/Labourites are going to be utterly distraught the morning after the election when reality transpires to be nothing like the one sided twitter-lite echo chamber on here.
To be honest it wouldn't surprise. The result of the next election will depend on who can get their voters out and while I suspect it may be harder for the Tories than they hope I'm not going to predict a conclusion nor bet (outside of badly mispriced Scottish seats where SNP gain is a strong likelihood).
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust.
Most posters on here are men I think - if there were more women we would hear more of that aspect of Johnson's character. It will be a factor in the election, perhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I think, more importantly, PBers are underestimating the anger out there: aimed at ALL politicians. So they don’t want Boris and they don’t want No Deal, what do they want? How are they gonna end this, if not the boris way?!
This anger, already unprecedented, will probably get worse if Labour, et al, successfully force an extension, as seems likely.
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
Build the wall, lock her up, no obstruction no collusion, witch hunt Trump plays purely on these simple messages
Yes, seems obvious to me that’s what Boris is trying to do. His PMQ answers were just simple sound bites that often had nothing at all to do with the question.
Do you really think the public are that stupid? Saddening if you are right.
Apparently they are, if you believe the Remain view of why Leave won
I suspect female voters - already less keen on BREXIT than male may reach a less forgiving conclusion. While we’ve had promiscuous philanderers as PM before, have we had one with such a “colourful” private life in the age of female emancipation or tabloid journalism?
This is another reason why "you can't trust Boris" is such a powerful rallying call forperhaps a decisive one.
And yet he’s got a very hefty poll bounce.
Most people find it quite easy, these days, to separate the politician from the person. They don’t care Corbyn.
Let’s wait for the post-Surrender Act polls. You may be disappointed
Despite being of the Nabavi/Herdson/TSE/Scrapheap/Casino persuasion (albeit not resigning Tory membership), I strongly suspect that you and HYUFD are closer to calling the electoral impact correctly than 80% of the other regular posters here.
Boris will get sympathy, and maybe a patriotic slap on the back, from voters
I
People want a leader who says he’s going to do something simple and understandable then does it. People on here are fans of wordy, lawyerly prose because it’s clever clever. The public despise it.
While being careful about the impact of opinion polls and accompanying hyperbole, I do believe those published this weekend are very important one way or the other. For example, what if they collectively show the Tories actually losing ground, will the Government be as eager for that mid October election? My own hunch is the lead will stay the same or go higher which generates its own huge political pressures ahead of Monday's fateful vote.
Interestingly no one on here seems to have set the usual artificially high expectations bar for the Tories ahead of said polls
Au contraire, the PB Tory trick is to reverse ramp polls (suggest Labour leads etc).
And yet the Opposition and the rebels could call a VONC and win it right now. But they choose not to because they fear a GE.
Sure. But the point I'm making is that the PM is not treating the vote as if it was a confidence vote. If he was, he would already have resigned. It was a regular leadership powerplay followed by some politics, not a not a confidence motion or a motion the government decided to treat as a confidence motion.
Apologies if someone else has also noted that Jo's departure has to be an almost unique case of a Minister resigning to spend less time with his family.
I appreciate BJ would hardly be expecting the Commission to chuck him a bone.. but this must hardly be welcome given the current legislative situation here..
I appreciate BJ would hardly be expecting the Commission to chuck him a bone.. but this must hardly be welcome given the current legislative situation here..
Where are you seeing all this 'anger' out of interest? I don't think I live a sheltered life, yet I haven't met a single human being since the vote whom I could describe as 'angry' about Brexit - at worst there might be a kind of eye-rolling, bewildered annoyance.
That genuinely surprises me.
I am still friends on Facebook with a good number of (very) working class schoolmates from Manchester and their feeds, probably unsurprisingly, are full of rage at what is happening.
What I haven't expected is a different sort of disgust from the middle class professional colleagues and friends I now work with who are much more 'remainery' without being on the extreme fringes of the sort you see on here.
It is why I am pretty confident that remainers/Labourites are going to be utterly distraught the morning after the election when reality transpires to be nothing like the one sided twitter-lite echo chamber on here.
But did those working class schoolmates ever a) vote Labour to begin with (as there has always been a subsection of the Tory vote that was wwm) b) will there be enough of them to turn red seats blue c) will those middle class professionals vote tactically against the blues?
I do not think Labour can become the largest party in parliament. I also do not think it is likely that Johnson can win a majority whilst losing Scotland and the South West. Therefore I think the most likely outcome is a Lab led government with SNP and LD support, but there is a possibility (maybe as high as a third of the time) that Tories can form a governing majority.
Has BoZo really prorogued himself out of an early election?
Cummings is a fucking genius...
Yes - he really is that stupid. Welcome to a 10-12 week election campaign with a Queen's speech in the middle as an interlude which will be treated with contempt by everyone.
The first 5 weeks are going to be fun - Boris you know that election you wanted well you can have it now. All you need to do is recall Parliament - oops...
And yet the Opposition and the rebels could call a VONC and win it right now. But they choose not to because they fear a GE.
Sure. But the point I'm making is that the PM is not treating the vote as if it was a confidence vote. If he was, he would already have resigned. It was a regular leadership powerplay followed by some politics, not a not a confidence motion or a motion the government decided to treat as a confidence motion.
Corbyn can call a VONC after Benn gains RA if he wants.
Where are you seeing all this 'anger' out of interest? I don't think I live a sheltered life, yet I haven't met a single human being since the vote whom I could describe as 'angry' about Brexit - at worst there might be a kind of eye-rolling, bewildered annoyance.
That genuinely surprises me.
I am still friends on Facebook with a good number of (very) working class schoolmates from Manchester and their feeds, probably unsurprisingly, are full of rage at what is happening.
What I haven't expected is a different sort of disgust from the middle class professional colleagues and friends I now work with who are much more 'remainery' without being on the extreme fringes of the sort you see on here.
It is why I am pretty confident that remainers/Labourites are going to be utterly distraught the morning after the election when reality transpires to be nothing like the one sided twitter-lite echo chamber on here.
To be honest it wouldn't surprise. The result of the next election will depend on who can get their voters out and while I suspect it may be harder for the Tories than they hope I'm not going to predict a conclusion nor bet (outside of badly mispriced Scottish seats where SNP gain is a strong likelihood).
The risk to Labour is if Cummings can repeat his trick of getting pissed off voters who normally dont vote to turn out. Harder to do the second time of course.
Blame the FTPA. He tabled an election motion under the FTPA and Parliament chose to reject it.
It's a post FTPA confidence motion.
No, a post-FTPA confidence motion is a motion that says you have no confidence in the government, and the process after it passes is that someone else can try to form a government.
If he thinks the motion he was defeated on was equivalent of a VONC, he should resign and recommend either the Leader of the Opposition, who may well be able to form a government, or another Tory like Theresa May who had the confidence of the House from the same set of MPs for a long time before she resigned of her own volition.
No he should seek an election which has been an alternative for centuries now.
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
Would you like £100? Y
Would you like £100 if the only way you can get it, is that your son dies in an accident at work and his employers give you £100 as compensation? N, in those circumstances I would rather not have it.
Aha, so we have established that you DON'T want £100 after all. Gotcha.
[No, actually, I would still like £100.]
It's extraordinary the lengths the local leavers will go to to keep their spirits up. They are actually as appalled as the rest of us - because not to be appalled, is to be insane, pretty much. But they cannot admit the situation without terminally damaging their self-image as 'ard men, FULL OF WIN, right about everything, etcetc. Hence ludicrous arguments like the above (with apols to w.w.jacobs).
I see you are back on the alcohol again. My sympathies.
Has BoZo really prorogued himself out of an early election?
Cummings is a fucking genius...
Yes - he really is that stupid. Welcome to a 10-12 week election campaign with a Queen's speech in the middle as an interlude which will be treated with contempt by everyone.
I appreciate BJ would hardly be expecting the Commission to chuck him a bone.. but this must hardly be welcome given the current legislative situation here..
I appreciate BJ would hardly be expecting the Commission to chuck him a bone.. but this must hardly be welcome given the current legislative situation here..
Where are you seeing all this 'anger' out of interest? I don't think I live a sheltered life, yet I haven't met a single human being since the vote whom I could describe as 'angry' about Brexit - at worst there might be a kind of eye-rolling, bewildered annoyance.
That genuinely surprises me.
I am still friends on Facebook with a good number of (very) working class schoolmates from Manchester and their feeds, probably unsurprisingly, are full of rage at what is happening.
What I haven't expected is a different sort of disgust from the middle class professional colleagues and friends I now work with who are much more 'remainery' without being on the extreme fringes of the sort you see on here.
It is why I am pretty confident that remainers/Labourites are going to be utterly distraught the morning after the election when reality transpires to be nothing like the one sided twitter-lite echo chamber on here.
To be honest it wouldn't surprise. The result of the next election will depend on who can get their voters out and while I suspect it may be harder for the Tories than they hope I'm not going to predict a conclusion nor bet (outside of badly mispriced Scottish seats where SNP gain is a strong likelihood).
The risk to Labour is if Cummings can repeat his trick of getting pissed off voters who normally dont vote to turn out. Harder to do the second time of course.
Even harder to do when the party they need to vote for was previously the voter's devil incarnate.
Am i being stupid, but whats stopping labour saying no again? Given the bill that basically says Boris MUST call an exention then he'd be forced to resign by his own words.
If we must have Conservative MPs we should want them to be like Jo Johnson. The kind of people who are now voluntarily leaving the Conservative Party will reshape it and in due course the nation.
If we must have Labour MPs we should want them to be like Luciana Berger. The fact that today she's ended up in the Liberal Democrats simply due to institutional antisemeticism is appalling.
With our highly centralised democracy and FPTP Labour and Conservative parties are at least part of the social fabric and perhaps de facto organs of state. They are both in deep trouble with no sign ( outside Scotland ) of the free market generating a replacement.
But there are other options available if we change our red lines. 5/6 MPs have voted for either a customs union brexit or Mays deal. The blame cannot lie with individual MPs on that basis, if collectively they have been gridlocked, it is the party leaderships who are to blame.
But HYUFDs post specifically mentioned voting against the Deal and No Deal. On that basis he is absolutely right. If you vote against the only viable options for something then you are voting against the thing itself.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
But they are viable options. If both party leaderships just offered a free vote we would vote for soft Brexit this evening. It could be agreed with the EU in a couple of weeks.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
Would you like £100? Y
Would you like £100 if the only way you can get it, is that your son dies in an accident at work and his employers give you £100 as compensation? N, in those circumstances I would rather not have it.
Aha, so we have established that you DON'T want £100 after all. Gotcha.
[No, actually, I would still like £100.]
I see you are back on the alcohol again. My sympathies.
I mean, that sounds like a relatively good analogy to Brexit.
People were promised positives and no negatives, therefore it won.
Now the negatives are clear, do a majority think it is still worth it? Probably not.
But in positive only land, they would still take it.
Sorry, just catching up on the news. Has Jo Johnson resigned?
What from...Parliament, the Conservative Party, or just the family?
Parliament. He will not be standing as the Conservative candidate for Orpington.
There's going to be some cracking seats up for grabs for wannabe Tory MPs.....
And on the LibDems getting lots of defectors in seats they won't win in October - they risk having a decent night and still losing seats!
They could easily lose North Norfolk, and a resurgent SNP might grab one, or even two, Scottish seats. Streatham will be an interesting one, as will Heidi Allen's seat.
On balance, though, they're likely to end up ahead. Sadly, the talented Mr Goldsmith is likely to lose Richmond Park. And Sheffield Hallam should be a shoo in. I think St Ives will probably flip. All in all, I'd expect the LibDems to undershoot expectations, but still end up in the 20s.
I appreciate BJ would hardly be expecting the Commission to chuck him a bone.. but this must hardly be welcome given the current legislative situation here..
Am i being stupid, but whats stopping labour saying no again? Given the bill that basically says Boris MUST call an exention then he'd be forced to resign by his own words.
And yet the Opposition and the rebels could call a VONC and win it right now. But they choose not to because they fear a GE.
Sure. But the point I'm making is that the PM is not treating the vote as if it was a confidence vote. If he was, he would already have resigned. It was a regular leadership powerplay followed by some politics, not a not a confidence motion or a motion the government decided to treat as a confidence motion.
Resigning isn't the consequence of a confidence loss.
Am i being stupid, but whats stopping labour saying no again? Given the bill that basically says Boris MUST call an exention then he'd be forced to resign by his own words.
Where are you seeing all this 'anger' out of interest? I don't think I live a sheltered life, yet I haven't met a single human being since the vote whom I could describe as 'angry' about Brexit - at worst there might be a kind of eye-rolling, bewildered annoyance.
That genuinely surprises me.
I am still friends on Facebook with a good number of (very) working class schoolmates from Manchester and their feeds, probably unsurprisingly, are full of rage at what is happening.
What I haven't expected is a different sort of disgust from the middle class professional colleagues and friends I now work with who are much more 'remainery' without being on the extreme fringes of the sort you see on here.
It is why I am pretty confident that remainers/Labourites are going to be utterly distraught the morning after the election when reality transpires to be nothing like the one sided twitter-lite echo chamber on here.
To be honest it wouldn't surprise. The result of the next election will depend on who can get their voters out and while I suspect it may be harder for the Tories than they hope I'm not going to predict a conclusion nor bet (outside of badly mispriced Scottish seats where SNP gain is a strong likelihood).
The risk to Labour is if Cummings can repeat his trick of getting pissed off voters who normally dont vote to turn out. Harder to do the second time of course.
Even harder to do when the party they need to vote for was previously the voter's devil incarnate.
Nah, Boris will get a let trom those voters hes seen as entertainment not politics. Really he should have done a stint on Love Island first.
I appreciate BJ would hardly be expecting the Commission to chuck him a bone.. but this must hardly be welcome given the current legislative situation here..
Do they realise how very badly that is going to play with the voters here?
It's a question of trust. And European Parliamentarians have long experience of just how untrustworthy Johnson can be. Having devious whatnots like Farage and clowns like Widdecombe in the parliament doesn't help our case, either.
Am i being stupid, but whats stopping labour saying no again? Given the bill that basically says Boris MUST call an exention then he'd be forced to resign by his own words.
That is exactly the plan
Thats what i thought.
But what happens then?? Who the f-knows. corbyn gets to be PM I guess?
The risk to Labour is if Cummings can repeat his trick of getting pissed off voters who normally dont vote to turn out. Harder to do the second time of course.
Big point this. The 3m. My GE hopes for GTTO rest to a large extent on these people not bothering this time.
Comments
Stupid thing to say though no doubt
Where you are demonstrably wrong is to equate voting against the WA and voting for extension over No Deal with a refusal to implement the result of the referendum.
You might not like it, and it might be unpopular, but it would be perfectly consistent with the referendum result to argue for more time to be taken and/or for a softer Brexit.
And to go on to claim 'that by definition makes you a traitor to democracy' is simply absurd.
Blame the FTPA not Boris. He called an election but under the FTPA the opposition including the rebels stymied it.
But hey, we are where we are.
As it stands there are no other options available. I wish there were.
However, would you agree that if JRM refuses to repeat it outside Parliament that it is libel.
It is not realistic to allow one party to define viable options and the other to be held responsible for them.
You just happen to not like this particular result and so label it as wrong. I could say the same about any campaign resulting in a Socialist Government in this country. Neither position would be correct or helpful.
Edit. Though I wish you were right.
If he thinks the motion he was defeated on was equivalent of a VONC, he should resign and recommend either the Leader of the Opposition, who may well be able to form a government, or another Tory like Theresa May who had the confidence of the House from the same set of MPs for a long time before she resigned of her own volition.
Lab 20%
LD 21%
Green 4%
BXP 5%
Other 4%
They don't trust Boris and Cummings so won't allow an election to be called until leaving without a deal (i.e. leaving with No Deal) on October 31st is impossible.
At the moment they fear Boris will change the election date to November 7th without Benn's Act being in place.
Still, if the Tories want to write off seats like Hampstead & Kilburn on their own head be it.
Only when that is done and Royal Assent has been given can you start thinking about a general election or a VONC...
I am still friends on Facebook with a good number of (very) working class schoolmates from Manchester and their feeds, probably unsurprisingly, are full of rage at what is happening.
What I haven't expected is a different sort of disgust from the middle class professional colleagues and friends I now work with who are much more 'remainery' without being on the extreme fringes of the sort you see on here.
It is why I am pretty confident that remainers/Labourites are going to be utterly distraught the morning after the election when reality transpires to be nothing like the one sided twitter-lite echo chamber on here.
“Tough on furriners. Tough on the causes of furriners”
For a start the government wasn't whipping for any of them, which is crazy weird in the British system - hardly anything controversial ever gets into law unless the government whips for it.
And secondly, even if *this* parliament can't pass anything, there's always the option of having an election and changing the parliament. (I know parliament just voted that down too, but they'll vote for it eventually, and there's nothing magical about the Oct 31st leaving date.) A Lib-Lab-SNP government could pass Norway+referendum, and a Con government with a large majority could pass the WA or the NI-only backstop.
Would you like £100 if the only way you can get it, is that your son dies in an accident at work and his employers give you £100 as compensation? N, in those circumstances I would rather not have it.
Aha, so we have established that you DON'T want £100 after all. Gotcha.
[No, actually, I would still like £100.]
It's extraordinary the lengths the local leavers will go to to keep their spirits up. They are actually as appalled as the rest of us - because not to be appalled, is to be insane, pretty much. But they cannot admit the situation without terminally damaging their self-image as 'ard men, FULL OF WIN, right about everything, etcetc. Hence ludicrous arguments like the above (with apols to w.w.jacobs).
https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1169622498738147334
Remember what happened to Theresa May. And Boris isn’t exactly renowned for putting himself front and centre of debates either.
I would take any opinion poll with a pinch of salt. Public opinions are very volatile.
The Tories could get 20% or 40%.
Cummings is a fucking genius...
I'd more say shallow, intellectually lazy, and apolitical.
Thus prone to be attracted to 'simple' and 'entertaining' over something more challenging.
Johnson could benefit big time from this. I think he probably will.
I do not think Labour can become the largest party in parliament. I also do not think it is likely that Johnson can win a majority whilst losing Scotland and the South West. Therefore I think the most likely outcome is a Lab led government with SNP and LD support, but there is a possibility (maybe as high as a third of the time) that Tories can form a governing majority.
The first 5 weeks are going to be fun - Boris you know that election you wanted well you can have it now. All you need to do is recall Parliament - oops...
My ex wife divorced me on the grounds of spending too much time on PB adultery.
But if mother ever asks you, it was on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7431519/Rees-Mogg-brands-NHS-consultant-neurologist-irresponsible-anti-vac-doctor-Andrew-Wakefield.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-no-deal-doctor-david-nicholl-andrew-wakefield-anti-vaxx-a9092996.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-compares-author-19568850
If we must have Labour MPs we should want them to be like Luciana Berger. The fact that today she's ended up in the Liberal Democrats simply due to institutional antisemeticism is appalling.
With our highly centralised democracy and FPTP Labour and Conservative parties are at least part of the social fabric and perhaps de facto organs of state. They are both in deep trouble with no sign ( outside Scotland ) of the free market generating a replacement.
People were promised positives and no negatives, therefore it won.
Now the negatives are clear, do a majority think it is still worth it? Probably not.
But in positive only land, they would still take it.
On balance, though, they're likely to end up ahead. Sadly, the talented Mr Goldsmith is likely to lose Richmond Park. And Sheffield Hallam should be a shoo in. I think St Ives will probably flip. All in all, I'd expect the LibDems to undershoot expectations, but still end up in the 20s.
Really he should have done a stint on Love Island first.
Having devious whatnots like Farage and clowns like Widdecombe in the parliament doesn't help our case, either.
But what happens then?? Who the f-knows. corbyn gets to be PM I guess?