However, in all the polls the most important factor will be to look at the pro and anti Brexit party totals.....because this election will be about one thing...Britain elects put this at 52%/44%: YouGov at 40%/47%....
Very poor show. Surely at least one of the Brexiteers can find something positive to say about it?
I mean, it clearly shows that if there were a Con-Brexit pact, Boris would win by a landslide!
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
Much of current Tory thinking is now inexplicable to me.
It starts and ends with: another Brexit extension will ruin the party, and must be avoided at all costs.
All else flows from that.
Meanwhile the party is being ruined. Go figure.
Ruined ? Flakey inept careerists are flouncing out ?
I think it's more the surrender / retreat from the centre ground to a very right wing position.
What is this change? It means implementing Brexit, which the majority of people voted for in a referendum. Why is this 'very right wing'? Yeah, Bojo's talked about boosting police numbers and building more prisons - hardly the far right is it? The Tories were always the party of law and order (until May nearly ruined that, both at the HO and as PM).
If he's not going to deny royal assent, this is the next best option IMO.
If the Supreme Court rule in his favour so be it. If the Supreme Court rules against him he has no choice but to follow the law. Either way the law is honoured and he has done everything in his power.
It's vital that he avoids prison. We know what happens to pretty boys like Boris when they go inside.
This is very interesting. Will this sort of thing trigger Labour MP desertions to LDs? To lose Starmer would be massive. He has been a driving force against the Momentum invasion.
I know Starmer’s CLP very well. I have friends who have served in senior positions within it. There is no chance at all of a challenge to Starmer. He has 80%-90% support in all branches. However, the small rump of bitter old relics from the 1980s who run Momentum in Camden are noisy, so get a lot more attention than their numbers merit. Momentum generally is much more influential in CLPs with low memberships - a lot of these are in places Labour has no MPs and in the Midlands and the North.
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
Why not just ask Clarke and co to back Corbyn to head a unity government? Do they want to protect the country from a terrible fate? If Corbyn as PM is just as much a terrible fate they can no confidence him too and have an election.
If he's not going to deny royal assent, this is the next best option IMO.
If the Supreme Court rule in his favour so be it. If the Supreme Court rules against him he has no choice but to follow the law. Either way the law is honoured and he has done everything in his power.
It's vital that he avoids prison. We know what happens to pretty boys like Boris when they go inside.
He’s safe. They’ll mistake him for a tramp.
Good news for Boris is that he won’t be in the nonce wing like Eck.
If the Supreme Court says he can, what will be the difference between the UK, Russia, North Korea etc.
Like the Millar cases they become law and if Boris won then the whole system of parliamentary legislation is in real trouble, as is everybody
It depends why he wins. The Supreme Court would have to have a good reason and logic for the victory, just as it required one for Miller's.
If the challenge is based on for example Queen's Consent and Bercow gave a biased and a false instruction in saying it wasn't required then comparable to the doctrine of "fruit of the poisoned tree" the legislation should be invalid.
If the Court rules strictly that Queen's Consent was required and strikes out the law on that basis, then no law will have ever been broken except Bercow giving bad instructions and that will have been put right. If Bercow resigned and was replaced by say Hoyle who then returned to an era of a truly neutral Speaker giving impartial advice that could help repair some of the damage of the last couple of years.
Ok - so with this and a couple of previous comments, you really are deranged. PB's biggest cock, but not in a good way.
I'm deranged for thinking the Supreme Court would only rule in Boris's favour for good reason, which it would have to publicise? Wait, what?
I think FWIW that Boris would lose at Supreme Court, like May's government lost Miller.
I'm responding to the hypothetical "if he won", I can't see what reason he would win besides that one which is the only reasonable sounding legal argument proposed yet.
Foxy. You may remember that I asked some questions a few months ago about my brother’s oesophageal cancer. Just to say that he died peacefully today in a hospice surrounded by his friends. Our mother was able to speak to him and then he slipped away. 63 was too young but in the end it was a good death.
I am so sorry and send you and your family my condolences
NOM 5/7 Con Maj 2/1 Lab Maj 11/1 LD Maj 50/1 Bxp Maj 100/1
Honestly, now- anyone betting on these polls and the next UK election is like my annual strategy at the Grand National--I read the names on the horses and bet on the ones that have a certain ring to them....
No one has the first fucking clue what's going to happen with all due respect. Maybe Cummings or Hyfud perhaps...
The polls and betting markets are pretty clear about ONE thing - that Lab and Corbyn are deeply unpopuler. The debate is about the scale of the Conservatives win and whether it could even be a majority.
After everything that has happened this is a pretty damning indictment of the useless Corbyn.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
Much of current Tory thinking is now inexplicable to me.
It starts and ends with: another Brexit extension will ruin the party, and must be avoided at all costs.
All else flows from that.
And the public are sick of Brexit.
Which is why "Revoke" would not be the nightmare many Leavers predict. I understand that it would be a nightmare for Leavers but that is not the same thing
If he's not going to deny royal assent, this is the next best option IMO.
If the Supreme Court rule in his favour so be it. If the Supreme Court rules against him he has no choice but to follow the law. Either way the law is honoured and he has done everything in his power.
It's vital that he avoids prison. We know what happens to pretty boys like Boris when they go inside.
Foxy. You may remember that I asked some questions a few months ago about my brother’s oesophageal cancer. Just to say that he died peacefully today in a hospice surrounded by his friends. Our mother was able to speak to him and then he slipped away. 63 was too young but in the end it was a good death.
If the Supreme Court says he can, what will be the difference between the UK, Russia, North Korea etc.
Like the Millar cases they become law and if Boris won then the whole system of parliamentary legislation is in real trouble, as is everybody
It depends why he wins. The Supreme Court would have to have a good reason and logic for the victory, just as it required one for Miller's.
If the challenge is based on for example Queen's Consent and Bercow gave a biased and a false instruction in saying it wasn't required then comparable to the doctrine of "fruit of the poisoned tree" the legislation should be invalid.
If the Court rules strictly that Queen's Consent was required and strikes out the law on that basis, then no law will have ever been broken except Bercow giving bad instructions and that will have been put right. If Bercow resigned and was replaced by say Hoyle who then returned to an era of a truly neutral Speaker giving impartial advice that could help repair some of the damage of the last couple of years.
If you could be bothered to read the reference I gave you a couple of days ago about Queen's Consent, you'd know why that couldn't happen.
I know you can't be bothered to read things, and you can't ever bring yourself to admit you're wrong about anything. Still.
Foxy. You may remember that I asked some questions a few months ago about my brother’s oesophageal cancer. Just to say that he died peacefully today in a hospice surrounded by his friends. Our mother was able to speak to him and then he slipped away. 63 was too young but in the end it was a good death.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
Much of current Tory thinking is now inexplicable to me.
It starts and ends with: another Brexit extension will ruin the party, and must be avoided at all costs.
All else flows from that.
Meanwhile the party is being ruined. Go figure.
Ruined ? Flakey inept careerists are flouncing out ?
I think it's more the surrender / retreat from the centre ground to a very right wing position.
What is this change? It means implementing Brexit, which the majority of people voted for in a referendum. Why is this 'very right wing'? Yeah, Bojo's talked about boosting police numbers and building more prisons - hardly the far right is it? The Tories were always the party of law and order (until May nearly ruined that, both at the HO and as PM).
If you are fixing our criminal justice system you need to fix all of it not just the visible bits. Courts have lost 40% of their budget since 2010 and some court cases are now taking 2+ years and multiple attempts to actually get a hearing.
So what's the opinion of the Brexiteers here? Is Amber Rudd's resignation: (1) Quite good for Boris (2) Very good for Boris or (3) Orgasmically good for Boris?
It really isnt any of those. Not least because it makes holding Rudd's seat a tall order
So many people have not grasped what Dom Cummings clearly has grasped, and which I have been banging on about for several weeks
Brexit is a revolution. It's way more than a political upheaval, it's an overturning of everything we understand about British elections, meanwhile, all received political opinions are rendered worthless. The only thing similar to this, in recent UK history, is Scotland post indyref, where Labour completely collapsed after a century of dominance - but Brexit is even bigger than that.
So, yes, it doesn't matter if the Tories lose Guildford IF they can win Gateshead and Grimsby. And things that would once have badly damaged a prine minister -- his minister brother resigning, a Cabinet minister following, etc etc - no longer count for much, if they count for anything, because chaos is expected, and priced in. IT'S A REVOLUTION.
The problem with revolutions is that they almost always fail. Having won in Grimsby, how does a hard right Tory party that dreams of Singapore and the smallest of states retain it?
Revolutions nearly always fail?!
How do you arrive at such an ahistoricity?
What are the most famous revolutions? Off the top of my head:
France: succeeded America: succeeded England (Civil War and Glorious): both succeeded Russia: succeeded Ireland: (eventually succeeded)...
Even the revolutions that do fail often achieve their aims some way down the line/
I would say that only in America were the original goals of the revolutionaries achieved. The other countries all descended very quickly into civil war.
So 3% lead current VI poll from ComRes. Pollsters are all over the place.
That's not a current VI poll, the question is phrased different to normal. Have they done a standard VI poll?
It had the Tories ahead still based on not departing before 31st October, Labour only led if the Tory government agreed to extend past 31st October which is why Boris must go into opposition on a hard Brexit ticket rather than extend if the EU will not agree to replace the backstop with a technical solution by then
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
Much of current Tory thinking is now inexplicable to me.
It starts and ends with: another Brexit extension will ruin the party, and must be avoided at all costs.
All else flows from that.
And the public are sick of Brexit.
Which is why "Revoke" would not be the nightmare many Leavers predict. I understand that it would be a nightmare for Leavers but that is not the same thing
It is certainly true that Revoke is the only way to be rid of Brexit overnite, but it would bring with it other serious problems, I believe.
If the Supreme Court says he can, what will be the difference between the UK, Russia, North Korea etc.
Like the Millar cases they become law and if Boris won then the whole system of parliamentary legislation is in real trouble, as is everybody
It depends why he wins. The Supreme Court would have to have a good reason and logic for the victory, just as it required one for Miller's.
If the challenge is based on for example Queen's Consent and Bercow gave a biased and a false instruction in saying it wasn't required then comparable to the doctrine of "fruit of the poisoned tree" the legislation should be invalid.
If the Court rules strictly that Queen's Consent was required and strikes out the law on that basis, then no law will have ever been broken except Bercow giving bad instructions and that will have been put right. If Bercow resigned and was replaced by say Hoyle who then returned to an era of a truly neutral Speaker giving impartial advice that could help repair some of the damage of the last couple of years.
If you could be bothered to read the reference I gave you a couple of days ago about Queen's Consent, you'd know why that couldn't happen.
I know you can't be bothered to read things, and you can't ever bring yourself to admit you're wrong about anything. Still.
I read it, I disagreed with you. This may be breaking news to you but not everyone agrees with you on everything.
If the Supreme Court ruled that way then you would be wrong. I don't think it will, I've said that, but if it did so be it.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
This is very interesting. Will this sort of thing trigger Labour MP desertions to LDs? To lose Starmer would be massive. He has been a driving force against the Momentum invasion.
He's almost gotten the Labour party to victory (on the remain front at any rate). I think he can put up with momentum shenanigans rather than self destruct the party at the same time as the Tories.
The stability in the Labour Party has been remarkable, if one thinks back to the attempt to oust Corbyn three years ago. Four factors:
1. Although he acted tough at the beginning he hasn't tried to remove right-wing MPs - he is seemingly much more aware of the hypocrisy involved in attacking the rebels than Boris is. 2. The 2017 election showed that Corbyn is an electoral asset, not a liability. 3. There's a constant belief in Labour that "we're not doing this for ourselves." This concentrates minds. 4. The party is on permanent election footing.
So, the idea that Keir Starmer is about to quit Labour is risible. The electoral situation is on a knife-edge and no-one (or no-one important at least) is going to rock the boat before the vote happens.
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
Why not just ask Clarke and co to back Corbyn to head a unity government? Do they want to protect the country from a terrible fate? If Corbyn as PM is just as much a terrible fate they can no confidence him too and have an election.
Corbyn would inflame the issues, it has to be someone like Ken Clarke or Yvette Cooper
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
Why not just ask Clarke and co to back Corbyn to head a unity government? Do they want to protect the country from a terrible fate? If Corbyn as PM is just as much a terrible fate they can no confidence him too and have an election.
Corbyn would inflame the issues, it has to be someone like Ken Clarke or Yvette Cooper
Its funny I keep suggesting it and I keep being told I'm crazy for doing so.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
Much of current Tory thinking is now inexplicable to me.
It starts and ends with: another Brexit extension will ruin the party, and must be avoided at all costs.
All else flows from that.
And the public are sick of Brexit.
Which is why "Revoke" would not be the nightmare many Leavers predict. I understand that it would be a nightmare for Leavers but that is not the same thing
It is certainly true that Revoke is the only way to be rid of Brexit overnite, but it would bring with it other serious problems, I believe.
I suspect it's biggest impact would be on the Tory party with a lot of votes switching to BXP...
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
People shouldn't even be proposing such a thing, even through anonymous briefings.
This is very interesting. Will this sort of thing trigger Labour MP desertions to LDs? To lose Starmer would be massive. He has been a driving force against the Momentum invasion.
He's almost gotten the Labour party to victory (on the remain front at any rate). I think he can put up with momentum shenanigans rather than self destruct the party at the same time as the Tories.
The stability in the Labour Party has been remarkable, if one thinks back to the attempt to oust Corbyn three years ago. Four factors:
1. Although he acted tough at the beginning he hasn't tried to remove right-wing MPs - he is seemingly much more aware of the hypocrisy involved in attacking the rebels than Boris is. 2. The 2017 election showed that Corbyn is an electoral asset, not a liability. 3. There's a constant belief in Labour that "we're not doing this for ourselves." This concentrates minds. 4. The party is on permanent election footing.
So, the idea that Keir Starmer is about to quit Labour is risible. The electoral situation is on a knife-edge and no-one (or no-one important at least) is going to rock the boat before the vote happens.
.... 5. Labour MPs have been shown to be careerist cowards and their constituency parties are increasingly dominated by fanatical Momentum thugs of whom many Labour MPs are deeply afraid..
This is very interesting. Will this sort of thing trigger Labour MP desertions to LDs? To lose Starmer would be massive. He has been a driving force against the Momentum invasion.
I know Starmer’s CLP very well. I have friends who have served in senior positions within it. There is no chance at all of a challenge to Starmer. He has 80%-90% support in all branches. However, the small rump of bitter old relics from the 1980s who run Momentum in Camden are noisy, so get a lot more attention than their numbers merit. Momentum generally is much more influential in CLPs with low memberships - a lot of these are in places Labour has no MPs and in the Midlands and the North.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
People shouldn't even be proposing such a thing, even through anonymous briefings.
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
Why not just ask Clarke and co to back Corbyn to head a unity government? Do they want to protect the country from a terrible fate? If Corbyn as PM is just as much a terrible fate they can no confidence him too and have an election.
Corbyn would inflame the issues, it has to be someone like Ken Clarke or Yvette Cooper
There's nothing further to inflame. Corbyn brings the bulk of the MPs, are the others really not going to let him be PM, however briefly, because it makes things politically difficult for them? I thought avoiding no deal required all necessary means, was worth any price? Or is it not so bad after all, if the price is Corbyn?
That's fine, he's awful, but they can get off their high horse about how bad they think it is.
NOM 5/7 Con Maj 2/1 Lab Maj 11/1 LD Maj 50/1 Bxp Maj 100/1
Honestly, now- anyone betting on these polls and the next UK election is like my annual strategy at the Grand National--I read the names on the horses and bet on the ones that have a certain ring to them....
No one has the first fucking clue what's going to happen with all due respect. Maybe Cummings or Hyfud perhaps...
The polls and betting markets are pretty clear about ONE thing - that Lab and Corbyn are deeply unpopuler. The debate is about the scale of the Conservatives win and whether it could even be a majority.
After everything that has happened this is a pretty damning indictment of the useless Corbyn.
It's a given that without Corbyn the Tories would never had dared bring up the no deal card, or that Brexit would have won at all. The weakness of the opposition has allowed the populism of the right to gain strength.
If the Tories (plus DUP) do not win a majority at the next election, and Brexit has not been delivered.....the price of a LD support for whichever side will be a referendum....
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
People shouldn't even be proposing such a thing, even through anonymous briefings.
People shouldn't be proposing court cases?
That's today. A day or so ago, it was "we'll just ignore the law". So maybe they have seen some sense since then.
To secure the leadership it looks like Johnson told Leavers that he would No Deal and Remainers that he wouldn't.
I had thought that it was the Leavers he was lying to but it appears not. He lied to the Remainers.
Hence the exodus.
Moral? Best not to lie.
Wonder if he will learn the lesson. I suspect not. I sense that with Johnson the lying is congenital.
Boris doesn't want No Deal.
The Baker-Francois gang haven't realised that yet.
That may seem surprising but the Baker-Francois gang thought that May was aiming for the same thing they wanted as well.
Any deal destroys Johnson from here. It won’t win him back Tory Remainers and it will drive away the ERG. He’s in a tight spot, praying daily for Jeremy Corbyn’s good health.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
He said just yesterday he'd rather be dead in a ditch than comply with this law!
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
People shouldn't even be proposing such a thing, even through anonymous briefings.
People shouldn't be proposing court cases?
That's today. A day or so ago, it was "we'll just ignore the law". So maybe they have seen some sense since then.
I've not seen that. Do you have a source?
I've seen a lot of "I won't ask for an extension" - which people have interpreted as "we'll just ignore the law" but "we'll show that legally we don't need to" justifies that just as much!
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
Why not just ask Clarke and co to back Corbyn to head a unity government? Do they want to protect the country from a terrible fate? If Corbyn as PM is just as much a terrible fate they can no confidence him too and have an election.
Corbyn would inflame the issues, it has to be someone like Ken Clarke or Yvette Cooper
There's nothing further to inflame. Corbyn brings the bulk of the MPs, are the others really not going to let him be PM, however briefly, because it makes things politically difficult for them? I thought avoiding no deal required all necessary means, was worth any price? Or is it not so bad after all, if the price is Corbyn?
That's fine, he's awful, but they can get off their high horse about how bad they think it is.
The priority list for the remain alliance is firmly
i) Trying to make Johnson eat his words about Oct 31st ii) Avoiding an election before Oct 31st iii) Avoiding "No deal"
NOM 5/7 Con Maj 2/1 Lab Maj 11/1 LD Maj 50/1 Bxp Maj 100/1
Honestly, now- anyone betting on these polls and the next UK election is like my annual strategy at the Grand National--I read the names on the horses and bet on the ones that have a certain ring to them....
No one has the first fucking clue what's going to happen with all due respect. Maybe Cummings or Hyfud perhaps...
The polls and betting markets are pretty clear about ONE thing - that Lab and Corbyn are deeply unpopuler. The debate is about the scale of the Conservatives win and whether it could even be a majority.
After everything that has happened this is a pretty damning indictment of the useless Corbyn.
It's a given that without Corbyn the Tories would never had dared bring up the no deal card, or that Brexit would have won at all. The weakness of the opposition has allowed the populism of the right to gain strength.
If the Tories (plus DUP) do not win a majority at the next election, and Brexit has not been delivered.....the price of a LD support for whichever side will be a referendum....
I know several LDs (and many SNPers) who are "leavers".
That is why this thread is such an echo chamber. Lazy, inaccurate categorisations of groups by people with political points to score....
To secure the leadership it looks like Johnson told Leavers that he would No Deal and Remainers that he wouldn't.
I had thought that it was the Leavers he was lying to but it appears not. He lied to the Remainers.
Hence the exodus.
Moral? Best not to lie.
Wonder if he will learn the lesson. I suspect not. I sense that with Johnson the lying is congenital.
Boris doesn't want No Deal.
The Baker-Francois gang haven't realised that yet.
That may seem surprising but the Baker-Francois gang thought that May was aiming for the same thing they wanted as well.
Any deal destroys Johnson from here. It won’t win him back Tory Remainers and it will drive away the ERG. He’s in a tight spot, praying daily for Jeremy Corbyn’s good health.
Which is why Boris wants a GE before he reveals the BorisDeal.
If Parliament passed a law saying we needed to kill our first born, then I would say no I will not. Now in this instance 100% I would be prepared to break the law. But if I challenged the law and proved this was unconstitutional and the law itself was invalid, then I would never have broken the law.
the party itself is now fully behind Brexit Deal or No Deal and with Boris in the war with the diehard Remainers and Corbyn
Fine. But im afraid it is true.
Grieve, Clarke, Rudd et al are increasingly out of touch, certainly with the Party and seemingly increasingly with the country,
Ah ok. It's true now. Amber Rudd was the last remaining malcontent, and "the party itself is now fully behind Brexit Deal or No Deal and with Boris". I get it.
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
No. Labour should lay a VoNC after Parliament returns. Why should they give Boris an election before Brexit?
I suspect you can take Big_G out of the Tories but you cannot take the Tory out of Big_G...
Well that is true but I am not saying that. If the rebels which must now be near a majority can take Boris down and a senior mp (not leader) takes over and serves the extension, a GE can take place immediately
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
He said just yesterday he'd rather be dead in a ditch than comply with this law!
That's not saying he is prepared to break the law! There are lots of alternatives to it.
If Parliament passed a law saying we needed to kill our first born, then I would say no I will not. Now in this instance 100% I would be prepared to break the law. But if I challenged the law and proved this was unconstitutional and the law itself was invalid, then I would never have broken the law.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
Quite.
He hasnt said anything of the sort,
Gove wouldn't commit to abide by the bill when asked by Marr last Sunday.
NOM 5/7 Con Maj 2/1 Lab Maj 11/1 LD Maj 50/1 Bxp Maj 100/1
Honestly, now- anyone betting on these polls and the next UK election is like my annual strategy at the Grand National--I read the names on the horses and bet on the ones that have a certain ring to them....
No one has the first fucking clue what's going to happen with all due respect. Maybe Cummings or Hyfud perhaps...
The polls and betting markets are pretty clear about ONE thing - that Lab and Corbyn are deeply unpopuler. The debate is about the scale of the Conservatives win and whether it could even be a majority.
After everything that has happened this is a pretty damning indictment of the useless Corbyn.
It's a given that without Corbyn the Tories would never had dared bring up the no deal card, or that Brexit would have won at all. The weakness of the opposition has allowed the populism of the right to gain strength.
If the Tories (plus DUP) do not win a majority at the next election, and Brexit has not been delivered.....the price of a LD support for whichever side will be a referendum....
I would imagine that, under those circumstances, the Tories will be in Opposition and there will end up being a referendum, because this would also suit Labour.
As to what else might or might not come out of the next Parliament, this will obviously vary dramatically depending on whether Labour wins outright, needs the SNP, or needs both the SNP and the Lib Dems. I write this in anticipation of the fact that the SNP would, presumably, be the preferred confidence and supply partner: Scottish Labour has already been reduced to a pile of smouldering ruins so English and Welsh Labour won't particularly mind abandoning it to die; the SNP should be more easily bought off (with Indyref2, of course); and the Corbynites care nothing for the Union.
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
No. Labour should lay a VoNC after Parliament returns. Why should they give Boris an election before Brexit?
I suspect you can take Big_G out of the Tories but you cannot take the Tory out of Big_G...
Well that is true but I am not saying that. If the rebels which must now be near a majority can take Boris down and a senior mp (not leader) takes over and serves the extension, a GE can take place immediately
Given Boris's Do or Die October 31st deadline why should anyone give Boris an election before October 31st?
From Tuesday the delay can be made to look like Boris's fault.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
Quite.
He hasnt said anything of the sort,
Gove wouldn't commit to abide by the bill when asked by Marr last Sunday.
That's not the same thing as saying he's prepared to break it either!
Gove gave a politician's answer of saying he wasn't going to answer hypotheticals and we needed to wait and see what the law was.
Just came back from Scotland after probably my most epic week of railway geekery ever!
On Monday evening did Stirling to Alloa, as well as Camelon (near Falkirk) to Larbert. Tuesday did Craigendoran to Oban (one of the West Highland Lines) Wednesday did Ladybank to Perth and Aviemore to Inverness Thursday did Crianlarich to Mallaig (the other West Highland) Friday did Leuchars to Dundee to Aberdeen And finally today did the loop from Inverkeithing round to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
That just leaves Inverness to Kyle, Inverness to Thurso and Wick, and Inverness to Aberdeen for me to complete the normal weekday National Rail network of Great Britain!
But will probably will wait until the days get longer again in the spring, though.
When I did the far northern line, I saw three - three! - golden eagles.
And on every fecking occasion my camera wasn't ready...
My photographic miss was Torness Power Station about 6 or 7 years ago, framed in its entirety by a prominent rainbow. That was merely on a rail replacement service though.
If you jump on a Metropolitan line in central London - Aldgate or King's X say - and follow the line to its ultimate conclusion in Amersham, where the Chilterns begin, you step out of the station into a country town, and if you are lucky there will be magnificent red kites wheeling and screeching above you, even as you put away your Oyster card.
It's a glorious transition. Very poetic.
You can't trick me into leaving zone one; I'm not that stupid.
the party itself is now fully behind Brexit Deal or No Deal and with Boris in the war with the diehard Remainers and Corbyn
Fine. But im afraid it is true.
Grieve, Clarke, Rudd et al are increasingly out of touch, certainly with the Party and seemingly increasingly with the country,
Ah ok. It's true now. Amber Rudd was the last remaining malcontent, and "the party itself is now fully behind Brexit Deal or No Deal and with Boris". I get it.
Shall we revisit this same time next week?
Childish.
All parties are inevitably coalitions. The issue is whether the consensus lies "for" or "against".
I voted remain and am entirely indifferent to Rudd's departure.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
Quite.
He hasnt said anything of the sort,
Gove wouldn't commit to abide by the bill when asked by Marr last Sunday.
And Boris has said that he would die in a ditch before he would ask for an extension. So if the law requires him to ask for one...???
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
No. Labour should lay a VoNC after Parliament returns. Why should they give Boris an election before Brexit?
I suspect you can take Big_G out of the Tories but you cannot take the Tory out of Big_G...
Well that is true but I am not saying that. If the rebels which must now be near a majority can take Boris down and a senior mp (not leader) takes over and serves the extension, a GE can take place immediately
Given Boris's Do or Die October 31st deadline why should anyone give Boris an election before October 31st?
From Tuesday the delay can be made to look like Boris's fault.
To secure the leadership it looks like Johnson told Leavers that he would No Deal and Remainers that he wouldn't.
I had thought that it was the Leavers he was lying to but it appears not. He lied to the Remainers.
Hence the exodus.
Moral? Best not to lie.
Wonder if he will learn the lesson. I suspect not. I sense that with Johnson the lying is congenital.
Boris doesn't want No Deal.
The Baker-Francois gang haven't realised that yet.
That may seem surprising but the Baker-Francois gang thought that May was aiming for the same thing they wanted as well.
Any deal destroys Johnson from here. It won’t win him back Tory Remainers and it will drive away the ERG. He’s in a tight spot, praying daily for Jeremy Corbyn’s good health.
Which is why Boris wants a GE before he reveals the BorisDeal.
Precisely. Boris wanted a GE on October 14th so he could get a majority to pass May's deal with likely an NI only Customs Union attached. Now he's being forced into becoming the Octavian of the leavers.
If he has a majority, of course he would welch on his extension pledge. I can only conclude the opposition has played a game for electoral advantage and it doesn't really have all that much to do with avoiding "No deal".
I'm fascinated to see what Cummins has planned. I reckon there are ~ 165 Tory MPs with strong enough stomachs to support Johnson if he's challenged or whatnot.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
Quite.
He hasnt said anything of the sort,
Gove wouldn't commit to abide by the bill when asked by Marr last Sunday.
And Boris has said that he would die in a ditch before he would ask for an extension. So if the law requires him to ask for one...???
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
He said just yesterday he'd rather be dead in a ditch than comply with this law!
That's not saying he is prepared to break the law! There are lots of alternatives to it.
It's saying exactly that. Saying you'd rather die in a ditch than do something is simply a strongly worded way of saying you won't do it. Now, he may very well be lying (he very often does), but he's still plainly saying he's prepared to break the law.
If Parliament passed a law saying we needed to kill our first born, then I would say no I will not. Now in this instance 100% I would be prepared to break the law. But if I challenged the law and proved this was unconstitutional and the law itself was invalid, then I would never have broken the law.
What a ludicrous analogy. Get a grip, man.
Well in fairness he did preface it by saying it was an absurd analogy.
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
I'm going by BBC reports, Philip, but of course he could resign as an alternative. I understood however that he had indicated he would not resign, ergo....
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
No. Labour should lay a VoNC after Parliament returns. Why should they give Boris an election before Brexit?
I suspect you can take Big_G out of the Tories but you cannot take the Tory out of Big_G...
Well that is true but I am not saying that. If the rebels which must now be near a majority can take Boris down and a senior mp (not leader) takes over and serves the extension, a GE can take place immediately
Given Boris's Do or Die October 31st deadline why should anyone give Boris an election before October 31st?
From Tuesday the delay can be made to look like Boris's fault.
It can't as Boris will resign as PM and lead the Tories into opposition on a Brexit Deal or No Deal ticket rather than extend again as No 10 told the Sun today
That's not the same thing as saying he's prepared to break it either!
Gove gave a politician's answer of saying he wasn't going to answer hypotheticals and we needed to wait and see what the law was.
So basically you are saying they were only flirting with breaking the law, not explicitly saying they would break the law, or actually breaking the law.
Just came back from Scotland after probably my most epic week of railway geekery ever!
On Monday evening did Stirling to Alloa, as well as Camelon (near Falkirk) to Larbert. Tuesday did Craigendoran to Oban (one of the West Highland Lines) Wednesday did Ladybank to Perth and Aviemore to Inverness Thursday did Crianlarich to Mallaig (the other West Highland) Friday did Leuchars to Dundee to Aberdeen And finally today did the loop from Inverkeithing round to Kirkcaldy via Cowdenbeath
That just leaves Inverness to Kyle, Inverness to Thurso and Wick, and Inverness to Aberdeen for me to complete the normal weekday National Rail network of Great Britain!
But will probably will wait until the days get longer again in the spring, though.
When I did the far northern line, I saw three - three! - golden eagles.
And on every fecking occasion my camera wasn't ready...
My photographic miss was Torness Power Station about 6 or 7 years ago, framed in its entirety by a prominent rainbow. That was merely on a rail replacement service though.
If you jump on a Metropolitan line in central London - Aldgate or King's X say - and follow the line to its ultimate conclusion in Amersham, where the Chilterns begin, you step out of the station into a country town, and if you are lucky there will be magnificent red kites wheeling and screeching above you, even as you put away your Oyster card.
It's a glorious transition. Very poetic.
You can't trick me into leaving zone one; I'm not that stupid.
Depends where you live. I find that with property closer to Amersham station than the car park the commute isn't that bad...
It is astonishing and a somewhat depressing to find that even on an enlightened forum like this, it appears necessary to argue that the law should be obeyed, and that applies to the PM as much as anybody.
It is not a question of whether or not the law should be obeyed but rather what the law is. There were lots of people on here claiming the suspension of Parliament was illegal. They are strangely silent now the courts have said it is not. Now everyone is jumping up and down sbout Boris breaking the law by ignoring Parliament. Of course he has done no such thing as yet. Until he does it is just so much Remainer hot air.
He's said he is prepared to break the law though, hasn't he? That's the promotion of anarchy.
Has he?
Can you give me a source for that please?
He said just yesterday he'd rather be dead in a ditch than comply with this law!
That's not saying he is prepared to break the law! There are lots of alternatives to it.
It's saying exactly that. Saying you'd rather die in a ditch than do something is simply a strongly worded way of saying you won't do it. Now, he may very well be lying (he very often does), but he's still plainly saying he's prepared to break the law.
No he's not!
He has multiple options available to him, breaking the law is just one of them.
That's not the same thing as saying he's prepared to break it either!
Gove gave a politician's answer of saying he wasn't going to answer hypotheticals and we needed to wait and see what the law was.
So basically you are saying they were only flirting with breaking the law, not explicitly saying they would break the law, or actually breaking the law.
Maybe you are fine with that. I'm not.
I don't think they flirted at all. I think people are reading what they want into this.
NOM 5/7 Con Maj 2/1 Lab Maj 11/1 LD Maj 50/1 Bxp Maj 100/1
Honestly, now- anyone betting on these polls and the next UK election is like my annual strategy at the Grand National--I read the names on the horses and bet on the ones that have a certain ring to them....
No one has the first fucking clue what's going to happen with all due respect. Maybe Cummings or Hyfud perhaps...
The polls and betting markets are pretty clear about ONE thing - that Lab and Corbyn are deeply unpopuler. The debate is about the scale of the Conservatives win and whether it could even be a majority.
After everything that has happened this is a pretty damning indictment of the useless Corbyn.
It's a given that without Corbyn the Tories would never had dared bring up the no deal card, or that Brexit would have won at all. The weakness of the opposition has allowed the populism of the right to gain strength.
If the Tories (plus DUP) do not win a majority at the next election, and Brexit has not been delivered.....the price of a LD support for whichever side will be a referendum....
I would imagine that, under those circumstances, the Tories will be in Opposition and there will end up being a referendum, because this would also suit Labour.
As to what else might or might not come out of the next Parliament, this will obviously vary dramatically depending on whether Labour wins outright, needs the SNP, or needs both the SNP and the Lib Dems. I write this in anticipation of the fact that the SNP would, presumably, be the preferred confidence and supply partner: Scottish Labour has already been reduced to a pile of smouldering ruins so English and Welsh Labour won't particularly mind abandoning it to die; the SNP should be more easily bought off (with Indyref2, of course); and the Corbynites care nothing for the Union.
No poll has the SNP alone giving Corbyn Labour a majority, even Panelbase, Corbyn needs the LDs for a majority and Swinson would veto indyref2 and a Corbyn premiership
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
No. Labour should lay a VoNC after Parliament returns. Why should they give Boris an election before Brexit?
I suspect you can take Big_G out of the Tories but you cannot take the Tory out of Big_G...
Well that is true but I am not saying that. If the rebels which must now be near a majority can take Boris down and a senior mp (not leader) takes over and serves the extension, a GE can take place immediately
Given Boris's Do or Die October 31st deadline why should anyone give Boris an election before October 31st?
From Tuesday the delay can be made to look like Boris's fault.
No it can't.
Parliament will be prorogued. If Boris talks about an election, people can say just recall Parliament...
Some tidbits from the mail on Sunday Leadsom confirms a candidate will stand against Bercow and says he has flagrantly defied the will of the people! Also that one plan is to refuse to appoint a commissioner after October and leave the EU not legally constituted then when they vote to reduce to 27 to counter that, veto it forcing them to kick us out
On Monday labour should lay a vonc in the government and the rebels agree to appointing Ken Clarke to head a unity government
If they don't they are failing to protect our Country from a terrible fate and they will not be forgiven
No. Labour should lay a VoNC after Parliament returns. Why should they give Boris an election before Brexit?
I suspect you can take Big_G out of the Tories but you cannot take the Tory out of Big_G...
Well that is true but I am not saying that. If the rebels which must now be near a majority can take Boris down and a senior mp (not leader) takes over and serves the extension, a GE can take place immediately
Given Boris's Do or Die October 31st deadline why should anyone give Boris an election before October 31st?
From Tuesday the delay can be made to look like Boris's fault.
It is not working - action needs to be taken, the extension granted, and then the GE takes place. It would be upto the GONU to decide the date
If the Supreme Court says he can, what will be the difference between the UK, Russia, North Korea etc.
Like the Millar cases they become law and if Boris won then the whole system of parliamentary legislation is in real trouble, as is everybody
It depends why he wins. The Supreme Court would have to have a good reason and logic for the victory, just as it required one for Miller's.
If the challenge is based on for example Queen's Consent and Bercow gave a biased and a false instruction in saying it wasn't required then comparable to the doctrine of "fruit of the poisoned tree" the legislation should be invalid.
If the Court rules strictly that Queen's Consent was required and strikes out the law on that basis, then no law will have ever been broken except Bercow giving bad instructions and that will have been put right. If Bercow resigned and was replaced by say Hoyle who then returned to an era of a truly neutral Speaker giving impartial advice that could help repair some of the damage of the last couple of years.
Ok - so with this and a couple of previous comments, you really are deranged. PB's biggest cock, but not in a good way.
Oi. Throw around personal insults like that and I'll ban you.
Comments
I mean, it clearly shows that if there were a Con-Brexit pact, Boris would win by a landslide!
(I shouldn't have to be doing this for you guys.)
The Baker-Francois gang haven't realised that yet.
That may seem surprising but the Baker-Francois gang thought that May was aiming for the same thing they wanted as well.
I think FWIW that Boris would lose at Supreme Court, like May's government lost Miller.
I'm responding to the hypothetical "if he won", I can't see what reason he would win besides that one which is the only reasonable sounding legal argument proposed yet.
After everything that has happened this is a pretty damning indictment of the useless Corbyn.
I know you can't be bothered to read things, and you can't ever bring yourself to admit you're wrong about anything. Still.
Courts have lost 40% of their budget since 2010 and some court cases are now taking 2+ years and multiple attempts to actually get a hearing.
If the Supreme Court ruled that way then you would be wrong. I don't think it will, I've said that, but if it did so be it.
1. Although he acted tough at the beginning he hasn't tried to remove right-wing MPs - he is seemingly much more aware of the hypocrisy involved in attacking the rebels than Boris is.
2. The 2017 election showed that Corbyn is an electoral asset, not a liability.
3. There's a constant belief in Labour that "we're not doing this for ourselves." This concentrates minds.
4. The party is on permanent election footing.
So, the idea that Keir Starmer is about to quit Labour is risible. The electoral situation is on a knife-edge and no-one (or no-one important at least) is going to rock the boat before the vote happens.
5. Labour MPs have been shown to be careerist cowards and their constituency parties are increasingly dominated by fanatical Momentum thugs of whom many Labour MPs are deeply afraid..
That's fine, he's awful, but they can get off their high horse about how bad they think it is.
If the Tories (plus DUP) do not win a majority at the next election, and Brexit has not been delivered.....the price of a LD support for whichever side will be a referendum....
Can you give me a source for that please?
I've seen a lot of "I won't ask for an extension" - which people have interpreted as "we'll just ignore the law" but "we'll show that legally we don't need to" justifies that just as much!
Grieve, Clarke, Rudd et al are increasingly out of touch, certainly with the Party and seemingly increasingly with the country,
CHORTLE
He hasnt said anything of the sort,
I suspect you can take Big_G out of the Tories but you cannot take the Tory out of Big_G...
https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1170439183208472578?s=21
i) Trying to make Johnson eat his words about Oct 31st
ii) Avoiding an election before Oct 31st
iii) Avoiding "No deal"
In that order.
That is why this thread is such an echo chamber. Lazy, inaccurate categorisations of groups by people with political points to score....
If Parliament passed a law saying we needed to kill our first born, then I would say no I will not. Now in this instance 100% I would be prepared to break the law. But if I challenged the law and proved this was unconstitutional and the law itself was invalid, then I would never have broken the law.
Shall we revisit this same time next week?
As to what else might or might not come out of the next Parliament, this will obviously vary dramatically depending on whether Labour wins outright, needs the SNP, or needs both the SNP and the Lib Dems. I write this in anticipation of the fact that the SNP would, presumably, be the preferred confidence and supply partner: Scottish Labour has already been reduced to a pile of smouldering ruins so English and Welsh Labour won't particularly mind abandoning it to die; the SNP should be more easily bought off (with Indyref2, of course); and the Corbynites care nothing for the Union.
The current situation is such a mess that only an idiot would have planned it. Perhaps the horse will learn to sing....
From Tuesday the delay can be made to look like Boris's fault.
Gove gave a politician's answer of saying he wasn't going to answer hypotheticals and we needed to wait and see what the law was.
All parties are inevitably coalitions. The issue is whether the consensus lies "for" or "against".
I voted remain and am entirely indifferent to Rudd's departure.
Now he's being forced into becoming the Octavian of the leavers.
If he has a majority, of course he would welch on his extension pledge. I can only conclude the opposition has played a game for electoral advantage and it doesn't really have all that much to do with avoiding "No deal".
I'm fascinated to see what Cummins has planned. I reckon there are ~ 165 Tory MPs with strong enough stomachs to support Johnson if he's challenged or whatnot.
Brexit done will mean a dead Labour party and, with a little good fortune, an independent Scotland.
Tory maj/largest party for many GE's in to the future.
Maybe you are fine with that. I'm not.
He has multiple options available to him, breaking the law is just one of them.
Leadsom confirms a candidate will stand against Bercow and says he has flagrantly defied the will of the people!
Also that one plan is to refuse to appoint a commissioner after October and leave the EU not legally constituted then when they vote to reduce to 27 to counter that, veto it forcing them to kick us out