It is and by convention the main parties do not stand against the Speaker, we can just do more general election canvassing in nearby marginal seats instead like Chingford, Thurrock, Colchester and Enfield Southgate
I was wondering if you had considered a trip to East Ham where Stephen Timms is clinging on by his fingertips to his 39,883 majority though I appreciate that might be a big ask for the Conservatives even on Kantar numbers.
More seriously, do you consider Harlow safe with a 7,000 majority for Halfon? I believe he is a very good constituency MP.
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov yesterday and only 2% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour.
The 18% of 2017 Labour voters now voting LD and the 8% of Labour voters now voting Brexit Party also boosts the Tories under FPTP in Labpur held marginal seats
Back in April 2017 13% of GE2015 Labour voters were planning to vote Tory in the 2017GE.
Spoiler alert - They did not.
If labour poll low 20s in a GE they lose handfuls of seats. Period. What their 2017 voters do is not vote labour in large numbers. That's enough to screw them, losing a third to a half your vote is usually somewhat damaging.
Liam Fox never said that. Idiots keep quoting it but it's complete and utter bullshit.
Yes I know, but plenty of Leavers did say it would be easy, so Ben Wallace is indeed a lying piece of shit.
The case that it would be easy rested on the assumptions that we would (1) have a government that would not signal its willingness to capitulate from the off and (2) parliament would not undermine the fallback option so that the EU was free to name an intolerably high price even for those wanting to see us leave.
Had a Leaver-led government been in charge of negotiations from the off, with a parliament willing to vote through whatever course it eventually chose, including leaving before reaching any long term trade agreement, then yes it would have been easy to secure something better than what has been offered.
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov yesterday and only 2% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour.
The 18% of 2017 Labour voters now voting LD and the 8% of Labour voters now voting Brexit Party also boosts the Tories under FPTP in Labpur held marginal seats
Back in April 2017 13% of GE2015 Labour voters were planning to vote Tory in the 2017GE.
Spoiler alert - They did not.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
No there will not because detailed policy, popular or unpopular involves work, for all her faults May was exceptionally hard working. Johnson is not.
The similarites will be the lack of campaigning. Vine's tale of the PMs after dinner speaking confirms this, he has one scripted irrelevant speech for all his after dinner speeches. This works well when the electorate are barely paying attention to politics.
When they are about to vote they want to hear the detail, see the leaders interacting and talking policy with everyday people. The PM is not capable of that, will be too frit to do anything bar soundbites, speeches of inverted piffle and safe environments.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
It's difficult to see a path to the Speakership for Eleanor Laing. A substantial minority government position doesn't bode well for her chances and there are also sufficient Conservatives who will not vote for the Boris candidate and jealously guard the nature of the election of the Speaker as not in the gift of the government.
It appears to be either Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle or "Mother of the House" Harriet Harman for the job.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Because his record of avoiding disasters is 0 for 7 so far...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
According to Amber Rudd he's not even trying to.
If he comes back with a deal she looks a bit stupid. And yes, big if, but his willingness to get a deal will be shown by whether he comes back with a deal, not by the words of someone who just quit the party and is angling to be the chief GNU
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Because his record of avoiding disasters is 0 for 7 so far...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
According to Amber Rudd he's not even trying to.
Amber Rudd wasn't on the negotiating team or the Brexit subcommittee of Brexit. She wouldn't know.
But she asked, as a cabinet minister, precisely what had been done, what meetings had been had, what proposals had been made. And answer came there none.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
I think you and I have a different understanding of "never said that". My understanding is that, for it to be true that he "never said that", he should have never said it. But I freely admit that I may be out of step in this modern world.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Because his record of avoiding disasters is 0 for 7 so far...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I am a floating voter who is strongly anti no deal. I dont actually think Boris would go thru with no deal, but could never vote for him whether he gets a deal or not, not directly because of the 7 losses, but because of his lack of character and integrity.
If 5 years ago you had told me Corbyn was leader of the Labour party and I would prefer him as PM to the Tory leader I would have been very bemused, but that is where I am now.
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
No.. but in terms of the tweet quoted, he's clearly not "no-one". He was a key figure in Leave and, at the time of speaking, international trade secretary in a government of nominally the same party as the current one
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov yesterday and only 2% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour.
The 18% of 2017 Labour voters now voting LD and the 8% of Labour voters now voting Brexit Party also boosts the Tories under FPTP in Labpur held marginal seats
Back in April 2017 13% of GE2015 Labour voters were planning to vote Tory in the 2017GE.
Spoiler alert - They did not.
That Herdson election eve spoiler was quite something wasn’t it. I wonder who the 2019(/2020) equivalent will come from, given how many of the pro’s on this forum will instead now be spending election eve [at their grandkids singing recitals/watching Ashes 2005 dvds/googling images of 20 year Corbynistas in short skirts] rather than canvassing. Ok the last one is unchanged from 2017.
I remember the hour or so after the exit poll, looking down the barrel of a Corbyn government and being utterly unprepared for it. Ever since, I’ve planned my life to make sure I’m both financially and emotionally prepared for anything. It will be interesting to see if the gang here can make immediate peace with whatever result. I suspect the anger in the wider public will be something to behold no matter what happens.
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov yesterday and only 2% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour.
The 18% of 2017 Labour voters now voting LD and the 8% of Labour voters now voting Brexit Party also boosts the Tories under FPTP in Labpur held marginal seats
Back in April 2017 13% of GE2015 Labour voters were planning to vote Tory in the 2017GE.
Spoiler alert - They did not.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Yes, he's proved adept at cooking up his own, wholly original disasters.
The search for a WDA acceptable top the EU and the HoC is futile. It might, perhaps, have been possible to find one before May set out her red lines and before she lost her majority in 2017 but since then agreement has been impossible and the events of the past week have deepened the impasse.
May was correct in her prediction that the failure of her WDA would leave the UK with a choice of no deal or no Brexit. It is now time to face that choice and to stop pretending that there are any other available options.
Again that's like me saying Parliament should ratify any deal to avoid no deal but won't because of party politics ... then you quote me claiming I said Parliament would "ratify any deal".
Based on the first part did I say Parliament would ratify any deal? Yes or no.
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov yesterday and only 2% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour.
The 18% of 2017 Labour voters now voting LD and the 8% of Labour voters now voting Brexit Party also boosts the Tories under FPTP in Labpur held marginal seats
Back in April 2017 13% of GE2015 Labour voters were planning to vote Tory in the 2017GE.
Spoiler alert - They did not.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Spoiler alert - Hoping Boris can keep disaster away has recently seen to be a total triumph of hope over reality.
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov yesterday and only 2% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour.
The 18% of 2017 Labour voters now voting LD and the 8% of Labour voters now voting Brexit Party also boosts the Tories under FPTP in Labpur held marginal seats
Back in April 2017 13% of GE2015 Labour voters were planning to vote Tory in the 2017GE.
Spoiler alert - They did not.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Of course he won’t screw up as you’ve said he’ll be in prison learning how to toss the salad be the new Nelson Mandela.
Considering the Tories are not on their side, why on earth would the working class vote Tory in large numbers? Delusional.
Who is on the side of the workers (not working class specifically) anymore? Certainly not Labour or Tory, LDs at least arent coming up with policies to screw us over but arent exactly creating a positive vision. A pro business, pro employee party would do well under PR, but the retired voters push the parties priorities away from the economy.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
I think you and I have a different understanding of "never said that". My understanding is that, for it to be true that he "never said that", he should have never said it. But I freely admit that I may be out of step in this modern world.
Apologies I can't view the clip audio but iirc isn't the key word "should" here ?
'Should be the easiest deal in human history' is far less emphatic than 'Will be... '
Should is a word that can do a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in the political arena. "Will" would be far more restrictive.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
You seem a bit angry and it's not even 10am.
Not at all angry. Frustrated such idiocies and blatant lies still get repeated.
I feel like lauding judges as heroes for making decisions we like, while nice, is a bit problematic given the implication if they had dared to make one we dont like.
Considering the Tories are not on their side, why on earth would the working class vote Tory in large numbers? Delusional.
Who is on the side of the workers (not working class specifically) anymore? Certainly not Labour or Tory, LDs at least arent coming up with policies to screw us over but arent exactly creating a positive vision. A pro business, pro employee party would do well under PR, but the retired voters push the parties priorities away from the economy.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Because his record of avoiding disasters is 0 for 7 so far...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
It will be May's Deal with adjustments that aren't obviously in the UK interest or particularly acceptable to stakeholders. Seems unlikely Johnson will want to be associated with it, let alone get through the House.
I feel like lauding judges as heroes for making decisions we like, while nice, is a bit problematic given the implication if they had dared to make one we dont like.
Good spot - The headline is as problematic as anything Kwasi Karteng said in his interview yesterday.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
You seem a bit angry and it's not even 10am.
Not at all angry. Frustrated such idiocies and blatant lies still get repeated.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
I think you and I have a different understanding of "never said that". My understanding is that, for it to be true that he "never said that", he should have never said it. But I freely admit that I may be out of step in this modern world.
Apologies I can't view the clip audio but iirc isn't the key word "should" here ?
'Should be the easiest deal in human history' is far less emphatic than 'Will be... '
Should is a word that can do a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in the political arena. "Will" would be far more restrictive.
Correct. But there's a more interesting point to make. Of course politics gets in the way. The Leave vote was a supreme example of politics getting in the way.
I feel like lauding judges as heroes for making decisions we like, while nice, is a bit problematic given the implication if they had dared to make one we dont like.
I probably agree, more or less, I just thought it was interesting that The Scotsman is doing it.
On balance I prefer papers' front pages identifying judges/anybody as heroes rather than enemies of the people though.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
I think you and I have a different understanding of "never said that". My understanding is that, for it to be true that he "never said that", he should have never said it. But I freely admit that I may be out of step in this modern world.
Your understanding is wrong. For something to be true it has to be the whole truth, there is such a thing as lying by omission.
If you were accused of killing a woman and you said to the Police in interview that you "I strenuously deny that I killed her, I wasn't even there when she died" would it be fair for a quote to go around saying you had said "I killed her"? You did use those words did you not? Or would that be untrue because it omits critical context?
It is and by convention the main parties do not stand against the Speaker, we can just do more general election canvassing in nearby marginal seats instead like Chingford, Thurrock, Colchester and Enfield Southgate
I was wondering if you had considered a trip to East Ham where Stephen Timms is clinging on by his fingertips to his 39,883 majority though I appreciate that might be a big ask for the Conservatives even on Kantar numbers.
More seriously, do you consider Harlow safe with a 7,000 majority for Halfon? I believe he is a very good constituency MP.
Even if the SC rules the suspension was lawful they could still conclude the PM misled the Queen .
What's the actual communication from the PM to the Queen though - if Johnson has communicated via Mogg that ... "The PM advises Her Majesty that he wishes this parliament to be prorogued" then there is no misleading going on. Does the Privy Council need to give a reason ?
I say again. Boris gets a deal in October. It marks the point of maximum frustration of the EU. "This far - and no further" the EU will say. They back that up with a firm commitment - no more extensions. Piss or get off the pot, UK.
So Boris comes back to Parliament with his Deal. It requires a NI-only backstop. The DUP will be grumpy, but bought off with Freeport status for the whole of NI together with a feasability study for a direct bridge/tunnel combo to Scotland (note: to be funded by the UK Govt. - so long as Scotland is still in the UK.)
It willl then come to the Parliamentary showdown - Boris's Deal or No Deal. The ERG might be pissed. But this is where Boris plays the loyalty card: Boris's Deal is a confidence vote too - if they vote against it, they lose the Whip. They can join Grieve and all in the wilderness.
The Benn Act is made irrelevent by the EU. But relevent to domestic politics, in terms of how all those who voted for Benn did so because they - supposedly - were railing against the horrors of No Deal. (And no, not that they wanted to kill Brexit. No sirree. Not at all....) The Benn Brigade MIGHT show their true colours and try to have a vote on revoke. It will fail. So now, after saying how No Deal is impossible to inflict on the people of the UK, they will have little option but to support the Boris Deal.
Boris gets a big bounce for sorting Brexit. The Labour Party will try desperately to prevent an election. But by then, there will be little to stop the SNP and the LibDems going for one. Corbyn will be exposed as The Man Who Couldn't Stop Brexit. He gets hammered.
This looks unlikely (and perhaps would require an extension) but I don't totally dismiss it. We have to do a deal at some point.
If Johnson does pull it off - a deal - he will of course be hailed, and rightly, as a Great Man.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
So he said it'd be easy, because the only risk is politics getting in the way. Implying that it would be easy to prevent politics getting in the way. Which was wrong.
I feel like lauding judges as heroes for making decisions we like, while nice, is a bit problematic given the implication if they had dared to make one we dont like.
Neither heroes nor traitors - just doing their job. The rhetoric on both sides is imbecilic.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
So he said it'd be easy, because the only risk is politics getting in the way. Implying that it would be easy to prevent politics getting in the way. Which was wrong.
Where did he say politics wouldn't get in the way? Or it would be easy to prevent that. I missed that can you quote where he said that?
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov
So the same percentage as of 2017 Tories voting LD (9%) and half the number of Tories now voting BXP (19%).
The Tory vote is also losing some of its stickiness - before they were retaining in the high 70s percent of their 2017 voters - now it’s down to 67%.
Yet the Tories are still retaining far more of their 2017 vote than Labour are
According to the polls yes. It also depends where this vote is. If they are retaining their vote in seats they won’t win, and losing votes in seats they may lose, its not exactly helpful.
Where on earth is Johnson getting the numbers to pass anything. Even with all 21 whip withdrawn members getting the whip back he still has (With the DUP !) a majority of -1. It's preposterous that the Gov't is continuing quite honestly.
Even if the SC rules the suspension was lawful they could still conclude the PM misled the Queen .
That will be the least interesting and least important part of their decision (if indeed they even feel it necessary to reach a conclusion on that particular matter).
I feel like lauding judges as heroes for making decisions we like, while nice, is a bit problematic given the implication if they had dared to make one we dont like.
Neither heroes nor traitors - just doing their job. The rhetoric on both sides is imbecilic.
The legal profession is like The Avengers, Earth’s Mightiest Heroes.
Even if the SC rules the suspension was lawful they could still conclude the PM misled the Queen .
What's the actual communication from the PM to the Queen though - if Johnson has communicated via Mogg that ... "The PM advises Her Majesty that he wishes this parliament to be prorogued" then there is no misleading going on. Does the Privy Council need to give a reason ?
That depends, perhaps, on how rigorous the Queen is in private.
She could ask "why?" She might advise that it seemed unwise in the febrile times, etc. We don't know.
Where on earth is Johnson getting the numbers to pass anything. Even with all 21 whip withdrawn members getting the whip back he still has (With the DUP !) a majority of -1. It's preposterous that the Gov't is continuing quite honestly.
Indeed, if only the opposition had some sort of mechanism for expressing the houses lack of confidence in them
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
I think you and I have a different understanding of "never said that". My understanding is that, for it to be true that he "never said that", he should have never said it. But I freely admit that I may be out of step in this modern world.
Apologies I can't view the clip audio but iirc isn't the key word "should" here ?
'Should be the easiest deal in human history' is far less emphatic than 'Will be... '
Should is a word that can do a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in the political arena. "Will" would be far more restrictive.
Indeed. So the tweet that Philip objected to said:
"Wasn't a deal supposed to be "the easiest in human history" (Liam Fox)?"
And Liam Fox said, to take the full quote:
"The free-trade agreement that we will have to come to with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history. We're already beginning with zero tariffs, and we are already beginning at the point of maximal regulatory equivalence, as it is called: in other words, our rules and our laws are exactly the same. And the only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics."
In my reading, there's not a lot of distance - no distance at all - between "supposed to be" and "should". They mean the same thing.
The 2019 tweet is making the point "but somehow it got screwed up". Liam Fox's 2017 final sentence about politics and economics, which Philip is so keen on, is making the point "but somehow it might get screwed up".
I am not quite sure how Liam Fox has been so callously traduced by a tweet that quotes him by means of agreeing with him. But, anyway, I'm now going to go and read the Collected Works of HYUFD in order to get some comparative sanity back into my morning.
It's difficult to see a path to the Speakership for Eleanor Laing. A substantial minority government position doesn't bode well for her chances and there are also sufficient Conservatives who will not vote for the Boris candidate and jealously guard the nature of the election of the Speaker as not in the gift of the government.
It appears to be either Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle or "Mother of the House" Harriet Harman for the job.
I heard an interview with her on 5 Live a couple of days ago, all about how she would be a still small voice of calm. I thought she just sounded feeble and she'd get swept away in the maelstrom of the Commons at the minute. Am I being sexist? I did wonder, but I reckon Harman would be up to the job, and I'm not sure that Laing would be, despite her experience as deputy.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
So he said it'd be easy, because the only risk is politics getting in the way. Implying that it would be easy to prevent politics getting in the way. Which was wrong.
Where did he say politics wouldn't get in the way? Or it would be easy to prevent that. I missed that can you quote where he said that?
If I say "this golf hole is easy, the only obstacle is a small bunker", I'm saying that the bunker is easily avoidable. Because if it wasn't easily avoidable, the hole wouldn't be easy. If I said "this golf hole would be easy but it's not because of that bunker", that would be a different matter
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
So he said it'd be easy, because the only risk is politics getting in the way. Implying that it would be easy to prevent politics getting in the way. Which was wrong.
Where did he say politics wouldn't get in the way? Or it would be easy to prevent that. I missed that can you quote where he said that?
Even if the SC rules the suspension was lawful they could still conclude the PM misled the Queen .
What's the actual communication from the PM to the Queen though - if Johnson has communicated via Mogg that ... "The PM advises Her Majesty that he wishes this parliament to be prorogued" then there is no misleading going on. Does the Privy Council need to give a reason ?
There is also the little matter of what Brenda was told by Boris at their weekly audiences. If the Prime Minister misled, was casual with the actuality, told some small porkies or downright lied then I don't fancy his chances.
It's also noteworthy that The Queen enjoys reserve powers under her personal prerogative to dismiss the Prime Minister. This power was last used by her great uncle x 4 - William IV in 1834.
" — A quarter of all adults in Britain take prescription medication for pain, anxiety, depression or insomnia " https://nyti.ms/2LIEvBL
Among everything that has happened this week that is truly the most frightening statistic.
We need to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions about the kind of society we want to live in. As a generalisation, we work too long and sleep too little. Perhaps it would be no bad thing to slow down the tread mill and take some time out.
I see them at East Ham tube station at 7am every morning when I go into the office - if you want to paralyse modern Britain, don't cut off fuel or food, just cut off energy drinks and most people will be asleep within a few hours.
I agree.
And, we have an "ever on" society.
How many people switch off their work mobiles and don't take them with them on weekends or holidays?
Where on earth is Johnson getting the numbers to pass anything. Even with all 21 whip withdrawn members getting the whip back he still has (With the DUP !) a majority of -1. It's preposterous that the Gov't is continuing quite honestly.
Unless he is voted out, he remains PM. And given the way Brexit crosses party lines, it's by no means impossible for him to win a vote on a deal (unlikely though it might be that he comes back with one, or that he can persuade the House to vote for it).
It's not entirely preposterous that the government continues, since there is no immediate or obvious replacement for it, and a general election might well leave us where we are now - though of course a hung Parliament post election would obligate parties to seek deals, and even change their leaders to do so, in a way that the present situation doesn't.
I feel like lauding judges as heroes for making decisions we like, while nice, is a bit problematic given the implication if they had dared to make one we dont like.
I don't see that the counter point is necessarily so. Judges and the law are public servants. Other public servants, like nurses and firemen are regarded as heroes for doing their job well, without there needing to be any counter-narrative of villiany. If judges are acting without fear or favour in the interest of the rule of law, which in turn is squarely in the public interest, and doing so in the face of power and threat then, though the heroism is perhaps less self evident than that of a nurse or soldier, it is also worthy of feting.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
Yes you are an idiot if you ignore everything after the but. Listen to the rest of what he said. It's often said with some truth that you should ignore what people say before but, the idea of ignoring what was said afterwards is exception.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
So he said it'd be easy, because the only risk is politics getting in the way. Implying that it would be easy to prevent politics getting in the way. Which was wrong.
As a bona fide Northerner I still see and hear references from Labour voters to what they see as the evil perpetrated by Lady Thatcher. The miners’ strike is still mentioned more than 35 years after the event, usually as a reason not to vote Tory.
Mentioned by whom ?
We're in an era where Hallam is Labour and Derbyshire NE is Conservative.
Just as there are differences between regions there are differences within regions.
Some voters we canvassed in 2015 in Pudsey and other West Yorkshire marginals.
One of them couldn't have been more than 25 years old and he said his Dad would chuck him out of the house if he voted Tory because of the miners' strike.
I heard the same from a friend who was canvassing in Stocksbridge in 2017.
The Extinction Rebellion protest in Sheffield on Monday had an anti Thatcher banner which was ironic as she was supposed to have destroyed the coal industry, something I thought the Extinction Rebellion would have supported.
You can destroy an industry without destroying the community of the workers who rely on it... She did not.
I feel like lauding judges as heroes for making decisions we like, while nice, is a bit problematic given the implication if they had dared to make one we dont like.
Neither heroes nor traitors - just doing their job. The rhetoric on both sides is imbecilic.
The legal profession is like The Avengers, Earth’s Mightiest Heroes.
Following the publication of the Yellowhammer summary - it’s not even a plan for how to deal with the issues raised - we should stop talking about No Deal. It should be described as what it will be - a disorderly withdrawal.
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
Indeed but I'm fine with it, it's the quickest way for us to Rejoin the EU.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
Yet 9% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory with Yougov
So the same percentage as of 2017 Tories voting LD (9%) and half the number of Tories now voting BXP (19%).
The Tory vote is also losing some of its stickiness - before they were retaining in the high 70s percent of their 2017 voters - now it’s down to 67%.
Yet the Tories are still retaining far more of their 2017 vote than Labour are
Currently - but it’s declining - a couple more weeks like this and it will match Labour. And it used to be “far” more (around 20 points) - that’s halved to 10 in a matter of weeks. This trend is NOT your friend.
Going into the final innings, Australia should have had a comfortable win at Headingley. The only thing that could get in their way was a once in a decade innings by Stokes.
It certainly includes pensioners who are far richer (i.e have far more assets) than many young ABC1s. Pollsters should highlight employed/not employed rather than ABC1/C2DE in my opinion.
Where on earth is Johnson getting the numbers to pass anything. Even with all 21 whip withdrawn members getting the whip back he still has (With the DUP !) a majority of -1. It's preposterous that the Gov't is continuing quite honestly.
Yes but it's great entertainment watching their slow public evisceration. Better than any boxed set.
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you acept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
I don't think telling lies to the Queen will ever be forgotten
Has Boris Johnson actually lied to the Queen though. I thought the ceremony involved for prorogation was ... Mogg (And two other privy councillors) simply requesting to the Queen that Parliament is prorogued.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ?
I suspect they have to give s reason if the Queen asks. And i suspect the Queen, who takes a keen interest in politics, would ask. Watch out for Johnson being summoned to the palace.
Heh not a bad effort from Owen - the first reply below is vile though.
No, that is poor. Both the crass sentiment and the slightly pretentious way in which it is expressed. "I struggle" - not keen on that - and then "oxymoron" is a word in my top 10 to be avoided.
LOL, Tuba is well named. It does not safeguard 2500 jobs in Scotland, it will likely be a net loss more like.
Hmm, too early to judge, despite the apparent attempt to get people to draw the conclusion that all the jobs will be in Fife. The Grauniad news report doesn't say where the jobs are, and given the prefabrication techniques likely to be involved, they could be all over the UK. Moreover, wherever the hulls are fabricated, much of the value will reside in engineering and electronics equipment produced elsewhere than Rosyth and possibly even overseas. We had similar announcements of £xm of destroyers and frigates being promised for the Clyde in indyref 1 but a lot of the value was elsewhere - and they were mostly cancelled after 2014. What is proposed today is nothing like as much, and I see it is being hinted that BAe who did the Daring class on the Clyde didn't get the contract.
Edit: BBC confirms (a) to be produced across the UK (which is entirely to be expected in the nature of such things) and (b) very cheap - at least at present - compared to the sort of thing that was to hjave been built before.
It will be a NET loss for Scotland, some assembly work at Rosyth , job cuts at Govan and the majority as additional work around England. Yet another lie from 2014 Referendum confirmed for certain.
Spoiler alert there will be no dementia tax disasters etc under Boris
Because his record of avoiding disasters is 0 for 7 so far...
If Boris gets a deal through the House, do you accept that those 7 losses will be wholly forgotten?
No? 1 for 8 would be better when that 1 is a big fucking deal, but it would have to be the unicorn of unicorns to make everyone believe the previous losses weren't losses...
Comments
More seriously, do you consider Harlow safe with a 7,000 majority for Halfon? I believe he is a very good constituency MP.
This is in relation to a no deal Brexit . So could be more trouble ahead for the government .
Had a Leaver-led government been in charge of negotiations from the off, with a parliament willing to vote through whatever course it eventually chose, including leaving before reaching any long term trade agreement, then yes it would have been easy to secure something better than what has been offered.
The Tory vote is also losing some of its stickiness - before they were retaining in the high 70s percent of their 2017 voters - now it’s down to 67%.
The similarites will be the lack of campaigning. Vine's tale of the PMs after dinner speaking confirms this, he has one scripted irrelevant speech for all his after dinner speeches. This works well when the electorate are barely paying attention to politics.
When they are about to vote they want to hear the detail, see the leaders interacting and talking policy with everyday people. The PM is not capable of that, will be too frit to do anything bar soundbites, speeches of inverted piffle and safe environments.
The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics
Politics got in the way. Like he said. Numpty.
Glad we got that cleared up.
It appears to be either Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle or "Mother of the House" Harriet Harman for the job.
Cash ?
Chope ?
Francois ?
Redwood ?
Such a rich range of possibilities.
If 5 years ago you had told me Corbyn was leader of the Labour party and I would prefer him as PM to the Tory leader I would have been very bemused, but that is where I am now.
Do the privy councillors even have to give a reason ? Bill Cash would be a good choice.
The people to listen to are those who ain't talking.
I remember the hour or so after the exit poll, looking down the barrel of a Corbyn government and being utterly unprepared for it. Ever since, I’ve planned my life to make sure I’m both financially and emotionally prepared for anything. It will be interesting to see if the gang here can make immediate peace with whatever result. I suspect the anger in the wider public will be something to behold no matter what happens.
May was correct in her prediction that the failure of her WDA would leave the UK with a choice of no deal or no Brexit. It is now time to face that choice and to stop pretending that there are any other available options.
Again that's like me saying Parliament should ratify any deal to avoid no deal but won't because of party politics ... then you quote me claiming I said Parliament would "ratify any deal".
Based on the first part did I say Parliament would ratify any deal? Yes or no.
'Should be the easiest deal in human history' is far less emphatic than 'Will be... '
Should is a word that can do a tremendous amount of heavy lifting in the political arena. "Will" would be far more restrictive.
https://twitter.com/TheBarofNI/status/1172063125295849472?s=20
On balance I prefer papers' front pages identifying judges/anybody as heroes rather than enemies of the people though.
And Brexiteers wonder why people think they are small minded nincompoops...
If you were accused of killing a woman and you said to the Police in interview that you "I strenuously deny that I killed her, I wasn't even there when she died" would it be fair for a quote to go around saying you had said "I killed her"? You did use those words did you not? Or would that be untrue because it omits critical context?
If he can set aside the most egregious element of May's Deal, he will consider that a job well done, IMHO.
Especially given the massed ranks of UK MPs sat on the EU's side of the negotiating table......
Does the Privy Council need to give a reason ?
If Johnson does pull it off - a deal - he will of course be hailed, and rightly, as a Great Man.
The rhetoric on both sides is imbecilic.
Yes, but this is a big IF.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1171874583793799168
It's preposterous that the Gov't is continuing quite honestly.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/09/11/voting-intention-con-32-lab-23-lib-dem-19-brex-14-
The Judiciary = Thor
She could ask "why?" She might advise that it seemed unwise in the febrile times, etc. We don't know.
"Wasn't a deal supposed to be "the easiest in human history" (Liam Fox)?"
And Liam Fox said, to take the full quote:
"The free-trade agreement that we will have to come to with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history. We're already beginning with zero tariffs, and we are already beginning at the point of maximal regulatory equivalence, as it is called: in other words, our rules and our laws are exactly the same. And the only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics."
In my reading, there's not a lot of distance - no distance at all - between "supposed to be" and "should". They mean the same thing.
The 2019 tweet is making the point "but somehow it got screwed up". Liam Fox's 2017 final sentence about politics and economics, which Philip is so keen on, is making the point "but somehow it might get screwed up".
I am not quite sure how Liam Fox has been so callously traduced by a tweet that quotes him by means of agreeing with him. But, anyway, I'm now going to go and read the Collected Works of HYUFD in order to get some comparative sanity back into my morning.
https://twitter.com/A_Grierson/status/1171875082572062728
Disorderly because, apart from the issues described in it, we will not even have passed the necessary legislation needed to leave without a transitional agreement. Disorderly because there are no bilateral agreements with any of the member states. Disorderly because in many areas it will be wholly unclear on what basis we will be dealing with people and entities in the EU (and elsewhere) or they with us.
There is nothing “clean” or “hard” about any of this. Messy and confused would be more accurate.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1171993423664095232
It's also noteworthy that The Queen enjoys reserve powers under her personal prerogative to dismiss the Prime Minister. This power was last used by her great uncle x 4 - William IV in 1834.
And, we have an "ever on" society.
How many people switch off their work mobiles and don't take them with them on weekends or holidays?
And given the way Brexit crosses party lines, it's by no means impossible for him to win a vote on a deal (unlikely though it might be that he comes back with one, or that he can persuade the House to vote for it).
It's not entirely preposterous that the government continues, since there is no immediate or obvious replacement for it, and a general election might well leave us where we are now - though of course a hung Parliament post election would obligate parties to seek deals, and even change their leaders to do so, in a way that the present situation doesn't.
Plus it really does make those that voted for Brexit suffer the most.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1171864512527511552
I mean what's not to like?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today
Labour win a majority (or get C&S with the SNP/Lib Dems). A second referendum is held. The Remain campaign is terrible again. Leave wins again.
Yet another lie from 2014 Referendum confirmed for certain.