I'm no fan of Boris but I'm never impressed by these 'local person tells politician they are awful/not welcome here' clips that get people so excited. I bet you could manage at least one person to do it to Corbyn in east ham and it wouldn't mean anything, and when the country is very divided on many issues of course someone who hates Boris will be encountered.
It's a bit daft, the polls don't suggest he has 100% support
It makes for a good news clip I've no doubt but it's the extrapolation to 'look what people REALLY think if him' breathlessness that gets me. Millions back Boris. I'm not one of them but plenty love him.
Yes, agreed 100%. I do also take umbrage a little with the 'leave my town' mentality, on the basis of ot not being their town exclusively and not their place to decide who gets to go where and when. It's like these oddballs that silence all dissenting voices in their echo chambers, the refusal to believe its legitimate to hold an opposing view
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
Hopefully a deal will be reached before the next election.
Be quite funny really if Boris passes a deal and sees support surge thanks to relief its all finally over with. Oh to be a fly on the wall with Corbyn who threw away a chance at a pre-Brexit poll.
I thought a deal was only possible if we threatened No Deal? How would there be a deal before the next election?
Easy. Boris does a Deal with no further extension given by the EU.
I think the word easy is being abused there. Simple perhaps.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
How will that be enforcable? Politicians dont always tell the truth! Will they force candidates to sign a letter so they have to cause a by-election if they dont comply? The DUP did this and also made them sign a forfeiture letter which meant the signer had to pay a large amount of cash (it might of been£50k but i could be wrong).
They will have to sign a letter comminnitting to Brexit yes, it is time to kick out the diehard Remainers who will not deliver the will of the people from standing as Tory parliamentary candidates
So, the ones who don't sign it then to take revenge stand as one nation conservatives in seats that will damage tory prospects at a ge. Cannot see a problem with that and your not really in a position to say how the tories can impose things on a ppc. For instance if a ppc signs a letter does it mean they have to support something in the future that is a stupid mistake not related to brexit? HYUFD, you are on the road to dictatorship if parliament becomes a rubber stamp!
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
I was referring to the ERG Spartans . They will lie and say they will back a deal but find a reason to say no later. Your heroes.
You say they arent but they are driving Boris.
Doesn't matter at that point. Bercow will be gone, and with him, the chief remaining obstacle to No Deal. So Labour MPs will have to choose between Deal or No Deal.
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any evidence to support your assertion that there is more nastiness on one side or the other. Indeed your claim itself is really part of the problem. In my view both Pullman and the person shown upthread should both be prosecuted for incitement to violence along with anyone else who makes such suggestions.
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
One of my most trenchant criticisms of the right/alt-right/whatever is that when they say they are pro-free-speech, they are simply lying. Specifically, they are perfectly OK with thoughts designated as crime, social ostracism, violent enforcement, etc, they just don't think the rules should apply to them or theirs.
For the avoidance of doubt, this also applies to the left as well.
If there was a referendum held tomorrow on Wales becoming an independent country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Wales be an independent country? Yes 24 No 52 WNV 6 DK 14 Refused 3
And please imagine a scenario where the rest of the UK left the European Union but Wales could remain a member of the European Union if it became an independent country. If a referendum was then held in Wales about becoming an independent country and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Wales be an independent country? Yes 33 No 48 DK 17 Refused 3
47% of Welsh voters voted Remain, yet only 33% of Welsh voters back independence even after Brexit.
Bad news for Plaid
Welsh independence bounces around in the 20-30% box. It has only a limited appeal, even at its height, and largely to Welsh speakers in mid and north Wales.
The disparities between expenditure and receipts in Wales are also vast and, quite aside from it being almost totally integrated legally with England, it would be almost entirely unviable as an independent state without vast subsidy.
Agreed
Also agreed, but you need to add, "... or accepting a significant drop in living standards."
What with falling London house prices and the humiliating possibilty of shelling out £1k on a loser, the prospects for a SeanT stauner* are looking bleak.
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
Except the war wasn't won as Japan remained undefeated. Further in 1940 Churchill was not the lionised figure that he was by 1945.
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
In May 1940, when he became prime minister, Churchill was not at all popular with Conservatives, having spent most of the previous decade opposing the government. In Boris/Cummings-world, he'd have been slung out.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
He has to be applauded for going out there and doing the meet the people stuff but if this is part of his strategy of winning over Labour Leave Voters, it ain't going too well so far.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
Hopefully a deal will be reached before the next election.
Be quite funny really if Boris passes a deal and sees support surge thanks to relief its all finally over with. Oh to be a fly on the wall with Corbyn who threw away a chance at a pre-Brexit poll.
Hopefully so but Brexit must be delivered regardless
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
In May 1940, when he became prime minister, Churchill was not at all popular with Conservatives, having spent most of the previous decade opposing the government. In Boris/Cummings-world, he'd have been slung out.
There was, I understand, quite a good chance of a pro-settlement PM, who would have at least tried to negotiate a deal with the Nazis. I think it's felt by some historians that had Edward VIII still been King, that would have happened.
In terms of the last couple of weeks local by elections, the pattern is pretty consistent. Strong Ld vote gain, Tory vote steady either side of neutral movement, labour vote in retreat. Fits the polling picture
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
In May 1940, when he became prime minister, Churchill was not at all popular with Conservatives, having spent most of the previous decade opposing the government. In Boris/Cummings-world, he'd have been slung out.
The Tory establishment hated Churchill as it hated Boris and would have preferred Halifax or Hunt to either.
Yet Churchill did the job Chamberlain could not as Boris will do the job May could not
What with falling London house prices and the humiliating possibilty of shelling out £1k on a loser, the prospects for a SeanT stauner* are looking bleak.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
I was referring to the ERG Spartans . They will lie and say they will back a deal but find a reason to say no later. Your heroes.
You say they arent but they are driving Boris.
Only a handful of ERG did not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 or the successful Brady amendment
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
Hopefully a deal will be reached before the next election.
Be quite funny really if Boris passes a deal and sees support surge thanks to relief its all finally over with. Oh to be a fly on the wall with Corbyn who threw away a chance at a pre-Brexit poll.
I thought a deal was only possible if we threatened No Deal? How would there be a deal before the next election?
Easy. Boris does a Deal with no further extension given by the EU.
I think the word easy is being abused there. Simple perhaps.
Not even that. A Johnson deal requires him to make compromises that he has publicly and emphatically rejected. He may eventually do so but in any case the chance of such a deal happening before Oct 31 is so close to zero it almost makes no difference.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
How will that be enforcable? Politicians dont always tell the truth! Will they force candidates to sign a letter so they have to cause a by-election if they dont comply? The DUP did this and also made them sign a forfeiture letter which meant the signer had to pay a large amount of cash (it might of been£50k but i could be wrong).
They will have to sign a letter comminnitting to Brexit yes, it is time to kick out the diehard Remainers who will not deliver the will of the people from standing as Tory parliamentary candidates
So, the ones who don't sign it then to take revenge stand as one nation conservatives in seats that will damage tory prospects at a ge. Cannot see a problem with that and your not really in a position to say how the tories can impose things on a ppc. For instance if a ppc signs a letter does it mean they have to support something in the future that is a stupid mistake not related to brexit? HYUFD, you are on the road to dictatorship if parliament becomes a rubber stamp!
The Tories manifesto at the next general election will be Brexit Deal or No Deal, if you are not prepared to sign up to that you will correctly be thrown off the candidates list as if elected you will not back a key Government policy
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
I was referring to the ERG Spartans . They will lie and say they will back a deal but find a reason to say no later. Your heroes.
You say they arent but they are driving Boris.
Only a handful of ERG did not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 or the successful Brady amendment
What does that have to do with me assuming they would claim to be willing to vote for a deal but wont deliver? The number was irrelevant the assertion was like Grieve they will commit to something then not follow through.
If you disagree just say so dont bring up a separate point.
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
Except the war wasn't won as Japan remained undefeated. Further in 1940 Churchill was not the lionised figure that he was by 1945.
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Japan was on the other side of the world and near beaten anyway, in 1940 we were near invasion by Nazi Germany. Attlee would have lost heavily as he did in 1935
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
Hopefully a deal will be reached before the next election.
Be quite funny really if Boris passes a deal and sees support surge thanks to relief its all finally over with. Oh to be a fly on the wall with Corbyn who threw away a chance at a pre-Brexit poll.
I thought a deal was only possible if we threatened No Deal? How would there be a deal before the next election?
Easy. Boris does a Deal with no further extension given by the EU.
I think the word easy is being abused there. Simple perhaps.
I was being provocative. So sue me....
But really, with the way the pieces are now arranged on the board, there's a deal to be done. But it requires the EU to say "Enough. Three and half years is enough dicking around. You won't have a clue what to do with any more time. So just fuck off."
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
Except the war wasn't won as Japan remained undefeated. Further in 1940 Churchill was not the lionised figure that he was by 1945.
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Jack
I remember a story my Dad told me about his time as a Desert Rat in N Africa. There was little literature of any kind for the troops but he remembered a widely available news and current affairs paper produced by the troops themselves. He said it was very good, and very left wing. He believed it shaped the politics of many troops returning home, including himself, and he was not at all surprised when Churchill was defeated.
I've never come across any reference to such a journal elsewhere, but the Old Man was pretty sharp and I am sure he didn't make it up. I wonder if you (or any other PBer) have any knowledge of this. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
I was referring to the ERG Spartans . They will lie and say they will back a deal but find a reason to say no later. Your heroes.
You say they arent but they are driving Boris.
Only a handful of ERG did not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 or the successful Brady amendment
What does that have to do with me assuming they would claim to be willing to vote for a deal but wont deliver? The number was irrelevant the assertion was like Grieve they will commit to something then not follow through.
If you disagree just say so dont bring up a separate point.
Then they would also lose the whip and be deselected as Grieve has been
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
Hopefully a deal will be reached before the next election.
Be quite funny really if Boris passes a deal and sees support surge thanks to relief its all finally over with. Oh to be a fly on the wall with Corbyn who threw away a chance at a pre-Brexit poll.
I thought a deal was only possible if we threatened No Deal? How would there be a deal before the next election?
Easy. Boris does a Deal with no further extension given by the EU.
I think the word easy is being abused there. Simple perhaps.
I was being provocative. So sue me....
But really, with the way the pieces are now arranged on the board, there's a deal to be done. But it requires the EU to say "Enough. Three and half years is enough dicking around. You won't have a clue what to do with any more time. So just fuck off."
And do you know, I think they just might.....
Unfortunately when we apply the principle of what is easiest for each side, in the short term, its easier for them to moan but kick the can just as it has been on our side.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
He has to be applauded for going out there and doing the meet the people stuff but if this is part of his strategy of winning over Labour Leave Voters, it ain't going too well so far.
The gob-shites haranguing Boris are NEVER going to vote for him. They are impervious to argument. Those giving him some points for trying - they are still up for grabs.
Conservatives advocating a pact with Farage are nuts.
It'll scare off more Remainers, and help usher Farage's party into the Commons. Why? Who is most harmed by a new party on the right?
Could it be the Conservatives?
Of course Farage wants a pact. He's terrible at FPTP elections.
I was in Alberta with relatives in the middle of the 2015 provincial elections there. Fascinating stuff. Anyway, insurgent right wing Wildrose Party got 24%, reducing the Progressive Conservatives to 28% with the New Democrats getting in with 41% and 60% of the seats. The first time the left had won in the state since 1935. An excellent outcome.
What did the Conservatives do? They merged with Wildrose, ending up in 2019 with 55% between them and a landslide with 2/3rds of the seats.
That's what you gain when parties cooperate in a FPTP system.
In terms of the last couple of weeks local by elections, the pattern is pretty consistent. Strong Ld vote gain, Tory vote steady either side of neutral movement, labour vote in retreat. Fits the polling picture
Useful info, thank you.
I would agree entirely.. It seems that there tory vote is very stable, LDs are doing well and increasing almost everywhere and Lab in retreat (some places more significantly than others).
What will decide the election will be which side is more split and I feel it may be easier for the tories to win round brexit party voters than it will be for Labour to win round LDs..
It is going to be incredibly hard for the LDs to work out which seats to target as I think they will do better in seats where labour currently hold but most of their targets are tory held..
Mr. Viewcode, alas, the deep division is a case of PB reflecting the nation, it seems, or at least its politics, rather than being distinctly different.
Mr. HYUFD, we are not in a civil war and varied opinions are the beating heart of democracy.
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
Except the war wasn't won as Japan remained undefeated. Further in 1940 Churchill was not the lionised figure that he was by 1945.
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Jack
I remember a story my Dad told me about his time as a Desert Rat in N Africa. There was little literature of any kind for the troops but he remembered a widely available news and current affairs paper produced by the troops themselves. He said it was very good, and very left wing. He believed it shaped the politics of many troops returning home, including himself, and he was not at all surprised when Churchill was defeated.
I've never come across any reference to such a journal elsewhere, but the Old Man was pretty sharp and I am sure he didn't make it up. I wonder if you (or any other PBer) have any knowledge of this. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Thanks
PtP
Sounds like Eighth Army News edited by Warwick Charlton ex Daily Sketch?
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Just to clarify what's going on in the HYUFD skull, do you think 'in a domestic civil war' is a metaphor?
For the moment but diehard Remainers are engaged in all out war to stop Brexit and the votes of 17 million people having voted thrice against the Withdrawal Agreement and now voted for further extension over Brexit on 31st October and Leavers must be prepared to fight and respond in kind
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Any ancestor blogging, or whatever the equivalent was in 1940, from the Conservative party might well have disagreed with that view. There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
Hopefully a deal will be reached before the next election.
Be quite funny really if Boris passes a deal and sees support surge thanks to relief its all finally over with. Oh to be a fly on the wall with Corbyn who threw away a chance at a pre-Brexit poll.
I thought a deal was only possible if we threatened No Deal? How would there be a deal before the next election?
Easy. Boris does a Deal with no further extension given by the EU.
I think the word easy is being abused there. Simple perhaps.
I was being provocative. So sue me....
But really, with the way the pieces are now arranged on the board, there's a deal to be done. But it requires the EU to say "Enough. Three and half years is enough dicking around. You won't have a clue what to do with any more time. So just fuck off."
And do you know, I think they just might.....
Okay, so the EU doesn't remove the backstop because they prefer continued negotiations to a desk without a backstop. Then they decide to stop negotiations because they prefer no deal to continued negotiations. Then having made that decision themselves, the threat of no deal forces then to cave on no deal because they prefer a deal without a backstop to no deal.
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Just to clarify what's going on in the HYUFD skull, do you think 'in a domestic civil war' is a metaphor?
For the moment but diehard Remainers are engaged in all out war to stop Brexit and the votes of 17 million people having voted thrice against the Withdrawal Agreement and now voted for further extension over Brexit on 31st October and Leavers must be prepared to fight and respond in kind
I'm disappointed that you should have decided to support the Labour Party. But I suppose it's no surprise.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
I was referring to the ERG Spartans . They will lie and say they will back a deal but find a reason to say no later. Your heroes.
You say they arent but they are driving Boris.
Only a handful of ERG did not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 or the successful Brady amendment
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
I was referring to the ERG Spartans . They will lie and say they will back a deal but find a reason to say no later. Your heroes.
You say they arent but they are driving Boris.
Only a handful of ERG did not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 or the successful Brady amendment
BoZo will front it out, and they don't like what they see.
Many wont. Enough to beat him? Unclear, since many will like what they see. Why pretend otherwise? Seriously, I agree with the heckler and think Boris won't win, but that someone heckled him doesnt mean shit, calm down.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
So is that what just over half the voters wanted in 2016 or what the MPs that the voters elected at GE 2017 want now?
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
Boris is well able to give backchat. The Prime Minister, meanwhile, less so.
Churchill was back in power by 1951 and would have won a landslide in 1940
Not quite sure how Churchill would have "won a landslide in 1940" when he lost by a landslide in 1945 ?
As he would have won a landslide to fight the war and beat Hitler, as Boris will to deliver Brexit and the will of the people, by 1945 Hitler was defeated the war was won so domestic issues took precedence and the mood was for change after 14 years of Tory government
Except the war wasn't won as Japan remained undefeated. Further in 1940 Churchill was not the lionised figure that he was by 1945.
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Jack
I remember a story my Dad told me about his time as a Desert Rat in N Africa. There was little literature of any kind for the troops but he remembered a widely available news and current affairs paper produced by the troops themselves. He said it was very good, and very left wing. He believed it shaped the politics of many troops returning home, including himself, and he was not at all surprised when Churchill was defeated.
I've never come across any reference to such a journal elsewhere, but the Old Man was pretty sharp and I am sure he didn't make it up. I wonder if you (or any other PBer) have any knowledge of this. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Thanks
PtP
Sounds like Eighth Army News edited by Warwick Charlton ex Daily Sketch?
Plenty of hits in Google - interestingly Charlton had the support of Gen Montgomery against attacks by other brasshats.
Many thanks, Carnyx. That could well be it.
He was a prolific letter writer and I am fortunate to have a box full of them preserved by my Mum. They would probably contain the answer. I must archive them soon before I go to join him in the great Mess Room in the sky.
Except some of the rebels might vote for a deal so are not Grieve type anti Brexiters in all situations and its provably wrong to label them all so.
But theres no point letting them back in. He went nuclear, justified it not, rolling back is pointless
All Tory candidates for the next general election will be required to back Brexit Deal or No Deal including existing MPs, if not they will not be Tory candidates
They'll say they are prepared then vote it down.
They won't as all the 21 will be deselected guaranteed and all replaced by fresh pro Boris candidates.
There are plenty of pro Brexit loyalists in the party who will respect what their voters want
So is that what just over half the voters wanted in 2016 or what the MPs that the voters elected at GE 2017 want now?
The Tories won a majority in GB in 2017 on a promise to leave the EU as did the DUP in NI
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
To be fair the audience wasn’t sycophants given the labour metro mayors are all there. Hi speech was politely applauded for ten seconds with little enthusiasm
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Any ancestor blogging, or whatever the equivalent was in 1940, from the Conservative party might well have disagreed with that view. There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
Hence why Churchill had to beat Chamberlain and Halifax (and Mosley once a Tory) as Boris had to beat May and Hunt and Grieve
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Any ancestor blogging, or whatever the equivalent was in 1940, from the Conservative party might well have disagreed with that view. There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
Hence why Churchill had to beat Chamberlain and Halifax (and Mosley once a Tory) as Boris had to beat May and Hunt and Grieve
Have you ceremoniously cut up your Conservative Party membership card given your support for the Labour Party?
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
To be fair the audience wasn’t sycophants given the labour metro mayors are all there. Hi speech was politely applauded for ten seconds with little enthusiasm
10 seconds is enough applause for a CCHQ video clip.
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Just to clarify what's going on in the HYUFD skull, do you think 'in a domestic civil war' is a metaphor?
For the moment but diehard Remainers are engaged in all out war to stop Brexit and the votes of 17 million people having voted thrice against the Withdrawal Agreement and now voted for further extension over Brexit on 31st October and Leavers must be prepared to fight and respond in kind
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Any ancestor blogging, or whatever the equivalent was in 1940, from the Conservative party might well have disagreed with that view. There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
Hence why Churchill had to beat Chamberlain and Halifax (and Mosley once a Tory) as Boris had to beat May and Hunt and Grieve
Have you ceremoniously cut up your Conservative Party membership card given your support for the Labour Party?
I think Mosley was Labour between his Conservative and Fascist phases, to be fair.
And I don't think Boris 'beat' May; drove her to despair, more like.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Any ancestor blogging, or whatever the equivalent was in 1940, from the Conservative party might well have disagreed with that view. There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
Hence why Churchill had to beat Chamberlain and Halifax (and Mosley once a Tory) as Boris had to beat May and Hunt and Grieve
Churchill did not beat Chamberlain, who remained leader of the Conservative Party. It was Labour that vetoed Chamberlain as leader of a GNU.
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Any ancestor blogging, or whatever the equivalent was in 1940, from the Conservative party might well have disagreed with that view. There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
Hence why Churchill had to beat Chamberlain and Halifax (and Mosley once a Tory) as Boris had to beat May and Hunt and Grieve
Had to beat Mosley? In what sense, or do you mean interning him just after becoming PM?
Who's on your list for locking up in these parlous times?
Mr. HYUFD, we're leaving the EU, not seeking to invade the continent.
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
We are in a domestic civil war with diehard Remainers, there is no more room for appeasement as there was not in 1940 either
Any ancestor blogging, or whatever the equivalent was in 1940, from the Conservative party might well have disagreed with that view. There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
Hence why Churchill had to beat Chamberlain and Halifax (and Mosley once a Tory) as Boris had to beat May and Hunt and Grieve
Churchill did not beat Chamberlain, who remained leader of the Conservative Party. It was Labour that vetoed Chamberlain as leader of a GNU.
Yes, HY could use brushing up on his history. Especially as he is from Epping, where a significant contingent of local conservatives made several efforts to deselect Churchill because of his stance regarding Germany.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Bernard said that the Speaker’s intervention would have been "unthinkable" a decade ago, adding that new checks and balances were required. He claimed that whilst the Speaker is supposed to uphold the rights of minority parties, the current arithmetic in Parliament meant that he risked turning the Speakership into a "majoritarian office" similar to the House of Representatives in the United States. "[For] the Speaker to say he is subject to no law or control because he is prepared to reinterpret any law of Parliament...it’s a kind of majoritarian dictatorship position," he continued. "It would be very sensible if the Speaker is going to make a controversial decision it should be a consensus decision amongst him and his deputies, not just a sole decision. "Maybe there should be a special select committee...because it [the Speakership] is clearly not functioning in the way it used to."
I think Jenkin is right. MPs really need to think seriously about the steps necessary to avoid the UK going further down the partisan US route as well as placing some limits on the ability of a rogue Speaker to tear up the rule book at will.
It must take some bottle to confront BJ in a public arena as he is surrounded by armed police and a room full of sycophant's. It is good someone has the courage to burst his bubble...
To be fair the audience wasn’t sycophants given the labour metro mayors are all there. Hi speech was politely applauded for ten seconds with little enthusiasm
10 seconds is enough applause for a CCHQ video clip.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
An excellent summary.
In the minority likelihood of a finding against the government, any thoughts on the likely remedy?
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Bernard said that the Speaker’s intervention would have been "unthinkable" a decade ago, adding that new checks and balances were required. He claimed that whilst the Speaker is supposed to uphold the rights of minority parties, the current arithmetic in Parliament meant that he risked turning the Speakership into a "majoritarian office" similar to the House of Representatives in the United States. "[For] the Speaker to say he is subject to no law or control because he is prepared to reinterpret any law of Parliament...it’s a kind of majoritarian dictatorship position," he continued. "It would be very sensible if the Speaker is going to make a controversial decision it should be a consensus decision amongst him and his deputies, not just a sole decision. "Maybe there should be a special select committee...because it [the Speakership] is clearly not functioning in the way it used to."
I think Jenkin is right. MPs really need to think seriously about the steps necessary to avoid the UK going further the partisan US route as well as placing some limits on the ability of a rogue Speaker to tear up the rule book at will.
While he has half of a point with ‘majoritarian’, ‘dictatorship’ is absurd.
Siding with the majority in Parliament against the government is not that.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
Mr Felix, the nastiness is not all from the leave side, just most of it. Leave is a pretty nasty philosophy, based mostly on xenophobia and division. That said there are some perfectly pleasant people who voted leave, who are otherwise really good people, and would be open to compromise. The real nastiness is from the extremists and fanatics, and then there are the converts like HYUFD who call people he does not agree with "Traitors" and other childish and inaccurate and insulting epithets.
I'm unsure there is any evidence to support your assertion that there is more nastiness on one side or the other. Indeed your claim itself is really part of the problem. In my view both Pullman and the person shown upthread should both be prosecuted for incitement to violence along with anyone else who makes such suggestions.
Fascinating interview with kids author Michael “war horse” Morpurgo in today’s Guardian. He complains, as a Remainer, about being spat at in Sidmouth. Which is quite shocking.
Except there’s a small detail. He was wearing a “bollocks to Brexit” badge.
What did he honestly expect? He’s wearing a badge which says “bollocks to democracy” and which, to a Leaver, says, explicitly, “bollocks to your vote”. He’s lucky he wasn’t lamped, like the poseurs who wore MAGA baseball caps in downtown Hollywood. We live in polarised times.
One of my most trenchant criticisms of the right/alt-right/whatever is that when they say they are pro-free-speech, they are simply lying. Specifically, they are perfectly OK with thoughts designated as crime, social ostracism, violent enforcement, etc, they just don't think the rules should apply to them or theirs.
Similar to the left-wingers who picket Tory Conference and spit at delegates?
Comments
In fact, I might write an article about it...
What is quite remarkable is your attempt to link Johnston with Churchill. The only link being a risible biography by the former of the latter !!
Cor Blimey Guv*
*I’m surprised Sir
I think it's felt by some historians that had Edward VIII still been King, that would have happened.
Yet Churchill did the job Chamberlain could not as Boris will do the job May could not
[I realise 'invading France' has long been a Morris Dancer Party manifesto commitment, but I hope PBers realise that it was made in jest...]
If you disagree just say so dont bring up a separate point.
But really, with the way the pieces are now arranged on the board, there's a deal to be done. But it requires the EU to say "Enough. Three and half years is enough dicking around. You won't have a clue what to do with any more time. So just fuck off."
And do you know, I think they just might.....
I remember a story my Dad told me about his time as a Desert Rat in N Africa. There was little literature of any kind for the troops but he remembered a widely available news and current affairs paper produced by the troops themselves. He said it was very good, and very left wing. He believed it shaped the politics of many troops returning home, including himself, and he was not at all surprised when Churchill was defeated.
I've never come across any reference to such a journal elsewhere, but the Old Man was pretty sharp and I am sure he didn't make it up. I wonder if you (or any other PBer) have any knowledge of this. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Thanks
PtP
What did the Conservatives do? They merged with Wildrose, ending up in 2019 with 55% between them and a landslide with 2/3rds of the seats.
That's what you gain when parties cooperate in a FPTP system.
What will decide the election will be which side is more split and I feel it may be easier for the tories to win round brexit party voters than it will be for Labour to win round LDs..
It is going to be incredibly hard for the LDs to work out which seats to target as I think they will do better in seats where labour currently hold but most of their targets are tory held..
Just my thoughts
Mr. HYUFD, we are not in a civil war and varied opinions are the beating heart of democracy.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1943/nov/23/publication-eighth-army-news
Or Hugh Cudlipp Union Jack?
Plenty of hits in Google - interestingly Charlton had the support of Gen Montgomery against attacks by other brasshats.
The election campaign is going to be great.
May hid from voters.
BoZo will front it out, and they don't like what they see.
But I might never forgive him for being a Labour Party supporter.
There was a significant part of the party which wasn't that keen on fighting on.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, honestly.
Boris has two jobs to do right now - campaign for a majority for the next Parliament, and seek a deal with Europe.
If he gets the latter then this Parliament will have a decision to make. If he can't, it will be the next Parliament that decides things.
He was a prolific letter writer and I am fortunate to have a box full of them preserved by my Mum. They would probably contain the answer. I must archive them soon before I go to join him in the great Mess Room in the sky.
And I don't think Boris 'beat' May; drove her to despair, more like.
It is a mark of ideological extremism to try to blur the distinction between metaphor and reality.
The Inner House took a different approach. They looked at the merits of the decision and whether a proper basis had been set up by the government for implementing the prorogation. They are critical of the government for not providing much of a justification and drew adverse inferences from that, Lord Brodie in particular. Having decided that there was no proper basis for exercising the power they much more readily concluded that it must be possible for the Courts to prevent such an abuse of power. It is clear that all 3 judges agree that there is no specialty of Scots law here and the arguments about the Claim of right are unanimously rejected.
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
Who's on your list for locking up in these parlous times?
I suppose I might be biased, of course!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/13/john-bercow-accused-running-majoritarian-dictatorship/
For those barred by the paywall:
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Bernard said that the Speaker’s intervention would have been "unthinkable" a decade ago, adding that new checks and balances were required. He claimed that whilst the Speaker is supposed to uphold the rights of minority parties, the current arithmetic in Parliament meant that he risked turning the Speakership into a "majoritarian office" similar to the House of Representatives in the United States. "[For] the Speaker to say he is subject to no law or control because he is prepared to reinterpret any law of Parliament...it’s a kind of majoritarian dictatorship position," he continued. "It would be very sensible if the Speaker is going to make a controversial decision it should be a consensus decision amongst him and his deputies, not just a sole decision. "Maybe there should be a special select committee...because it [the Speakership] is clearly not functioning in the way it used to."
I think Jenkin is right. MPs really need to think seriously about the steps necessary to avoid the UK going further down the partisan US route as well as placing some limits on the ability of a rogue Speaker to tear up the rule book at will.
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In the minority likelihood of a finding against the government, any thoughts on the likely remedy?
Siding with the majority in Parliament against the government is not that.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.