The more I read the more I am persuaded the LDs have made a long-term cock up for short term electoral gain. Some posters on here have made excellent points. Establishing the precedent that a majority government can ride roughshod over a (recent) referendum result is dangerous territory;
1. The Tories could reasonably run a campaign every GE for leaving again without a referendum, and would eventually get into power at some point. 2. Why could the SNP not unilaterally declare independence? They have won a majority of Scottish MPs at the last 2 elections and there has been 2 pro-indy majorities at the last 2 Holyrood elections. This reasonably meets current LD criteria for major constitutional change.
Thus, this ruse actually solves nothing as both EU membership and the union are still threatened. They were smarter when they were protesting for another EU ref!
The LibDems don't seem to understand or have a long term strategy in a volatile and advantageous (to them) political moment. I would suggest it should be to take on the actions, mantle, aspiration and position of the largest Left / Centre Left party in UK politics.
Nothing they have done at conference that I am aware of moves them in that long term direction. They have some short term headline grabbing initiatives which will possibly see them rise, peak and then fall back to insignificance.
Sad
Your suggestion is wrong
What they ae doing is occupying the whole centre ground. It's vacant. And framing the debate away from left/right economics where the debate has largely crystalised.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
Fair enough.
Re parlaiment, yes, honesty would be nice. But most Tory remainers backed the WA, it failed because of Labour (and other opposition votes) and the ERG, who supposedly want Brexit but failed multiple times to vote for it.
Would most Labour MPs, as they/leadership would claim, have voted for a WA including a permanent customs union? I guess we'll never know until/unless we get to the point of voting on that.
LD and SNP have been pretty honest in their position that they oppose Brexit, I think.
230 Labour MPs did vote for a Customs Union brexit in the indicative votes.
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
It's a weak point IMO. It's not up to the courts to tell politicians of various parties how they should vote to pursue political ends.
Presumably it supports the argument that parliament is sovereign and notes it has not used its ability to assert this seniority over the executive via VONC, and it's not for the courts to do so in its place
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
That's the whole point of the sovereignty of parliament, it can Express it if it deems fit
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
It's a weak point IMO. It's not up to the courts to tell politicians of various parties how they should vote to pursue political ends.
Presumably it supports the argument that parliament is sovereign and notes it has not used its ability to assert this seniority over the executive via VONC, and it's not for the courts to do so in its place
I think that is a poor argument because a VONC has other implications, including the risk of not being able to form an alternative government within the 14-day period and therefore crashing us out by default pending an election. Parliament might wish to do things in another way, or simply have the opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing: the case is about it being prevented from doing so.
People seem to be ignoring the main implication of this. Remainers are now arguing a General Election majority with a manifesto pledge can now overrule a referendum result.
So if we have a second referendum, the Tory party can overrule this with a manifesto pledge to leave the EU and a majority. Given the Tories have now become a committed Brexit party, they will have this manifesto pledge every General Election from now on, and it won't matter if there is a second referendum result for Remain in the meantime. The left will not keep out the Tories forever. The Lib Dems have made Brexit inevitable.
You can take another step and look at the party-political upshot of this, which is that if you're an ex-Tory Remainer in one of the many seats across the south that the LibDems are hoping to gain from Con, it won't be enough to merely vote LibDem this time, then revert to your former allegiance.
To prevent Brexit from rising zombie-like from its grave, you'll have to *keep voting Liberal Democrat, again and again, for the rest of your life*.
.
I am afraid you are very sadly mistaken. Leave will not just die. They will make sure this remains an issue for every party and at every election going forward.
We'll see. I think it more likely that Brexit will be seen as an epic, never-to-be-repeated failure.
Even if it seen as that among 60% of the public, it won't be enough to put it to bed. Especially when the mess has been caused partially through Remain majorities voting against every form of Brexit and changing parliamentary rules to block it. Leavers will now always blame the mess on Remainers and say Brexit has never been tried.
We have been trying to Brexit since 2016. And it has proved impossible to come up with a satisfactory way of leaving.
Because the Tories haven't had a proper majority. You feel comfortable with them never getting one for 20 years?
Certainly. I would feel even more comfortable if they never get a majority again ever.
I mean you feel comfortable in predicting that they definitely won't get a majority in the next 20 years? I would say the chance is sub-5%.
The Tories have only won a (very small) majority once in the past 27 years. It's 32 years since they won a stable majority. And given the unholy mess they are now in, not to mention the unfavourable demographics, it seems unlikely they will win another in the forseeable future.
Unpopular perhaps this may be, the figures tell their own tale (according to this pollster)
The flip side to the PM being polarising is you generate votes against you as well as for you.
Pollsters imo should also be polling who you would vote against as well as vote for. Perhaps that is biased by me finding none of the parties at all inspiring, and therefore likely to vote against, rather than voting for at the next GE. I think there are plenty who will do likewise and they will decide the next election, moving it from the opinion polls small tory majority back to a hung parliament.
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
Well yes you could. And should. Because the issue I have not seen discussed is that the current situation arises out of a minority Government, but it makes it far more difficult for a Govt. to govern if the courts are always the arbiter of what that majorty Govt. can properly do.
I think that is a poor argument because a VONC has other implications, including the risk of not being able to form an alternative government within the 14-day period and therefore crashing us out by default pending an election. Parliament might wish to do things in another way, or simply have the opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing: the case is about it being prevented from doing so.
Not least since the sitting PM who is abusing his position with the prorogation has also credibly threatened to abuse his position when he has to advise on his replacement.
PS This is a great example of what a flaming pile of shit the British Constitution is. The only available process for replacing a crooked PM is reliant on the PM not being crooked.
Mr. Gate, disagree, if Labour go for a second referendum.
Pro-EU types who like the idea of actually having a referendum to decide things (requiring 50%+ of voters) rather than a General Election victory (35% or less in some cases) and wanting to try and seal the deal rather than get a short-lived, Pyrrhic victory may very well prefer a referendum.
In the best case scenario, the Lib Dems get votes they would've gotten anyway if they'd stuck with their referendum policy.
And to make things even better, they're very, very unlikely to get a majority anyway. So they've almost certainly lost votes for nothing.
Recently, the yellows have been doing very well, but this is a strategic mistake, and an entirely unnecessary one, I think.
The Lib Dems are just trying to maximise their vote. The ideal situation would be Corbyn minority administration dependent on Lib Dem votes to ensure he goes through with his referendum promise.
Could it be a mistake? Possibly. But they have nothing to lose.
Not quite - I think the ideal is a *Labour* minority administration with the LDs providing confidence and supply on the condition that Corbyn is dumped for a competent leader who can be trusted on Brexit.
Why should Labour accept that ? In reality, what choice would the Lib Dems have other than sacrificing the People's Vote.
The referendum was not fought on party political lines. We were told the decision was ours, not politicians.
Given that, for politicians to then refuse to vote through a deal agreed by a Remainer PM and the EU is outrageous. I know PB is full of fans of lawyers using trickery to come to conclusions that baffle laymen, but this really wasn’t the time for that nonsense
Mr. B, the joy of politics is that we get to have opinions about things that do and do not affect us personally.
....
But equally, it can be hard to assess the appeal of electoral propositions which don't appeal to us personally. A good example would be my own underestimation of Trump's electoral prospects.
I'm going to chuck something into the wild here - I reckon Hale will rule against and Reed for the Gov't. Reed takes over in January and it'll be interesting to see which justices agree with Hale/Reed here.
Hale majority against the Gov't, Reed dissent is my instinct.
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That in itself is not a matter for the courts - though the deprivation of Parliament's ability to bring a VONC during the next month might conceivably be.
"HARTFORD, Conn. — A new, Spanish-designed submarine has a weighty problem: The vessel is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface.
And a former Spanish official says the problem can be traced to a miscalculation — someone apparently put a decimal point in the wrong place...."
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
That's the whole point of the sovereignty of parliament, it can Express it if it deems fit
Mr. B, the joy of politics is that we get to have opinions about things that do and do not affect us personally.
....
But equally, it can be hard to assess the appeal of electoral propositions which don't appeal to us personally. A good example would be my own underestimation of Trump's electoral prospects.
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
That's the whole point of the sovereignty of parliament, it can Express it if it deems fit
Not while it is prorogued.
It had the opportunity to do so before prorogation
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
That's the whole point of the sovereignty of parliament, it can Express it if it deems fit
Not while it is prorogued.
It had the opportunity to do so before prorogation
So would you accept that it would be illegal to re-prorogue immediately again when parliament returns? As this is being suggested as one of the dear leaders wheezes to deliver no deal.
Mr. B, the joy of politics is that we get to have opinions about things that do and do not affect us personally.
....
But equally, it can be hard to assess the appeal of electoral propositions which don't appeal to us personally. A good example would be my own underestimation of Trump's electoral prospects.
or a majority voting to leave the EU:-)
Indeed, but I wasn't quite so wrong on that. The appeal of Trump I still find incomprehensible.
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
That's the whole point of the sovereignty of parliament, it can Express it if it deems fit
Not while it is prorogued.
It had the opportunity to do so before prorogation
So would you accept that it would be illegal to re-prorogue immediately again when parliament returns? As this is being suggested as one of the dear leaders wheezes to deliver no deal.
I would find that extraordinary, concerning and unacceptable
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
That's the whole point of the sovereignty of parliament, it can Express it if it deems fit
Not while it is prorogued.
It had the opportunity to do so before prorogation
So would you accept that it would be illegal to re-prorogue immediately again when parliament returns? As this is being suggested as one of the dear leaders wheezes to deliver no deal.
Some of the Justices are quite interested in that question, too.
Lord Keen, for the PM, replies: "I won't comment on that.”
Lord Carnwath, another of the justices, then says it would be “helpful” to have clearer written undertakings.
I note Lord Reed has brought up the why hasn't the opposition attempted to VONC Johnson if they're so appalled by his actions point.
That's interesting. I'd have thought judges would be above such points.
Why? It goes to the issue of available remedies. Why should the court intervene when there is a fine tried and tested alternative if MPs think a PM is abusing their power?
You could then say the same about any court case involving the government. No need for the courts to be involved, just VONC the government.
That's the whole point of the sovereignty of parliament, it can Express it if it deems fit
Not while it is prorogued.
It had the opportunity to do so before prorogation
So would you accept that it would be illegal to re-prorogue immediately again when parliament returns? As this is being suggested as one of the dear leaders wheezes to deliver no deal.
I would find that extraordinary, concerning and unacceptable
Prepare to join us in being concerned!
I do agree with your point that parliament had the opportunity to block the prorogation and/or no deal before and after is a significant and material fact. It should be part of the judges consideration.
Mr. B, the joy of politics is that we get to have opinions about things that do and do not affect us personally.
....
But equally, it can be hard to assess the appeal of electoral propositions which don't appeal to us personally. A good example would be my own underestimation of Trump's electoral prospects.
or a majority voting to leave the EU:-)
Indeed, but I wasn't quite so wrong on that. The appeal of Trump I still find incomprehensible.
Its America first. Not much different than here. A slab of the elctorate are fed up with politicans who dont appar to put their own citizens interests first.
I think that is a poor argument because a VONC has other implications, including the risk of not being able to form an alternative government within the 14-day period and therefore crashing us out by default pending an election. Parliament might wish to do things in another way, or simply have the opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing: the case is about it being prevented from doing so.
Not least since the sitting PM who is abusing his position with the prorogation has also credibly threatened to abuse his position when he has to advise on his replacement.
PS This is a great example of what a flaming pile of shit the British Constitution is. The only available process for replacing a crooked PM is reliant on the PM not being crooked.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
Fair enough.
Re parlaiment, yes, honesty would be nice. But most Tory remainers backed the WA, it failed because of Labour (and other opposition votes) and the ERG, who supposedly want Brexit but failed multiple times to vote for it.
Would most Labour MPs, as they/leadership would claim, have voted for a WA including a permanent customs union? I guess we'll never know until/unless we get to the point of voting on that.
LD and SNP have been pretty honest in their position that they oppose Brexit, I think.
230 Labour MPs did vote for a Customs Union brexit in the indicative votes.
Yes, but would they have voted for a WA with that in (i.e. when it mattered)? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure either way. A couple of years ago, probably, but now I think opinions have hardened on all sides and both no-dealers and remainers think they can be victorious and there is less appetite for compromise.
I think that is a poor argument because a VONC has other implications, including the risk of not being able to form an alternative government within the 14-day period and therefore crashing us out by default pending an election. Parliament might wish to do things in another way, or simply have the opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing: the case is about it being prevented from doing so.
Not least since the sitting PM who is abusing his position with the prorogation has also credibly threatened to abuse his position when he has to advise on his replacement.
PS This is a great example of what a flaming pile of shit the British Constitution is. The only available process for replacing a crooked PM is reliant on the PM not being crooked.
I think that is a poor argument because a VONC has other implications, including the risk of not being able to form an alternative government within the 14-day period and therefore crashing us out by default pending an election. Parliament might wish to do things in another way, or simply have the opportunity to scrutinise what the executive is doing: the case is about it being prevented from doing so.
Not least since the sitting PM who is abusing his position with the prorogation has also credibly threatened to abuse his position when he has to advise on his replacement.
PS This is a great example of what a flaming pile of shit the British Constitution is. The only available process for replacing a crooked PM is reliant on the PM not being crooked.
The FTPA is a shitshow. Very badly designed.
The FTPA is fine, the problem is everything else.
It clearly has flaws. For example, the 14 day period doesn’t have to be when Parliament is sitting.
Keen is arguing, on behalf of the government, that the power to prorogue is simply not justiciable, for whatever reason.
His practical precedents are that in 1948, and previously, it was used for a political purpose. Constitutional lawyers will know better than I, but has not our constitution developed somewhat since then ? As has the role of Parliament in scrutinising the executive.
The Remainers in parliament are making almost impossible to leave (voting down every deal/making no deal illegal) then pointing at the quagmire and saying ‘look how difficult it is, shall we just stay?’
Interesting that we had a couple of people recently posting that they were denied a good broadband deal with Virgin, then when they walked away, they were offered the best deal available.
The difficulty, to pursue that analogy, is that Brexiteers seem to consider a good deal to be continuing to receive their original broadband service, cease paying for it, cease obeying Virgin's terms and conditions and no longer permit other people to access the same cables.
Anyone managed to do that deal with Virgin?
I thought the people talking about their virgin deals were making that analogy, it wasn’t mine.
Although I do think ruling out no deal weakens our hand, and makes it easy for those who want to remain at all costs to effectively fix the deck as Deal vs remain in parliament. The honest thing to do is just vote for the deal.
Fair enough.
Re parlaiment, yes, honesty would be nice. But most Tory remainers backed the WA, it failed because of Labour (and other opposition votes) and the ERG, who supposedly want Brexit but failed multiple times to vote for it.
Would most Labour MPs, as they/leadership would claim, have voted for a WA including a permanent customs union? I guess we'll never know until/unless we get to the point of voting on that.
LD and SNP have been pretty honest in their position that they oppose Brexit, I think.
230 Labour MPs did vote for a Customs Union brexit in the indicative votes.
Yes, but would they have voted for a WA with that in (i.e. when it mattered)? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure either way. A couple of years ago, probably, but now I think opinions have hardened on all sides and both no-dealers and remainers think they can be victorious and there is less appetite for compromise.
People on all sides are getting the timescales muddled, the indicative votes were less than six months ago, even though it certainly feels like a couple of years. If anything had passed in the indicative votes (and customs union was close) it would have mattered very much even if not legally binding. May would have gone with it.
Mr. B, the joy of politics is that we get to have opinions about things that do and do not affect us personally.
....
But equally, it can be hard to assess the appeal of electoral propositions which don't appeal to us personally. A good example would be my own underestimation of Trump's electoral prospects.
or a majority voting to leave the EU:-)
Indeed, but I wasn't quite so wrong on that. The appeal of Trump I still find incomprehensible.
Its America first. Not much different than here. A slab of the elctorate are fed up with politicans who dont appar to put their own citizens interests first.
"HARTFORD, Conn. — A new, Spanish-designed submarine has a weighty problem: The vessel is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface.
And a former Spanish official says the problem can be traced to a miscalculation — someone apparently put a decimal point in the wrong place...."
That's a *really* old story - six years, in fact. The hilarious thing is that their problems haven't got any better. The hull was lengthened by several metres to help the (ahem) negative buoyancy issue, but it then turned out that this made it too long for its dock. The project has doubled in cost, and the submarines are at least ten years late. When they are delivered, they will be without an important part of their propulsion system.
Still, if you think that's bad, just look at the clusterf**k that is the Zumwalt class destroyer. Massively expensive at over $4 billion each; their new main weapon fired shots that cost a million dollars each; so much so that the development of the rounds was discontinued, and the ships have main weapons with nothing to fire. And they're incredibly hideous to look at. The US has gone back to building the predecessor Arleigh Burke classes instead.
The issue of course being that lots won’t have the right paperwork, holding everyone else up, and the actual checks are done by Customs not Eurotunnel.
"HARTFORD, Conn. — A new, Spanish-designed submarine has a weighty problem: The vessel is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface.
And a former Spanish official says the problem can be traced to a miscalculation — someone apparently put a decimal point in the wrong place...."
The S-80 weight story is old news. They fixed it (at vast expense) by extendng the hull but now they have had to rebuild the dock at more vast expense so it fits. The Spanish have brought in General Dynamics (who rescued the Astute program for the RN) to sort it all out.
The issue of course being that lots won’t have the right paperwork, holding everyone else up, and the actual checks are done by Customs not Eurotunnel.
Mr. Gate, disagree, if Labour go for a second referendum.
Pro-EU types who like the idea of actually having a referendum to decide things (requiring 50%+ of voters) rather than a General Election victory (35% or less in some cases) and wanting to try and seal the deal rather than get a short-lived, Pyrrhic victory may very well prefer a referendum.
In the best case scenario, the Lib Dems get votes they would've gotten anyway if they'd stuck with their referendum policy.
And to make things even better, they're very, very unlikely to get a majority anyway. So they've almost certainly lost votes for nothing.
Recently, the yellows have been doing very well, but this is a strategic mistake, and an entirely unnecessary one, I think.
The Lib Dems are just trying to maximise their vote. The ideal situation would be Corbyn minority administration dependent on Lib Dem votes to ensure he goes through with his referendum promise.
Could it be a mistake? Possibly. But they have nothing to lose.
Emily Thornberry showed the impossibility of trying to defend a position which calls for a second referendum where your party's position is to recommend Revoke. However tortuous convincing yourself it is democratic Remain is without doubt the best USP available and a very powerful one.
"HARTFORD, Conn. — A new, Spanish-designed submarine has a weighty problem: The vessel is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface.
And a former Spanish official says the problem can be traced to a miscalculation — someone apparently put a decimal point in the wrong place...."
The S-80 weight story is old news. They fixed it (at vast expense) by extendng the hull but now they have had to rebuild the dock at more vast expense so it fits. The Spanish have brought in General Dynamics (who rescued the Astute program for the RN) to sort it all out.
General Dynamics. Ah yes, the ones who told the MOD that they could build the Ajax armoured vehicle in a way that was 1) sufficiently well armoured and 2) light enough to be transported by A400M. Go on, have a guess what happened next...
Comments
Therefore the only conclusion left is: a Deal.
What they ae doing is occupying the whole centre ground. It's vacant. And framing the debate away from left/right economics where the debate has largely crystalised.
Pollsters imo should also be polling who you would vote against as well as vote for. Perhaps that is biased by me finding none of the parties at all inspiring, and therefore likely to vote against, rather than voting for at the next GE. I think there are plenty who will do likewise and they will decide the next election, moving it from the opinion polls small tory majority back to a hung parliament.
PS This is a great example of what a flaming pile of shit the British Constitution is. The only available process for replacing a crooked PM is reliant on the PM not being crooked.
So Labour may have little choice, unless they can do a deal with the SNP, or want another general election.
Given that, for politicians to then refuse to vote through a deal agreed by a Remainer PM and the EU is outrageous. I know PB is full of fans of lawyers using trickery to come to conclusions that baffle laymen, but this really wasn’t the time for that nonsense
A good example would be my own underestimation of Trump's electoral prospects.
Hale majority against the Gov't, Reed dissent is my instinct.
"HARTFORD, Conn. — A new, Spanish-designed submarine has a weighty problem: The vessel is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface.
And a former Spanish official says the problem can be traced to a miscalculation — someone apparently put a decimal point in the wrong place...."
https://o.canada.com/news/spain-builds-submarine-70-tons-too-heavy
But I do fail to see how this does anything but diminish Lib Dem appeal and set a very foolish precedent.
The appeal of Trump I still find incomprehensible.
Lord Keen, for the PM, replies: "I won't comment on that.”
Lord Carnwath, another of the justices, then says it would be “helpful” to have clearer written undertakings.
I do agree with your point that parliament had the opportunity to block the prorogation and/or no deal before and after is a significant and material fact. It should be part of the judges consideration.
His practical precedents are that in 1948, and previously, it was used for a political purpose.
Constitutional lawyers will know better than I, but has not our constitution developed somewhat since then ? As has the role of Parliament in scrutinising the executive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-80_Plus-class_submarine
Still, if you think that's bad, just look at the clusterf**k that is the Zumwalt class destroyer. Massively expensive at over $4 billion each; their new main weapon fired shots that cost a million dollars each; so much so that the development of the rounds was discontinued, and the ships have main weapons with nothing to fire. And they're incredibly hideous to look at. The US has gone back to building the predecessor Arleigh Burke classes instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer