Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI has the LDs at a post-GE2010 high with a big increa

1235

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,965

    TGOHF said:

    Reading James Forsyth’s piece, the EU would prefer a deal to an extension.

    How does a GoNu get that without the Cons and the DUP ?

    They couldn't get that but they could get an extension with a definite outcome on a reasonable timeframe, by passing WA+referendum.

    PS I haven't read this piece but James Forsyth is probably not reliable.
    I execrate the Spectator and their inbred coterie of exhibitionist [rude word][rude word] dilletantes, but oddly enough James Forsyth is good.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,582
    Andrew said:

    2. Are the EU confident he can get any revised deal through the HoC? I doubt they can be.

    If the EU state no more extensions, it'd get through - a straight deal or no-deal vote. LauraK was saying "sources" were hinting at exactly that.

    Still seems a long shot, but at least it'd get the damn thing over with.
    So the EU end up deciding whether we accept a deal or not... must be what "taking back control" was all for lol.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T

    "The ugly truth about the new South Africa
    The rainbow nation has become the global capital of xenophobic violence.

    Moses Dube"

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/19/the-ugly-truth-about-the-new-south-africa/
  • Andrew said:

    2. Are the EU confident he can get any revised deal through the HoC? I doubt they can be.

    If the EU state no more extensions, it'd get through - a straight deal or no-deal vote. LauraK was saying "sources" were hinting at exactly that.

    Still seems a long shot, but at least it'd get the damn thing over with.
    There would still be the option of Revoke.

    I don't think there are the numbers for it, at least not yet, but it means there would still be three options for MPs to be split between.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408

    Andrew said:

    2. Are the EU confident he can get any revised deal through the HoC? I doubt they can be.

    If the EU state no more extensions, it'd get through - a straight deal or no-deal vote. LauraK was saying "sources" were hinting at exactly that.

    Still seems a long shot, but at least it'd get the damn thing over with.
    There would still be the option of Revoke.

    I don't think there are the numbers for it, at least not yet, but it means there would still be three options for MPs to be split between.
    As there has been since, what, 6th December 2018.
    Just this Parliament doesn't want any of them.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446


    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.

    Or John Major between 1990 and 1992.
    That said, I am always of the opinion a new PM should go to the country. They (like TM did) may want a radically different direction from their predecessor, even though they come the same party. They may also feel constrained (like TM did over the National Insurance pledge) by the previous manifesto that no longer applies.

    Whilst I certainly don't disagree Johnson is our PM, and legitimately, I feel a new PM should always go to the country as soon as reasonably possible after taking the role on. Either May, June or October.
    It's why I felt TM should've gone for a October 2016 election.

    I therefore agree with Johnson trying for an October 2019 election. Here, its the opposition who have prevented this (and the FTPA).
    May repeatedly said she would not call a GE.

    Then suddenly after 9 months she did.

  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    Andrew said:

    2. Are the EU confident he can get any revised deal through the HoC? I doubt they can be.

    If the EU state no more extensions, it'd get through - a straight deal or no-deal vote. LauraK was saying "sources" were hinting at exactly that.

    Still seems a long shot, but at least it'd get the damn thing over with.
    So the EU end up deciding whether we accept a deal or not... must be what "taking back control" was all for lol.
    I really can’t see the EU going down this road . They don’t want to get blamed for no deal and are aware that an election is coming which could change things . They also don’t know what might happen with the vote , what if MPs add a second vote on which passes.

  • OT Six chapters into Cameron's book. It's not a page-turner.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408
    eristdoof said:


    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.

    Or John Major between 1990 and 1992.
    That said, I am always of the opinion a new PM should go to the country. They (like TM did) may want a radically different direction from their predecessor, even though they come the same party. They may also feel constrained (like TM did over the National Insurance pledge) by the previous manifesto that no longer applies.

    Whilst I certainly don't disagree Johnson is our PM, and legitimately, I feel a new PM should always go to the country as soon as reasonably possible after taking the role on. Either May, June or October.
    It's why I felt TM should've gone for a October 2016 election.

    I therefore agree with Johnson trying for an October 2019 election. Here, its the opposition who have prevented this (and the FTPA).
    May repeatedly said she would not call a GE.

    Then suddenly after 9 months she did.

    Very true.
    She's a lying toerag then. Just like the rest.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,900
    eristdoof said:


    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.

    Or John Major between 1990 and 1992.
    That said, I am always of the opinion a new PM should go to the country. They (like TM did) may want a radically different direction from their predecessor, even though they come the same party. They may also feel constrained (like TM did over the National Insurance pledge) by the previous manifesto that no longer applies.

    Whilst I certainly don't disagree Johnson is our PM, and legitimately, I feel a new PM should always go to the country as soon as reasonably possible after taking the role on. Either May, June or October.
    It's why I felt TM should've gone for a October 2016 election.

    I therefore agree with Johnson trying for an October 2019 election. Here, its the opposition who have prevented this (and the FTPA).
    May repeatedly said she would not call a GE.

    Then suddenly after 9 months she did.

    Reasons for calling an immediate general election, No 100.

    There are hundreds of thousands of people now represented by MPs who have defected from the parties they were elected to represent.

    Those MPs lied. They were elected on a platform on which they subsequently reneged.

    UKIP are an unpleasant racist joke. But, the MPs who defected to UKIP (Cardwell & reckless) at least had the courage to fight a by-election.

    Unlike the defectors in this shabby Parliament.
  • Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
  • Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.
  • In 2011 he was told he was going to be Trade Minister. They got the wrong guy and it was actually Ed Davey being made Trade Minister.

    He can't think particularly highly of the organisation within HMG!
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,408

    eristdoof said:


    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.

    Or John Major between 1990 and 1992.
    That said, I am always of the opinion a new PM should go to the country. They (like TM did) may want a radically different direction from their predecessor, even though they come the same party. They may also feel constrained (like TM did over the National Insurance pledge) by the previous manifesto that no longer applies.

    Whilst I certainly don't disagree Johnson is our PM, and legitimately, I feel a new PM should always go to the country as soon as reasonably possible after taking the role on. Either May, June or October.
    It's why I felt TM should've gone for a October 2016 election.

    I therefore agree with Johnson trying for an October 2019 election. Here, its the opposition who have prevented this (and the FTPA).
    May repeatedly said she would not call a GE.

    Then suddenly after 9 months she did.

    Reasons for calling an immediate general election, No 100.

    There are hundreds of thousands of people now represented by MPs who have defected from the parties they were elected to represent.

    Those MPs lied. They were elected on a platform on which they subsequently reneged.

    UKIP are an unpleasant racist joke. But, the MPs who defected to UKIP (Cardwell & reckless) at least had the courage to fight a by-election.

    Unlike the defectors in this shabby Parliament.
    Aye. It's something pretty hard to stomach.
    UKIP! UKIP of all parties, are the only party in recent memory to require their defectors to stand in a by-election if they cross the floor. The Lib Dems certainly haven't, and nor did ChangeUK. Nor any of those that went independent.

    It's pretty bad when your democratic credentials read, "We love democracy so much, we're nearly as democratic as UKIP."
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.

    They are trying to find out how much of a minefield they are entering
  • viewcode said:

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    You can fly on a plane via Flybe from Leeds Airport to Belfast City Airport. Airtime is one hour, with check-in time from 2hrs or less, and from getting off the plane it's about 15 minutes to pick up your bags then another 15 minutes to the city centre via taxi. It is ridiculously quick

    Or you can ferry via Stranraer/the port next to it to Belfast. This is plausible if you want to take the car. Budget about 8-9 hours for the trip.

    Or you can ferry via Holyhead (North Wales), at a similar cost in time.

    Other options are available, including bus and trains to the ports, but that's best I think. Ferries are cheap, OK, but looong. Planes are quick but more expensive. The size limits on carry-on luggage are slightly smaller for Flybe, so check your luggage fits the guidelines. They will make you put it in the hold if you are over.

    Belfast is a lot like Leeds, only flatter and the accents are stranger. Very much a border city: the terrestrial TV has BBC and RTE, the notes are GBP but different designs. The sectarian areas are not in the town centre but if you travel by taxi it's possible you'll end up going thru themhm, and it's as...impactful(?)...as you expect. The university buildings are quite nice, the Belfast conference centre is as you'd expect, the river is a river and the shops are shops: England chains with occasional regional variants (Easons instead of WHSmiths, for example) The architecture is good and the modern redevelopments are quite well done, avoiding the redevelop EVERYTHING mindset that hit Cardiff and Bristol, for example. There are some oddities: I still don't know if they offer tomato sauce with their chips, which quite threw me. The accent is oddly attractive on women, but not great on men. They keep playing Irish dance music, which drives me nuts. It closes around 10pm on Sundays and if there are mobile kebab shops or late-night burger bars I couldn't find them. It does have MickeyDs, tho, so if your stuck it's OK. It also has shopping centres and malls, with the resultant pizza restaurants and things. Take an umbrella.
    Thank you.
    FlyBe from Doncaster to Belfast-City might be an alternative possibility:

    http://flydsa.co.uk/2018/08/30/belfast-northern-ireland/

    I did that a few years back and it was very easy.
  • eristdoof said:


    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.

    Or John Major between 1990 and 1992.
    That said, I am always of the opinion a new PM should go to the country. They (like TM did) may want a radically different direction from their predecessor, even though they come the same party. They may also feel constrained (like TM did over the National Insurance pledge) by the previous manifesto that no longer applies.

    Whilst I certainly don't disagree Johnson is our PM, and legitimately, I feel a new PM should always go to the country as soon as reasonably possible after taking the role on. Either May, June or October.
    It's why I felt TM should've gone for a October 2016 election.

    I therefore agree with Johnson trying for an October 2019 election. Here, its the opposition who have prevented this (and the FTPA).
    May repeatedly said she would not call a GE.

    Then suddenly after 9 months she did.

    Reasons for calling an immediate general election, No 100.

    There are hundreds of thousands of people now represented by MPs who have defected from the parties they were elected to represent.

    Those MPs lied. They were elected on a platform on which they subsequently reneged.

    UKIP are an unpleasant racist joke. But, the MPs who defected to UKIP (Cardwell & reckless) at least had the courage to fight a by-election.

    Unlike the defectors in this shabby Parliament.
    What if the party leadership changed? What if the manifesto said "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe" but the new party leader wanted to crash out and engage in zero (or negative) sum parlour games with our neighbours instead?

    Why are the MPs who want to stand by the manifesto the "liars" instead of blaming the leadership who want to crash out without a mandate?

    Clearly MPs have the right to leave their parties in such scenarios.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    AndyJS said:

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    That sounds suspiciously like the South to me.
    He lives in Derbyshire I think. The Peak District? Do you count that as southern?
    Derbyshire is the Midlands, not the north or south. Where did this obsession with dividing the country into two blocs come from?
    Not from me. I was asking him!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    eristdoof said:


    Boris has as much legitimacy as say Gordon Brown ever did......or James Callaghan.

    Or John Major between 1990 and 1992.
    That said, I am always of the opinion a new PM should go to the country. They (like TM did) may want a radically different direction from their predecessor, even though they come the same party. They may also feel constrained (like TM did over the National Insurance pledge) by the previous manifesto that no longer applies.

    Whilst I certainly don't disagree Johnson is our PM, and legitimately, I feel a new PM should always go to the country as soon as reasonably possible after taking the role on. Either May, June or October.
    It's why I felt TM should've gone for a October 2016 election.

    I therefore agree with Johnson trying for an October 2019 election. Here, its the opposition who have prevented this (and the FTPA).
    May repeatedly said she would not call a GE.

    Then suddenly after 9 months she did.

    Reasons for calling an immediate general election, No 100.

    There are hundreds of thousands of people now represented by MPs who have defected from the parties they were elected to represent.

    Those MPs lied. They were elected on a platform on which they subsequently reneged.

    UKIP are an unpleasant racist joke. But, the MPs who defected to UKIP (Cardwell & reckless) at least had the courage to fight a by-election.

    Unlike the defectors in this shabby Parliament.
    Aye. It's something pretty hard to stomach.
    UKIP! UKIP of all parties, are the only party in recent memory to require their defectors to stand in a by-election if they cross the floor. The Lib Dems certainly haven't, and nor did ChangeUK. Nor any of those that went independent.

    It's pretty bad when your democratic credentials read, "We love democracy so much, we're nearly as democratic as UKIP."
    Tell me about it. But we do have Dr. Sarah Wollaston. If we'd had a by-election every time she flipped party, w'd have the BBC by-election studio built in Totnes town centre....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685

    AndyJS said:

    viewcode said:


    And youre going to Belfast ??? :smiley: : )

    First weekend of March next year.

    I'm spending five whole days in Belfast.

    PS - What's the best option of getting to Belfast from England that doesn't involve flying on Ryanair or Easyjet?
    Where are you based? (region will do)
    I'm in the desolate North, but I'm in easy range of Sheffield, Leeds, and Manchester.
    That sounds suspiciously like the South to me.
    He lives in Derbyshire I think. The Peak District? Do you count that as southern?
    Derbyshire is the Midlands, not the north or south. Where did this obsession with dividing the country into two blocs come from?
    Not from me. I was asking him!
    I was born and raised in the Midlands to be fair.
  • Interesting graph here of fires in Brazil:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49753210

    I wonder if those people frothing about Bolsonaro had anything to say during all the earlier years.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.

    They have to ask because they might need to offer remedies in their judgement . So what the PM says could effect what those remedies are .

    The fact so much time was spent discussing remedies this afternoon shows how difficult a job they have .

    The judges don’t want to be seen to be dictating to the Commons and would rather avoid making any suggestions bar it’s upto the Commons and PM now to solve this .

    Unfortunately the recent behaviour of the PM and his advisers means if they find unlawful then they might have to get more involved .
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,387
    In case anyone's interested, these are the Conservative target seats for the Canadian election on 21st October:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvUclj6Tz6TRkVFtfBsGcsfCuHJN6awGpwIjfFPg1Yk/edit#gid=0
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,805
    edited September 2019
    Showing Boris how to do it.

    https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1174691016936439810?s=20

    Though obviously those Luxembourg protestors were a far more threatening kettle of fish.

    https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1174691289645891584?s=20
  • Parts of Derbyshire are next door to Manchester.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,623

    Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
    I thought the full quote was ....couldn't organise a pregnancy on a Liverpool council estate
  • Roger said:

    Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
    I thought the full quote was ....couldn't organise a pregnancy on a Liverpool council estate
    1) I would like to be able to go back to Liverpool.

    2) Boris Johnson has history with Liverpool, so it understandable if he couldn't organise one there.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 679
    MIKE, ar these figures right, from eberyting I have read and been told headline figures are in fact CON 33, Lab 24, LIB DEM 23, BREXIT 10, GREEN 4, NATS 4
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477

    Parts of Derbyshire are next door to Manchester.

    We’re going to build a wall. And Sheffield and Manchester are going to pay for it.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093

    Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.

    They are trying to find out how much of a minefield they are entering
    Yes, because Miller/Cherry seek only a declaration of illegality, rather than a substantive remedy, the judges are concerned to know exactly what the parties would do if the declaration were so given. They are also looking into what form that declaration could take.

    It explains why Pannick's reply was 'just declare illegality and leave the rest to Parliament' and why the Government's written submissions were very specific that prorogation comprises three interlinked parts and what a declaration of illegality would mean to each part. HMG submissions are that any declaration has profound political fallout, claimant is saying the courts can wash their hands of it if they make the declaration.

    There might be, very rarely, times when a court should make a novel finding of law and extend its jurisdiction and constitutional reach into the political. There ought to be times when the court is prepared to make inferences about a litigant's motives. There might even be times when a court is prepared to come to judgment on illegality of advice pointedly silent about whether it affects the legality of the following actions. But I don't think they should take all three steps together.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,735
    edited September 2019
    nico67 said:

    Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.

    They have to ask because they might need to offer remedies in their judgement . So what the PM says could effect what those remedies are .

    The fact so much time was spent discussing remedies this afternoon shows how difficult a job they have .

    The judges don’t want to be seen to be dictating to the Commons and would rather avoid making any suggestions bar it’s upto the Commons and PM now to solve this .

    Unfortunately the recent behaviour of the PM and his advisers means if they find unlawful then they might have to get more involved .
    Any constitutional case involving the PM personally is extremely sensitive. The SC will not want to get into the arena of political judgement but will not want their decisions being made a monkey of, for example by the fact that HM the Queen (who sensible people believe should be absolutely out of all this) has to take the advice of the PM so that if the SC say the prorogation is void he could just do it all again in obvious defiance of the spirit of a judgement.

    But because he is the PM and his office worthy of the highest respect the SC will be reluctant to make orders which bind him in ways which appear to make him look like a juvenile delinquent. (Even if he is).

    I still think they are likely to say that they have jurisdiction, but the facts fall short of requiring intervention - though I must admit their questions today certainly made it look like the government will lose.



  • Drutt said:

    Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.

    They are trying to find out how much of a minefield they are entering
    Yes, because Miller/Cherry seek only a declaration of illegality, rather than a substantive remedy, the judges are concerned to know exactly what the parties would do if the declaration were so given. They are also looking into what form that declaration could take.

    It explains why Pannick's reply was 'just declare illegality and leave the rest to Parliament' and why the Government's written submissions were very specific that prorogation comprises three interlinked parts and what a declaration of illegality would mean to each part. HMG submissions are that any declaration has profound political fallout, claimant is saying the courts can wash their hands of it if they make the declaration.

    There might be, very rarely, times when a court should make a novel finding of law and extend its jurisdiction and constitutional reach into the political. There ought to be times when the court is prepared to make inferences about a litigant's motives. There might even be times when a court is prepared to come to judgment on illegality of advice pointedly silent about whether it affects the legality of the following actions. But I don't think they should take all three steps together.
    nico67 said:

    Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.

    They have to ask because they might need to offer remedies in their judgement . So what the PM says could effect what those remedies are .

    The fact so much time was spent discussing remedies this afternoon shows how difficult a job they have .

    The judges don’t want to be seen to be dictating to the Commons and would rather avoid making any suggestions bar it’s upto the Commons and PM now to solve this .

    Unfortunately the recent behaviour of the PM and his advisers means if they find unlawful then they might have to get more involved .
    Cheers for explanatory replies - appreciated.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    In other news iOS 13 has been released tonight. Lovely.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited September 2019
    TGOHF said:
    If there DOES happen to be a deal and Johnson DOES manage to get it through Parliament, the Lib Dems in particular are going to feel a bit annoyed that they didn’t press for an election in October.

    I do think there are probably many on the Remain side who have overestimated the extent to which EU leaders (as opposed to, say, the likes of the Belgian MEP whose name temporarily escapes me) are supportive of their general approach, and would far rather they had just voted for the deal months ago...
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Just been reading , apparently convention is the SC judges get together and debate the case with the first to put forward their view and their conclusions the newest judge which happens to be Lord Sales .

    Given his previous writings and view of the constitution and law I’d be shocked if he supported the government.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,685
    alex. said:

    TGOHF said:
    If there DOES happen to be a deal and Johnson DOES manage to get it through Parliament, the Lib Dems in particular are going to feel a bit annoyed that they didn’t press for an election in October.
    Why? They will then be the only UK party campaigning for either EEA and therefore free movement of people long term or more unlikely, rejoin. The Tories will continue to be canabilised by the Brexit Party and Labour will still be in a mess.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    alex. said:

    TGOHF said:
    If there DOES happen to be a deal and Johnson DOES manage to get it through Parliament, the Lib Dems in particular are going to feel a bit annoyed that they didn’t press for an election in October.
    That would be genuinely hilarious. Especially if the Tory rebels returned along with the majority.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    I met James Cleverly today for the first time.

    He is a really, really good pick as Conservative Party Chairman.

    He also said that we will get a deal.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited September 2019
    Floater said:
    To be fair, I don't think anyone else understands what Labour's Brexit policy is either, other than "vote against the Tories"
  • Andrew said:

    Floater said:
    To be fair, I don't think anyone else understands what Labour's Brexit policy is either, other than "vote against the Tories"
    Maybe not - but that is a seriously bad interview when he displays even a basic grasp of his own policy.

    There is not doing detail and then there is being dense.
  • I met James Cleverly today for the first time.

    He is a really, really good pick as Conservative Party Chairman.

    He also said that we will get a deal.

    Blimey, strike a light, there's a turn up for the books and no mistake.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    Looks like Scotland would have voted for independence if the Queen hadn't "raised her eyebrow a quarter of an inch". Gosh. Quite a thought.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,215
    Evening all :)

    Some decent polls for the LDs today but it is Conference season and we see these variations each week - in the end, nine years out of ten, it reverts pretty much to what the polling was before the Conference season started.

    As for Jo's ratings, it's no surprise the Leavers don't like her - I'd have been astonished if they did. This is not the party of Ashdown or Kennedy when the LDs could be all things to all people and reach across the political divide. That Party is gone - it died in the fires of the Coalition - thought you wouldn't know it reading some of the ill-informed nonsense from the usual suspects.

    The LDs are a different Party with a sharper focus which by its nature limits their appeal but perhaps strengthens the core base - we'll see.

    The Conservative line continues to be that there will be a Deal - the line is simple, both the UK and the EU are looking into the No Deal abyss and will step back. Johnson doesn't have that option as he is blocked from a 31/10 crash out. That means a Deal equals his own political preservation and we can see how much he enjoys being PM (as most of them do) so the push for a Deal will become manic.

    The question is whether he can sell the next box of fudge any more successfully than his predecessor.

    The other question is whether Johnson can hold together both those who actively want to crash out without a Deal and those who oppose No Deal but are still within the Conservative tent.

    I had a thought on the way home - let's suppose Boris gets his Deal and it comes into effect on 31/10 and he goes for an election but doesn't get a majority. The new Government could negotiate a Political Declaration which would be tantamount to a request to rejoin on 1/1/21. Were that to be accepted, the transition period would end and the next day we'd go back in.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,551
    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    The Tories are fairly clear too. As the voters asked, Brexit.

    Labour though must have odd fence-posts imprints on their buttocks. The 2nd referendum idea everyone knows is hopeless. The idea that they'd do a deal and then oppose their own deal is just strange. I think its very interesting that they are in a maze of their own making.

  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Not sure the EU are in the mood now to have the UK staying in and remaining in a constant state of internal warfare over Brexit .

    It could be a deal does happen and the election is fought over more domestic issues but also with a view to what the future relationship might be with the EU .

  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    algarkirk said:

    nico67 said:

    Would someone explain to me why the judge(s) at the Supreme Court asked this week what the Prime Minister would do if he lost this case and demanding an answer. Surely that is spurious to their function in this case and need not be answered?
    Apologies is this has been raised....haven't read through recent posts. Thanks.

    They have to ask because they might need to offer remedies in their judgement . So what the PM says could effect what those remedies are .

    The fact so much time was spent discussing remedies this afternoon shows how difficult a job they have .

    The judges don’t want to be seen to be dictating to the Commons and would rather avoid making any suggestions bar it’s upto the Commons and PM now to solve this .

    Unfortunately the recent behaviour of the PM and his advisers means if they find unlawful then they might have to get more involved .
    Any constitutional case involving the PM personally is extremely sensitive. The SC will not want to get into the arena of political judgement but will not want their decisions being made a monkey of, for example by the fact that HM the Queen (who sensible people believe should be absolutely out of all this) has to take the advice of the PM so that if the SC say the prorogation is void he could just do it all again in obvious defiance of the spirit of a judgement.

    But because he is the PM and his office worthy of the highest respect the SC will be reluctant to make orders which bind him in ways which appear to make him look like a juvenile delinquent. (Even if he is).

    I still think they are likely to say that they have jurisdiction, but the facts fall short of requiring intervention - though I must admit their questions today certainly made it look like the government will lose.



    I have to disagree. If the court finds it has got jurisdiction to draw a line, I think it will say the PM has overstepped it. Hale and Reed are both real purposive (if not quite teleological) types and I think they will consider jurisdiction and legality in the round. Carnwath and Sales probably at the other end.

    Of course, if they are looking at *everything* in the round, the difficulties in drawing a declaration that doesn't go against A9 of the Bill of Rights could well weigh on their decisions as to legality and jurisdiction.

    Anyway, tune in next week to see why I do commercial property and not constitutional law
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    nico67 said:

    Not sure the EU are in the mood now to have the UK staying in and remaining in a constant state of internal warfare over Brexit .

    It could be a deal does happen and the election is fought over more domestic issues but also with a view to what the future relationship might be with the EU .

    Battle moves to Remainer MPs trying to avoid a vote on a deal by VONCing Boris and installing a puppet who will scrap the deal without a vote and go for revoke or referendum.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    alex. said:

    TGOHF said:
    If there DOES happen to be a deal and Johnson DOES manage to get it through Parliament, the Lib Dems in particular are going to feel a bit annoyed that they didn’t press for an election in October.
    Why? They will then be the only UK party campaigning for either EEA and therefore free movement of people long term or more unlikely, rejoin. The Tories will continue to be canabilised by the Brexit Party and Labour will still be in a mess.
    Because they are strongly motivated by not just stopping no deal, but stopping Brexit. And (with hindsight) they will have missed their chance to stop it. Also I think much of their current support is buttressed by Conservatives horrified at the prospect of no deal and Govt toying with it. But not actively in favour of remain (except as an alternative to no deal). If it actually doesn't materialise then many will return (especially as threat of Corbyn will then become their driving motivation, uncomplicated by Brexit). And I can't see that the Lib Dems will secure more seats post Brexit than before it. Much of their attraction will have disappeared.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,900



    What if the party leadership changed? What if the manifesto said "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe" but the new party leader wanted to crash out and engage in zero (or negative) sum parlour games with our neighbours instead?

    Why are the MPs who want to stand by the manifesto the "liars" instead of blaming the leadership who want to crash out without a mandate?

    Clearly MPs have the right to leave their parties in such scenarios.

    Let us take Brexit out of the equation.

    In the Welsh Assembly, my AM defected from his party in 2016. I voted for him because I wanted to vote for the party he then represented.

    The AM refused to trigger a by-election.

    I think if you change your party label, it is only fair & honest to resign and re-fight.

    In fact, it is almost certainly in the interests of many of these defectors to fight a by-election, as they will have a better chance of holding in the General Election if they first won the easier by-election.

    I expect 90 per cent of the defectors to lose at a General Election.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    Andrew said:

    Floater said:
    To be fair, I don't think anyone else understands what Labour's Brexit policy is either, other than "vote against the Tories"
    Maybe not - but that is a seriously bad interview when he displays even a basic grasp of his own policy.

    There is not doing detail and then there is being dense.
    This is nothing new - the fundamental contradiction of Labour's policy on the backstop has always existed. It was always a nonsense since they started asking about the Attorney General legal advice. They opposed the backstop ostensibly because the legal advice said it 'trapped' us in a Customs Union - which their policy was to make permanent!


  • Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Telegraph journo is /deeply/ unimpressed with HMG today:

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1174624712288284672

    True to form for Peter Foster. It's a surprise he works for the Telegraph he is always a strong Europhile who is horrified at anything the government might do that suggests any form of actual Brexit. See the horror at Canada proposal in that Tweet. A Canadian style deal has been the logical outcome all along but nevermind let's just be horrified instead when the government seeks to honour its commitments.
    Are you redefining "logical" to mean your preference?
    Unless you are redefining "you" to mean Michel Barnier then no. Michel Barnier recognised Canada as the logical outcome years ago as presented in this slide by Barnier to the EU27:
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/slide_presented_by_barnier_at_euco_15-12-2017.pdf

    He put a big green tick under Canada as respecting all the UK's red lines.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    If there is a deal then it is up to those elected as conservative and DUP MPs to pass it, no one else it’s up to them
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,215
    Omnium said:

    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    Indeed. We've had a GE since the election as well yet you'd think listening to some there had been no votes and no democracy since 2016.

    As has been said, had Labour won the 1983 GE we'd have come out of the EEC without a referendum.

    As has also been said, parties claiming they would uphold the result of the 2016 referendum won the overwhelming majority of seats at the 2017 GE.

    The notion any major decision now requires a referendum is superficially attractive but we now see the result.

    The LD position of revocation with a majority is analogous to Cameron's position of only promising a referendum if he won a majority in 2015. I suppose the LDs might actively look forward to a majority and revocation while I suspect Cameron wasn't convinced he'd win the 2015 GE and the result would let him off the hook while holding the Conservative Party together.

    There is of course nothing stopping the future manifestos of other parties making such bold commitments but it would be explicit within said manifesto.
  • nichomar said:

    If there is a deal then it is up to those elected as conservative and DUP MPs to pass it, no one else it’s up to them

    No there are 639 voting MPs in the Commons.

    Every one of those MPs has to vote according to what they think is best for the country. Unless you think they should put partisan politics above what is best for the country. Do you?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,551



    I think if you change your party label, it is only fair & honest to resign and re-fight.

    Switching from party x to independent is, I think, fair enough. Switching to another party, and particularly if that party contested the seat should force a bye-election.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Omnium said:

    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    The Tories are fairly clear too. As the voters asked, Brexit.

    Labour though must have odd fence-posts imprints on their buttocks. The 2nd referendum idea everyone knows is hopeless. The idea that they'd do a deal and then oppose their own deal is just strange. I think its very interesting that they are in a maze of their own making.

    Labour have discovered that the secret to getting out a maze is, when confronted with a choice, always turn to the left......
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    If there is a deal then it is up to those elected as conservative and DUP MPs to pass it, no one else it’s up to them

    No there are 639 voting MPs in the Commons.

    Every one of those MPs has to vote according to what they think is best for the country. Unless you think they should put partisan politics above what is best for the country. Do you?
    How many of them had any say or influence in structuring the deal? It’s a Tory brexit and tories have to vote it through.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,795
    alex. said:

    TGOHF said:
    If there DOES happen to be a deal and Johnson DOES manage to get it through Parliament, the Lib Dems in particular are going to feel a bit annoyed that they didn’t press for an election in October.

    I do think there are probably many on the Remain side who have overestimated the extent to which EU leaders (as opposed to, say, the likes of the Belgian MEP whose name temporarily escapes me) are supportive of their general approach, and would far rather they had just voted for the deal months ago...
    Brexit isn't the only driver in increased LD support. Many see both the main parties as having been taken over by hardline unrepresentative groups. Sorting out Bexit doesn't actually alter that. Swinson's main USP is that she is not Corbyn and she is not Bozo.
  • nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    If there is a deal then it is up to those elected as conservative and DUP MPs to pass it, no one else it’s up to them

    No there are 639 voting MPs in the Commons.

    Every one of those MPs has to vote according to what they think is best for the country. Unless you think they should put partisan politics above what is best for the country. Do you?
    How many of them had any say or influence in structuring the deal? It’s a Tory brexit and tories have to vote it through.
    498. That's how many voted to trigger Article 50 which means we leave with or without a deal.

    Those 498 now either need to agree a deal, or we leave without one. Their choice. Simply representing a different party doesn't excuse you from doing your job.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,061
    Obviously Benn means that Johnson would be in court immediately he fails to comply with the Act, not in November after we've left the EU.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,900
    OllyT said:



    Swinson's main USP is that she is not Corbyn and she is not Bozo.

    If so, then the LibDems need an election urgently, before one of Bozo or Corbyn falls down a mineshaft.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,061
    OllyT said:

    alex. said:

    TGOHF said:
    If there DOES happen to be a deal and Johnson DOES manage to get it through Parliament, the Lib Dems in particular are going to feel a bit annoyed that they didn’t press for an election in October.

    I do think there are probably many on the Remain side who have overestimated the extent to which EU leaders (as opposed to, say, the likes of the Belgian MEP whose name temporarily escapes me) are supportive of their general approach, and would far rather they had just voted for the deal months ago...
    Brexit isn't the only driver in increased LD support. Many see both the main parties as having been taken over by hardline unrepresentative groups. Sorting out Bexit doesn't actually alter that. Swinson's main USP is that she is not Corbyn and she is not Bozo.
    Also not Clegg, Farron or Cable.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    No we have to extend if no deal by 19/10 then we can see where we get to it is a Tory brexit designed to save the Tory party and nothing else. If the Conservative party and their chums in the DUP want a deal they have to vote for it.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    OllyT said:

    alex. said:

    TGOHF said:
    If there DOES happen to be a deal and Johnson DOES manage to get it through Parliament, the Lib Dems in particular are going to feel a bit annoyed that they didn’t press for an election in October.

    I do think there are probably many on the Remain side who have overestimated the extent to which EU leaders (as opposed to, say, the likes of the Belgian MEP whose name temporarily escapes me) are supportive of their general approach, and would far rather they had just voted for the deal months ago...
    Brexit isn't the only driver in increased LD support. Many see both the main parties as having been taken over by hardline unrepresentative groups. Sorting out Bexit doesn't actually alter that. Swinson's main USP is that she is not Corbyn and she is not Bozo.
    If Junker and Boris cobble a deal together how will that impact on BJ, JC and JS in trend of your last sentence?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,216

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    If there is a deal then it is up to those elected as conservative and DUP MPs to pass it, no one else it’s up to them

    No there are 639 voting MPs in the Commons.

    Every one of those MPs has to vote according to what they think is best for the country. Unless you think they should put partisan politics above what is best for the country. Do you?
    How many of them had any say or influence in structuring the deal? It’s a Tory brexit and tories have to vote it through.
    498. That's how many voted to trigger Article 50 which means we leave with or without a deal.

    Those 498 now either need to agree a deal, or we leave without one. Their choice. Simply representing a different party doesn't excuse you from doing your job.
    If May had reached across the aisle to create a Brexit that a majority of those MPs could agree on I’d be right with you. But she didn’t - she told half of them to get knotted & then went off and created a Brexit that her own party refused to pass.

    Now it’s revoke or no deal, unless Johnson can pull something out of the proverbial hat.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,551

    Omnium said:

    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    The Tories are fairly clear too. As the voters asked, Brexit.

    Labour though must have odd fence-posts imprints on their buttocks. The 2nd referendum idea everyone knows is hopeless. The idea that they'd do a deal and then oppose their own deal is just strange. I think its very interesting that they are in a maze of their own making.

    Labour have discovered that the secret to getting out a maze is, when confronted with a choice, always turn to the left......
    Their maze is certainly fractal .

    The "distance to Hilary Benn" is surely their string.

    Unfortunately the problem is now NP hard! However there is an available mathematical resource to the party who is NP!

  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,816
    Andrew said:
    Oh I'm sure they are all completely sick to death of the UK and Brexit. But hey, in 20 years maybe, when most of the gammon are dead we can rejoin and have a big laugh about it all ;)
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    All a mistake Gov - honestly

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/stephen-sizer-invited-to-gaza-fundraiser-by-momentum-1.488894

    If you read it you will see Baroness Tonge gets a mention too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    edited September 2019
    Breaking: Trudeau can't remember how many times he wore blackface.

    The race is on to remind him.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49763805
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    CatMan said:

    Andrew said:
    Oh I'm sure they are all completely sick to death of the UK and Brexit. But hey, in 20 years maybe, when most of the gammon are dead we can rejoin and have a big laugh about it all ;)
    Classy
  • MJWMJW Posts: 779
    Omnium said:

    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    The Tories are fairly clear too. As the voters asked, Brexit.

    Labour though must have odd fence-posts imprints on their buttocks. The 2nd referendum idea everyone knows is hopeless. The idea that they'd do a deal and then oppose their own deal is just strange. I think its very interesting that they are in a maze of their own making.

    I think you're right but for a different reason. I think Labour will just about emerge with their fudge intact. Not least because they can have some MPs saying one thing, and others saying another. Meanwhile, Corbyn and McDonnell, generally speaking, are ok on Brexit in the highly structured environment and interviews of a conference - it's responding to events where they come unstuck.

    The dog that will bark however, is the crankery and antisemitism. It's in Brighton, the spiritual home of Momentum's finest cranks. There's a debate on antisemitism scheduled on the sabbath, and the far left are pretty open now about what they want with attempts at deselections and emergency motions.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,061

    Breaking: Trudeau can't remember how many times he wore blackface.

    The race is on to remind him.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49763805

    But he was anxious to assure the electorate that he would walk a million miles for one of their smiles.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    I'm guessing not Luxembourg........
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568
    TGOHF said:
    Will the pesky MPs actually vote for it through?
  • Gabs2 said:

    Freggles said:

    Flavible model for the Ipsos Mori poll:https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2296

    Can't see it happening but would result in popcorn shortages. Pidcock loses her seat to LDs and the Tories win Hartlepool :lol:

    I'm assuming Ipsos don't prompt for BXP

    Flavible seems ridiculously Lib Dem friendly. A 10 point poll lead resulting in a Hung Parliament and a record number of Lib Dems seems counterintuitive to me.
    The map seems unbelievable. I can see them getting a bunch of Remainer Tory seats in the home counties but Berwick, north Norfolk and most the Westcountry? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
    Ireland is presumably one of them.
  • GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:
    Will the pesky MPs actually vote for it through?
    I very much doubt it. They are enjoying playing in the sandbox too much to actually care about the reality of their posturing.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477

    Breaking: Trudeau can't remember how many times he wore blackface.

    The race is on to remind him.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49763805

    How does the politics play in Canada? Are Liberal voters really going to say “blimey he was a racist all along, I’ll vote Tory”?

    I know you can’t draw too many parallels here but in Britain your think those offended would also be those least likely to vote Tory. Not sure how the NDP dimensions plays in over there though.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,551
    MJW said:

    Omnium said:

    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    The Tories are fairly clear too. As the voters asked, Brexit.

    Labour though must have odd fence-posts imprints on their buttocks. The 2nd referendum idea everyone knows is hopeless. The idea that they'd do a deal and then oppose their own deal is just strange. I think its very interesting that they are in a maze of their own making.

    I think you're right but for a different reason. I think Labour will just about emerge with their fudge intact. Not least because they can have some MPs saying one thing, and others saying another. Meanwhile, Corbyn and McDonnell, generally speaking, are ok on Brexit in the highly structured environment and interviews of a conference - it's responding to events where they come unstuck.

    The dog that will bark however, is the crankery and antisemitism. It's in Brighton, the spiritual home of Momentum's finest cranks. There's a debate on antisemitism scheduled on the sabbath, and the far left are pretty open now about what they want with attempts at deselections and emergency motions.
    I may need another popcorn truck. You're dead right.

  • GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:
    Will the pesky MPs actually vote for it through?
    They can't vote if Parliament is prorogued!
  • Andrew said:
    Wonder which four countries?

    Would guess Ireland as one.
  • The Jacob Rees-Mogg singalong
    More than twenty-five years later, some with knowledge of the appointment insist that Lloyd George took Rees-Mogg on only as a favour to his father.


    from Lord Ashcroft's biography of JRM, Jacob's Ladder.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:
    Will the pesky MPs actually vote for it through?
    I'm sure some would relish the idea of it having catastrophic consequences - in the EU.

    Especially if ground zero for such a catastrophe was Luxembourg.....
  • ab195 said:

    Breaking: Trudeau can't remember how many times he wore blackface.

    The race is on to remind him.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49763805

    How does the politics play in Canada? Are Liberal voters really going to say “blimey he was a racist all along, I’ll vote Tory”?

    I know you can’t draw too many parallels here but in Britain your think those offended would also be those least likely to vote Tory. Not sure how the NDP dimensions plays in over there though.
    I can't see it winning him votes. On top of the other scandals bubbling around him, it shows him to be a very different person inside to the one he likes to present to the world right now.

    Yes, people can change and things that were acceptable in the past are no longer seen the same way. But this is a pretty toxic image of poor choices. It is one thing to use make up as part of a performance (I have done have on a number of occasions) - and very different to do it for 'fun'.

    Will it be enough to unseat him? Probably not. Will it be harder to get the vote out for him? Oh yes.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568
    edited September 2019

    GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:
    Will the pesky MPs actually vote for it through?
    I very much doubt it. They are enjoying playing in the sandbox too much to actually care about the reality of their posturing.
    The only way I can see it getting through is if the EU make it clear there will be no further extensions.

    Its Boris's Deal or No Deal. Otherwise MPs will just carry on pissing about.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    ab195 said:

    Breaking: Trudeau can't remember how many times he wore blackface.

    The race is on to remind him.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49763805

    How does the politics play in Canada? Are Liberal voters really going to say “blimey he was a racist all along, I’ll vote Tory”?

    I know you can’t draw too many parallels here but in Britain your think those offended would also be those least likely to vote Tory. Not sure how the NDP dimensions plays in over there though.
    They'll just be less motivated to vote, differential turnout.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Omnium said:

    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    The Tories are fairly clear too. As the voters asked, Brexit.

    Labour though must have odd fence-posts imprints on their buttocks. The 2nd referendum idea everyone knows is hopeless. The idea that they'd do a deal and then oppose their own deal is just strange. I think its very interesting that they are in a maze of their own making.

    It is not so very different to Labour's position in advance of the 1974 elections - ie 'We reject the Heath terms - we will negotiate better terms - we will present the result to the people in a referendum or general election.' Labour was actually much more divided in the 1970s between ardent pro-Marketeers such as Jenkins, Williams and Owen - and commited Anti- Marketeers such as Benn, Foot, Castle, Shore and Silkin. Today the divisions relate far more to tactics and electoral calculation rather than the core issue of Europe itself.
  • Omnium said:

    MJW said:

    Omnium said:

    Labour conference could, and I think will, be huge for the LDs.

    I've long thought that their total self-imposed blindness to the referendum was simply anti-democratic. However they're now standing on a mandate that I'm completely fine with. If they get elected as the government then that trumps the referendum. (obviously there are quibbles there, but for me its enough)

    The Tories are fairly clear too. As the voters asked, Brexit.

    Labour though must have odd fence-posts imprints on their buttocks. The 2nd referendum idea everyone knows is hopeless. The idea that they'd do a deal and then oppose their own deal is just strange. I think its very interesting that they are in a maze of their own making.

    I think you're right but for a different reason. I think Labour will just about emerge with their fudge intact. Not least because they can have some MPs saying one thing, and others saying another. Meanwhile, Corbyn and McDonnell, generally speaking, are ok on Brexit in the highly structured environment and interviews of a conference - it's responding to events where they come unstuck.

    The dog that will bark however, is the crankery and antisemitism. It's in Brighton, the spiritual home of Momentum's finest cranks. There's a debate on antisemitism scheduled on the sabbath, and the far left are pretty open now about what they want with attempts at deselections and emergency motions.
    I may need another popcorn truck. You're dead right.

    Don't forget the joy of having Williamson, LIvingstone, Walker and all their fellow travellers doing lots of fringe events. The toxic wing of the Corbyn tribe will be out in force.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,795

    OllyT said:



    Swinson's main USP is that she is not Corbyn and she is not Bozo.

    If so, then the LibDems need an election urgently, before one of Bozo or Corbyn falls down a mineshaft.
    I don't see the ideological composition of either party membership changing any time soon, Bozo and Corbyn ae just the current personifications of what the Tories and Labour have now become. The main thing holding up the old pair is our archaic voting system.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    If there is a deal then it is up to those elected as conservative and DUP MPs to pass it, no one else it’s up to them

    No there are 639 voting MPs in the Commons.

    Every one of those MPs has to vote according to what they think is best for the country. Unless you think they should put partisan politics above what is best for the country. Do you?
    How many of them had any say or influence in structuring the deal? It’s a Tory brexit and tories have to vote it through.
    498. That's how many voted to trigger Article 50 which means we leave with or without a deal.

    Those 498 now either need to agree a deal, or we leave without one. Their choice. Simply representing a different party doesn't excuse you from doing your job.
    Different Parliament, though. This Parliament is not bound by decisions of the previous Parliament.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568

    GIN1138 said:

    TGOHF said:
    Will the pesky MPs actually vote for it through?
    They can't vote if Parliament is prorogued!
    They'll be back on 14th October (more's the pity) and the deal will be presented to Parliament after the 17th/18th October summit (probably on Monday 21st October)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    nichomar said:

    No we have to extend if no deal by 19/10 then we can see where we get to it is a Tory brexit designed to save the Tory party and nothing else. If the Conservative party and their chums in the DUP want a deal they have to vote for it.

    You aren't listening. All but four members want us to fuck off. Now. There will be no more extensions.

    Whatever deal we have after the EU gathering in mid-October is it. That - or no deal. Which is it, MPs? Given you have invested 98.7% of your political capital in telling us that No Deal = The End of Days, I think we can guess that they will fold and accept the deal.

    The Boris strategy is playing out beautifully.....
This discussion has been closed.