For those that don't think there is enough football...
UEFA confirm details of new third-tier competition alongside Champions League and Europa League. UEFA have confirmed their third club competition will be called the Europa Conference League, which will start in 2021.
Wasn’t Cameron’s greatest sin his resignation the day after the vote, having gone through the whole charade insisting he would stay on as PM and trigger article 50 immediately? Not only that, if he had said he would resign immediately if he lost the referendum, he might actually have won it?
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
It’s galling that Cameron still doesn’t seem to understand just how badly he got things wrong.
McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
He is much smarter and wilier than Corbyn. Thankfully, he has zero charisma. Even now I doubt half the country could identify him. He’s oddly anonymous, and when he is recognized he evokes yawns and shrugs.
Corbyn only gets away with his horrible Marxism, as much as he gets away with it, because he comes across as a twinkly eyed old geezer in a vest. Once Magic Grandpa has gone the far left project will be in desperate trouble. There’s no obvious successor. No one is going to sing “ohhh, John McDonnell”.
I've only be following this site cursorily....but you appear to write suspiciously like my old adversary seanT.....
Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.
Is he? Or is he saying he is, like he said he would release his tax returns?
I've read reports that the whistleblower complaint, that has already been vouched for by the Inspector General, involved multiple calls. So I can believe that the Trump Whitehouse might release the least damning call and claim it clears them; and the usual blather about it doesn't matter anyway as the President is above the law due to his executive powers.
Watergate was not an immediate slam dunk case, and involved a lot more than the burglary, but decades on only cranks think that Nixon was not a crook. I've no doubt that history will be even less kind to Trump.
The US is going to throw the book at Trump and his cronies...it's going to be a full on clean hands approach...it has to move on from this miserable period in its history with some kind of credibility
They do have a "book" to throw: the Constitution. But people are/were involved so it wriggles.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
He is much smarter and wilier than Corbyn. Thankfully, he has zero charisma. Even now I doubt half the country could identify him. He’s oddly anonymous, and when he is recognized he evokes yawns and shrugs.
Corbyn only gets away with his horrible Marxism, as much as he gets away with it, because he comes across as a twinkly eyed old geezer in a vest. Once Magic Grandpa has gone the far left project will be in desperate trouble. There’s no obvious successor. No one is going to sing “ohhh, John McDonnell”.
I've only be following this site cursorily....but you appear to write suspiciously like my old adversary seanT.....
McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
He is much smarter and wilier than Corbyn. Thankfully, he has zero charisma. Even now I doubt half the country could identify him. He’s oddly anonymous, and when he is recognized he evokes yawns and shrugs.
Corbyn only gets away with his horrible Marxism, as much as he gets away with it, because he comes across as a twinkly eyed old geezer in a vest. Once Magic Grandpa has gone the far left project will be in desperate trouble. There’s no obvious successor. No one is going to sing “ohhh, John McDonnell”.
I've only be following this site cursorily....but you appear to write suspiciously like my old adversary seanT.....
You’re not alone in making this association. I rebutted it a million times, but now I’ve given up. Indeed I take a kind of vicarious pride in the reflected glory.
Here are some more detailed implied probabilities from Betfair (small amount of rounding applied and some of these markets moved a bit while I was compiling so as ever DYOR).
Cumulative probabilities of Brexit/General Election (XXX = no market) By 31 Oct 2019: Any Brexit 19%; GE 2% By 30 Nov 2019: Any Brexit XXX; GE 37% By 31 Dec 2019: Any Brexit 33% (No Deal 18%, Deal 15%); GE 72% By 30 June 2020: Any Brexit 58%; GE XXX By 31 Dec 2020: Any Brexit 67%; GE 98% By 31 Dec 2021: Any Brexit 75%; GE 99%
GE before Brexit (or No Brexit): 82% 2nd referendum in 2019: 4% Article 50 revoked: 31%
GE most seats: Con 67%, Lab 22%, LD 7%, Other 4% GE majority: None 57%, Con 33%, Lab 7%, LD 2%, Brexit 1%
Chances of Brexit in Nov or Dec are apparently circa 14% (one in seven-ish). But what routes can lead to that?
Nov or Dec "crash out" presumably only possible (1) if there's an absurdly short extension offered, perhaps Macron throwing a wobbly with the clear message of "this is the last one" or (2) PM goes absolutely nuclear and withdraws UK from EU treaties. Neither impossible but both pretty outlandish.
Nov or Dec leave (with deal, perhaps May's put to the people, or Johnson's if he gets one) after referendum - would be a rush to get one held so soon, hence implied probability of a ref in 2019 is very low (4%) and anyway Leave would not be favourites to win.
So the bulk of the implied Nov/Dec Brexit probability must lie in parliament backing Brexit. I can see the scenario Hunt considered in the Tory leadership campaign: "deal not quite finalised by 31 Oct, brief extension gets taken and everything is sorted shortly thereafter". But this would require Johnson to discover that he doesn't want to die in a ditch after all (or a replacement Tory PM to be fast-tracked into place to get on with things), the hard work of a deal to be done (which many observers seem sceptical of, though a slightly reheated version of May's deal is possible) and there are enough votes in the HoC to get this deal through (which is where mere reheating gets into trouble, especially if the opposition smell blood). Alternatively, a snap GE with Tories (not necessarily under Johnson) doing well enough to finish negotiating a deal (if it's not already been done) and getting it through the HoC in quick time. But this doesn't seem to tally with the low implied probability of a Con majority, and would they be able to rush the work through if the extended deadline was in spring 2020 (easy to imagine hold-ups from negotiating partners even if there was control over the UK parliament). It isn't impossible eg a Labour win could lead to Brexit either, but seems unlikely to be done by the end of 2019 as they'd want to renegotiate first.
So I'm struggling to make sense of the Nov/Dec Brexit chances too.
For those that don't think there is enough football...
UEFA confirm details of new third-tier competition alongside Champions League and Europa League. UEFA have confirmed their third club competition will be called the Europa Conference League, which will start in 2021.
Unfair to say HM the Queen had been misled. Absolutely clear from para. 15 of the judgement the SC is making no such finding. Everyone should (but won't) calm down.
It's a very decent judgement and a useful weapon against arbitrary government; IMHO it is wrong in applying its powers to this circumstance - Boris was an idiot but not so egregious an idiot as to deserve nullifying his stupid prorogation.
Government case had no chance once it has lost on the principle, because it took the line that it was not interested in giving a rational account of why the prorogation was so long, so SC just jumped to a conclusion.
Not true. The SC upheld the Scottish decision, and that includes that Boris and JRM misled the Queen.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it
Care to offer a link to her saying they wouldn't provide confidence and supply to the Tories if the arithmetic makes that work?
Surprised that you confess to a lack of political comprehension but you are a cultist these days so I suppose that explains it.
Go on then. Having gone out on a limb to push revoke, explain to be how Swinson agrees to back up Johnson to deliver No Deal.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
Given the Midas touch gave Midas something he thought he wanted but the reality was a real letdown, it seems pretty apt.
Rees-Mogg perhaps the only person who comes out of this worse than #BoZo
I'm not a fan of banning private schools but I'd make an exception for Eton. How many more of these over-confident, incompetent, born-to-rule fuckwits do we have to endure, watching them tearing this great country of ours down while they tell us in their absurd accents that they are the best and the brightest, before we shut down the production line?
McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
He is much smarter and wilier than Corbyn. Thankfully, he has zero charisma. Even now I doubt half the country could identify him. He’s oddly anonymous, and when he is recognized he evokes yawns and shrugs.
Corbyn only gets away with his horrible Marxism, as much as he gets away with it, because he comes across as a twinkly eyed old geezer in a vest. Once Magic Grandpa has gone the far left project will be in desperate trouble. There’s no obvious successor. No one is going to sing “ohhh, John McDonnell”.
I've only be following this site cursorily....but you appear to write suspiciously like my old adversary seanT.....
Don't go there. We've done that one at length.
Sorry---I tend to read the thread leads (so have missed this discussion)...but this post of Byronic could only have been written by Sean Thomas. There is not a single person in the universe who could have written this text in any other way....
You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.
On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.
How does revoke make it go away exactly?
I don’t think it does. But that’s the way they seem to want to present it. “Revoke and forget it all happened”.
I know the electorate is dumb, but are they really dumb enough to believe that, after all that has happened since 2016, that if we revoke then the "losing" side will simply accept that they have been beaten and never speak of Brexit again?
McDonnell is far more dangerous. He isn't a moron and will have no issue in doing whatever is necessary to implement his Marxist vision.
He is much smarter and wilier than Corbyn. Thankfully, he has zero charisma. Even now I doubt half the country could identify him. He’s oddly anonymous, and when he is recognized he evokes yawns and shrugs.
Corbyn only gets away with his horrible Marxism, as much as he gets away with it, because he comes across as a twinkly eyed old geezer in a vest. Once Magic Grandpa has gone the far left project will be in desperate trouble. There’s no obvious successor. No one is going to sing “ohhh, John McDonnell”.
I've only be following this site cursorily....but you appear to write suspiciously like my old adversary seanT.....
Don't go there. We've done that one at length.
Its a total coincidence that Sean is also in Greece at the moment.
Seems it would not be wise for the Govt to persist with its current (unofficial) line linking the court decision to opposition to Brexit. People might increasingly come to the view that they should revise their previous support for implementing it....
At least Season 7 of The Crown will have strong material.
The way The Crown works is that we'll have an episode of family tension about the birth of baby Archie, with the Brexit melodrama being a bit of background colour to fill in the gaps of the family drama.
You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.
On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.
How does revoke make it go away exactly?
I don’t think it does. But that’s the way they seem to want to present it. “Revoke and forget it all happened”.
Yes, it is superficially appealing as long as the LDs are willing to present an overly optimistic vision of how things will be afterwards - they've learned that lesson from the Leave campaign at least.
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.
On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.
How does revoke make it go away exactly?
I don’t think it does. But that’s the way they seem to want to present it. “Revoke and forget it all happened”.
I know the electorate is dumb, but are they really dumb enough to believe that, after all that has happened since 2016, that if we revoke then the "losing" side will simply accept that they have been beaten and never speak of Brexit again?
Should I join the LibDems then? It's the logical conclusion to my deliberations
We have travelled down the same road albeit at at different speeds. I left the Labour Party not too long after Corbyn took over. Becoming a registered supporter of the LDs rather than a full member might be the answer, it's what I am going to do.
I was not aware that people could register as 'Tory Little Helpers'.
Please. The best helper for getting a Tory majority is Corbyn and his band of Stalinists.
The Tory/LibDem Coaltion - and the lack of a clear alternative to Austerity from Milliband - was the main recruiter for Corbyn. Post 2015 GE I have always blamed Harriet Harman as Acting Leader - rather than Margaret Beckett - for generating the momentum which led to his Leadership - by her decision to force the Shadow Cabinet abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals.
The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it
That only applies to Brexit . Beyond that the LibDems are likely to continue to espouse the Neoliberalism of the Coalition period. Swinson seems to come from the Orange Book wing of the party.
Wasn’t Cameron’s greatest sin his resignation the day after the vote, having gone through the whole charade insisting he would stay on as PM and trigger article 50 immediately? Not only that, if he had said he would resign immediately if he lost the referendum, he might actually have won it?
If Cameron had said he'd resign in the event of losing, he'd have handed a very tempting incentive for left-wingers to vote leave... which is why he didn't, presumably.
He isn't, he won't. He'll lose them if he writes that letter. Going to prison would be superior to his electoral chances compared to signing off the Benn letter.
Yep. Given I am sure he won't be going to prison, and he cannot sign the letter, however unlikely other alternatives they must be where the answer lies.
I think people should also have been tested on this. I don't believe 29% of people really understand Labour's position....in fact I am not sure 29% of the Labour Party do.
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
This seems like quite a significant poll to me. Remain has been mostly ahead of late. Here’s Leave with a ten point lead. Sobering for 2nd referendum Remainers.
Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.
Is he? Or is he saying he is, like he said he would release his tax returns?
I've read reports that the whistleblower complaint, that has already been vouched for by the Inspector General, involved multiple calls. So I can believe that the Trump Whitehouse might release the least damning call and claim it clears them; and the usual blather about it doesn't matter anyway as the President is above the law due to his executive powers.
Watergate was not an immediate slam dunk case, and involved a lot more than the burglary, but decades on only cranks think that Nixon was not a crook. I've no doubt that history will be even less kind to Trump.
The US is going to throw the book at Trump and his cronies...it's going to be a full on clean hands approach...it has to move on from this miserable period in its history with some kind of credibility
Wut? The Republican party is still stuffed with people who think Nixon was hard done by and that all the criminals that aided him are heroes who deserve to be on the Supreme Court.
I don’t think democrats will move to impeach, it’s not certain they will, they can ramp it up to cause embarrassment and pressure and get to the truth.
But it’s not certain Trump did hold back aid and link it to investigating Biden in a phone call, because if he did he would be crazy to publish the full transcript of the call wouldn’t he?
If it gets bogged down in an aid flying over there and what did or didn’t say, then Democrats don’t have nearly enough to impeach.
More interestingly what does this do for Biden, in the news, the wronged man, so a polling booster? Or is he really so clean and untainted by this or is Trump successful in killing off a dangerous opponent.
Presumably most remainers are very happy, plus a number of leavers who don't like the government seeming to act unlawfully and don't like the idea of attacking judges. Asking if people agree with the decision is still dumb.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
You know: the law, the truth, the economy... wishy-washy stuff like that.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
But they went on to say that in such circumstances they would give any PM considerable leeway in any reasons offered for a prorogation out of the ordinary. It’s just that in this case, the government offered none - even at the final appeal stage, having been given every opportunity to do so.
To have then found in favour of the government would have been to grant future governments arbitrary and unchallengeable power to prorogue for extended periods of time.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
Corporatism. The religion of GDP growth. The focus on London.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
Easily resolved by parliament legislating the grounds under which prorogation is allowed.
Not to worry Comres managed another push poll question where 60% say MPs have had enough time to debate Brexit and they should get on with it. I’m a Remainer but yes they can get on with it as long as it happens with a deal . That however wasn’t asked !
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
I would have been perfectly content had the SC ruled that the matter was not justiciable. I wouldn't like that the PM had such unfettered authority, but if that was what the court said the law was, fine (and said so in advance). But people have openly stated the judges are lefty remainers based on their decision, the inverse of which is that they would be righty brexiteers if they had ruled the other way, and that sort of view is just plain bonkers.
It's also just plain improbable given the decision was unanimous that they all share the exact same political leanings - it feels like a line based on assuming there's be some 'good' judges dissenting to show how the majority were remainiac lefties. But even the ones who sided with the government on A50 didn't this time.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
The country is still divided between three options. It's always been the case that if you add two of those options together you have more support than the third option alone.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
Corporatism. The religion of GDP growth. The focus on London.
Food standards, workers protections, the environment, the unity of the Kingdom more like!
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
This seems like quite a significant poll to me. Remain has been mostly ahead of late. Here’s Leave with a ten point lead. Sobering for 2nd referendum Remainers.
Well maybe it will make Brexiteers see sense an support a deal subject ot a confirmatory referendum.
Not to worry Comres managed another push poll question where 60% say MPs have had enough time to debate Brexit and they should get on with it. I’m a Remainer but yes they can get on with it as long as it happens with a deal . That however wasn’t asked !
“the findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU”
You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.
On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.
How does revoke make it go away exactly?
I don’t think it does. But that’s the way they seem to want to present it. “Revoke and forget it all happened”.
Apologies to everyone fed up with me spamming the thread re Betfair's implied probabilties. But one thing that jumped out at me was how they suggest should article 50 be revoked, there's a roughly 1 in 5 chance the revocation is followed by Brexit before 2022 anyway
(This may be a mistake in my maths or an inconsistency between Betfair markets rather than a reasonable estimate of this conditional probability, though.)
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
Well Johnson can fix it after the election then. And given his wheeze to bypass parliament failed anyway, perhaps he shouldn't have bothered going down this route in the first place!
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
The country is still divided between three options. It's always been the case that if you add two of those options together you have more support than the third option alone.
It looks like there was only two options. Leave on the 31st, or don't.
I think people should also have been tested on this. I don't believe 29% of people really understand Labour's position....in fact I am not sure 29% of the Labour Party do.
Sorts of begs the question of what the policy would have to be for any party to get anything like 75-80% and over.
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
The country is still divided between three options. It's always been the case that if you add two of those options together you have more support than the third option alone.
It looks like there was only two options. Leave on the 31st, or don't.
In fairness those do appear to be our options, If we haven't left by then, I am convinced we never will. And given their increasing confidence, I think the remainers in parliament agree.
There was recently some discussion about employment changes in individual US states and someone (Foxy ??) wondered what the corresponding UK situation would be.
Well after looking at more than enough ONS data these are the changes in employment and unemployment rates in the three years since the Referendum:
With the overall UK employment rate increasing by 1.6% and unemployment rate decreasing by 1.1%.
Which means that the West Midlands, South West and Northern Ireland have done better than average on both employment and unemployment rates while East Midlands, East, South East, Wales and Scotland have done worse than average on both measures.
This doesn't give any indication as to variations within each region.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
Well Johnson can fix it after the election then. And given his wheeze to bypass parliament failed anyway, perhaps he shouldn't have bothered going down this route in the first place!
I think that will be necessary. We now need a statue to regulate the use of the prerogative. That is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Boris failed the implied term of reasonableness in the use of his powers. Our PMs should be better than that.
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
The country is still divided between three options. It's always been the case that if you add two of those options together you have more support than the third option alone.
It looks like there was only two options. Leave on the 31st, or don't.
The three options presented were "leave with no deal", "leave with a deal", or "remain".
Can anyone unearth that 'How Brexit will pan out' flowchart from earlier in the summer that had the "Boris will illegally try to prorogue parliament and be found out by the SC" box in it?
Not to worry Comres managed another push poll question where 60% say MPs have had enough time to debate Brexit and they should get on with it. I’m a Remainer but yes they can get on with it as long as it happens with a deal . That however wasn’t asked !
“the findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU”
Won’t make a blind bit of difference to opposition MPS. They know that have to get past 31 October and get an extension . It could backfire but it’s the only chance to keep the pro Brexit vote split .
Certainly the government need an election. They don’t have a majority. Months or even years of defeats, talking big then having their nuts cut off will thrash them to the bone. But is the lack of majority their fault, or May’s?
Going back to the infamous Daily Mail front page ‘Crush the saboteurs’. What if the polls, locals and Bi elections had told true story of the majority May would go on to win. Were saboteurs really remainers at that point, or was it the ERG/current government May wanted to ultimately crush with her big majority? She went early to country to crush those who are now the government, losing the majority they now need.
That’s why Corbyn’s speech today mattered. It was his most relaxed, self-confident speech since becoming leader. And after a conference dominated by infighting, the overall impression was that he was ready for the election fight - and relishing the idea of becoming "a different kind of prime minister".
The election will tell us whether 2017 was indeed "Peak Corbyn". But if he can somehow shift the narrative from a "People versus Parliament" election to a "The People versus Johnson" election, he could surprise everyone again.
---------
That stuff about his being unwell has evaporated...
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
Corporatism. The religion of GDP growth. The focus on London.
Ha! Well done. You got us. For a minute I thought you were serious.
Not to worry Comres managed another push poll question where 60% say MPs have had enough time to debate Brexit and they should get on with it. I’m a Remainer but yes they can get on with it as long as it happens with a deal . That however wasn’t asked !
“the findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU”
2016 didn’t leave it clear how much of the 52 would leave with no deal, how many only with the promised good deal, brexit dividend in money for stuff and sunlit uplands.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
You are writing as if every future prorogation will now be challenged in court. That obviously isn’t true, since the vast majority are routine. And even those that aren’t the test is basically that the Govt give a reason. Which they failed to do here.
There was recently some discussion about employment changes in individual US states and someone (Foxy ??) wondered what the corresponding UK situation would be.
Well after looking at more than enough ONS data these are the changes in employment and unemployment rates in the three years since the Referendum:
With the overall UK employment rate increasing by 1.6% and unemployment rate decreasing by 1.1%.
Which means that the West Midlands, South West and Northern Ireland have done better than average on both employment and unemployment rates while East Midlands, East, South East, Wales and Scotland have done worse than average on both measures.
This doesn't give any indication as to variations within each region.
It was me, but I was more interested in shorter term changes, perhaps quarterly, as a leading indicator of recession and where it is hitting. Inspired by this:
While I get that there will be an amount of success for Boris in continuing to play this as the people (him) vs the establishment (parliament and the judiciary), I am really confused as to what moves he can make (other than resigning) if he cannot get a deal, and then get that deal passed, neither of which is easy and the latter of which parliament has no incentive to do.
And more to the point, however righteously angry many leavers will be at parliament and the judiciary, and there will be a great many very angry, this just reminds me a bit of some of the Corbynite moaning about all the negative press he was getting for years - it was his job to overcome that, and to an extent he did. And Boris is indeed facing a lot of forces trying to prevent no deal, or any deal, and whether you think that is a good thing or not, what is his plan for overcoming those forces?
So far the plan appears to be to ignore that there is a problem. But that cannot last. He won't get an election while his polling is still decent, so what else has he got?
You have to think the LibDem “vote for me and I’ll make it all go away ticket by revoking” ticket is going to start to attract a lot of people. As is a Boris “show these bastards who’s boss” ticket. That Labour collapse has to be looking a touch more likely.
On topic, as implied by the thread header, I think the democrats need to be careful they don’t concentrate so much on this angle that they forget to critique his policies and the state of the country. It feels like this could be ok territory for Trump to fight on.
How does revoke make it go away exactly?
I don’t think it does. But that’s the way they seem to want to present it. “Revoke and forget it all happened”.
Apologies to everyone fed up with me spamming the thread re Betfair's implied probabilties. But one thing that jumped out at me was how they suggest should article 50 be revoked, there's a roughly 1 in 5 chance the revocation is followed by Brexit before 2022 anyway
(This may be a mistake in my maths or an inconsistency between Betfair markets rather than a reasonable estimate of this conditional probability, though.)
That doesn’t sound too wild to me. There must be a good chance of any revocation being done in a hurry as an emergency measure against a crash-out, with a wide acceptance that it’ll be followed by an attempt to do it a bit less shit next time.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
You are writing as if every future prorogation will now be challenged in court. That obviously isn’t true, since the vast majority are routine. And even those that aren’t the test is basically that the Govt give a reason. Which they failed to do here.
They gave a reason for the prorogation, but not a reason for the unusual length of the prorogation.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
Easily resolved by parliament legislating the grounds under which prorogation is allowed.
The damage to the reputation of impartiality of the SC will be less easily fixed. I fear the selection of future Justices is going to go down the American route which would be a hugely retrograde step.
Not to worry Comres managed another push poll question where 60% say MPs have had enough time to debate Brexit and they should get on with it. I’m a Remainer but yes they can get on with it as long as it happens with a deal . That however wasn’t asked !
“the findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU”
Won’t make a blind bit of difference to opposition MPS. They know that have to get past 31 October and get an extension . It could backfire but it’s the only chance to keep the pro Brexit vote split .
Yes. It's all they care about because after that date, if we're still in, Boris is fucked.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
Corporatism. The religion of GDP growth. The focus on London.
Are you reporting on a reason for the brexit vote or trying to stoke a whole new emotional division in our country encouraging northerners to hate those in the south?
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
Corporatism. The religion of GDP growth. The focus on London.
Ha! Well done. You got us. For a minute I thought you were serious.
It does sadden me that I’ve had to travel from the day after the referendum, when I thought some form of EEA compromise made sense, to wanting to see your lot in tears. And make no mistake, the impending victory for Remain will be temporary.
There was recently some discussion about employment changes in individual US states and someone (Foxy ??) wondered what the corresponding UK situation would be.
Well after looking at more than enough ONS data these are the changes in employment and unemployment rates in the three years since the Referendum:
With the overall UK employment rate increasing by 1.6% and unemployment rate decreasing by 1.1%.
Which means that the West Midlands, South West and Northern Ireland have done better than average on both employment and unemployment rates while East Midlands, East, South East, Wales and Scotland have done worse than average on both measures.
This doesn't give any indication as to variations within each region.
It was me, but I was more interested in shorter term changes, perhaps quarterly, as a leading indicator of recession and where it is hitting. Inspired by this:
“Highest respect for our independent judiciary” is about to become another Boris-bite like “friends and partners in Europe”.
Both conveying a deep annoyance usually reserved for stuff you stepped in on the pavement.
Indeed. It doesn't fool anyone to talk of highest respect while putting out words and actions which show anything but, so the truth of his position is clear even when he says the right thing.
A bit like saying prorogation was for one thing, when everything his own people were saying about it made it clear it was about something else. And confirmed by the reaction.
That’s why Corbyn’s speech today mattered. It was his most relaxed, self-confident speech since becoming leader. And after a conference dominated by infighting, the overall impression was that he was ready for the election fight - and relishing the idea of becoming "a different kind of prime minister".
The election will tell us whether 2017 was indeed "Peak Corbyn". But if he can somehow shift the narrative from a "People versus Parliament" election to a "The People versus Johnson" election, he could surprise everyone again.
---------
That stuff about his being unwell has evaporated...
Possibly, but that relies on them just somehow trying to get Brexit right down the agenda. That's not going to happen if the likes of Keir Starmer keep pandering to the #FBPE crowd by screaming about how committed to Remain they are at any chance.
Trump is releasing the full and unredacted transcript of the call with Ukraine. If nothing in it is dodgy the Democrats will look ridiculous.
Why do you announce that you are releasing it? Surely you just release it.
There's a pattern with Trump where he announces thatin a couple of weeks there's going to be some big reveal - of a health care policy, for example - and then it never omes.
Comments
But people are/were involved so it wriggles.
Boris getting it wrong is the most high-profile of these things, but most of the HoC have forgotten their way.
Nov or Dec "crash out" presumably only possible (1) if there's an absurdly short extension offered, perhaps Macron throwing a wobbly with the clear message of "this is the last one" or (2) PM goes absolutely nuclear and withdraws UK from EU treaties. Neither impossible but both pretty outlandish.
Nov or Dec leave (with deal, perhaps May's put to the people, or Johnson's if he gets one) after referendum - would be a rush to get one held so soon, hence implied probability of a ref in 2019 is very low (4%) and anyway Leave would not be favourites to win.
So the bulk of the implied Nov/Dec Brexit probability must lie in parliament backing Brexit. I can see the scenario Hunt considered in the Tory leadership campaign: "deal not quite finalised by 31 Oct, brief extension gets taken and everything is sorted shortly thereafter". But this would require Johnson to discover that he doesn't want to die in a ditch after all (or a replacement Tory PM to be fast-tracked into place to get on with things), the hard work of a deal to be done (which many observers seem sceptical of, though a slightly reheated version of May's deal is possible) and there are enough votes in the HoC to get this deal through (which is where mere reheating gets into trouble, especially if the opposition smell blood). Alternatively, a snap GE with Tories (not necessarily under Johnson) doing well enough to finish negotiating a deal (if it's not already been done) and getting it through the HoC in quick time. But this doesn't seem to tally with the low implied probability of a Con majority, and would they be able to rush the work through if the extended deadline was in spring 2020 (easy to imagine hold-ups from negotiating partners even if there was control over the UK parliament). It isn't impossible eg a Labour win could lead to Brexit either, but seems unlikely to be done by the end of 2019 as they'd want to renegotiate first.
So I'm struggling to make sense of the Nov/Dec Brexit chances too.
https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1176434209730289664?s=19
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
Surprised that you confess to a lack of political comprehension but you are a cultist these days so I suppose that explains it.
Go on then. Having gone out on a limb to push revoke, explain to be how Swinson agrees to back up Johnson to deliver No Deal.
...or not
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1176561054341574656
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1176562923260534784
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
Do they have HYUFD's contact details?
But it’s not certain Trump did hold back aid and link it to investigating Biden in a phone call, because if he did he would be crazy to publish the full transcript of the call wouldn’t he?
If it gets bogged down in an aid flying over there and what did or didn’t say, then Democrats don’t have nearly enough to impeach.
More interestingly what does this do for Biden, in the news, the wronged man, so a polling booster? Or is he really so clean and untainted by this or is Trump successful in killing off a dangerous opponent.
It’s just that in this case, the government offered none - even at the final appeal stage, having been given every opportunity to do so.
To have then found in favour of the government would have been to grant future governments arbitrary and unchallengeable power to prorogue for extended periods of time.
It's also just plain improbable given the decision was unanimous that they all share the exact same political leanings - it feels like a line based on assuming there's be some 'good' judges dissenting to show how the majority were remainiac lefties. But even the ones who sided with the government on A50 didn't this time.
(This may be a mistake in my maths or an inconsistency between Betfair markets rather than a reasonable estimate of this conditional probability, though.)
Well after looking at more than enough ONS data these are the changes in employment and unemployment rates in the three years since the Referendum:
North East, employment +0.2%, unemployment -2.4%
North West, employment +2.0%, unemployment -0.8%
Yorkshire, employment +1.5%, unemployment -1.6%
East Mid, employment +1.0%, unemployment +0.3%
West Mid, employment +2.9%, unemployment -2.1%
East, employment +1.1%, unemployment -0.2%
London, employment +1.0%, unemployment -1.4%
South East, employment +1.4%, unemployment -0.6%
South West, employment +3.5%, unemployment -1.9%
Wales, employment +1.3%, unemployment -0.3%
Scotland, employment +1.1%, unemployment -0.9%
Norn Ire, employment +2.3%, unemployment -2.5%
With the overall UK employment rate increasing by 1.6% and unemployment rate decreasing by 1.1%.
Which means that the West Midlands, South West and Northern Ireland have done better than average on both employment and unemployment rates while East Midlands, East, South East, Wales and Scotland have done worse than average on both measures.
This doesn't give any indication as to variations within each region.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/regionallabourmarket/september2019
I seem to have misplaced my copy.
Both conveying a deep annoyance usually reserved for stuff you stepped in on the pavement.
Going back to the infamous Daily Mail front page ‘Crush the saboteurs’. What if the polls, locals and Bi elections had told true story of the majority May would go on to win. Were saboteurs really remainers at that point, or was it the ERG/current government May wanted to ultimately crush with her big majority? She went early to country to crush those who are now the government, losing the majority they now need.
That’s why Corbyn’s speech today mattered. It was his most relaxed, self-confident speech since becoming leader. And after a conference dominated by infighting, the overall impression was that he was ready for the election fight - and relishing the idea of becoming "a different kind of prime minister".
The election will tell us whether 2017 was indeed "Peak Corbyn". But if he can somehow shift the narrative from a "People versus Parliament" election to a "The People versus Johnson" election, he could surprise everyone again.
---------
That stuff about his being unwell has evaporated...
http://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2458630#Comment_2458630
I thought it was that Bidet is old, incoherent and crap.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1175986162105815040?s=19
And more to the point, however righteously angry many leavers will be at parliament and the judiciary, and there will be a great many very angry, this just reminds me a bit of some of the Corbynite moaning about all the negative press he was getting for years - it was his job to overcome that, and to an extent he did. And Boris is indeed facing a lot of forces trying to prevent no deal, or any deal, and whether you think that is a good thing or not, what is his plan for overcoming those forces?
So far the plan appears to be to ignore that there is a problem. But that cannot last. He won't get an election while his polling is still decent, so what else has he got?
A bit like saying prorogation was for one thing, when everything his own people were saying about it made it clear it was about something else. And confirmed by the reaction.
Must we be subject to more vox pops from Stoke!
Family, employer, wife, party leader, public, parliament, courts, Queen.
There's a pattern with Trump where he announces thatin a couple of weeks there's going to be some big reveal - of a health care policy, for example - and then it never omes.