It surprises me that remainers are still going on this. I'm disappointed the letter was sent, but I recognise that if a legal way around it could have been found, it would have. Everyone else is the same. Apart from being annoyed at the Benn act for undermining the UK's negotiating position (it's highly possible Boris' original plan would have been accepted had the alternative been no deal), the issue isn't emotive for me and I doubt it is for anyone else. Remainers seem to think forcing Boris to send the letter was some sort of political coup de grace.
It might have been but it hasn't. Like you I'm stunned it keeps being brought up.
I think it was Mr Thompson who brought it up. I think Mr Luckyguy's analysis is fair, except the suggestion that it is "remainers" who brought it up. It was more commentary on Mr Thompson's Comical Ali-like insistence that BoZo didn't send the letter.
No, I responded to people like you who said the PM sent it. His aides sent a letter Parliament put into law.
Why does the PMs name appear at the bottom of it then?
I don’t think PT has quite worked out how these things work .
If Tusk thought there was any legal issue as to who sent the letter he would have said so.
The bottom of the letter states the PM , it’s irrelevant if he didn’t sign it . If Bozo didn’t want his hands stained in any way he could have resigned , he didn’t .
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
It surprises me that remainers are still going on this. I'm disappointed the letter was sent, but I recognise that if a legal way around it could have been found, it would have. Everyone else is the same. Apart from being annoyed at the Benn act for undermining the UK's negotiating position (it's highly possible Boris' original plan would have been accepted had the alternative been no deal), the issue isn't emotive for me and I doubt it is for anyone else. Remainers seem to think forcing Boris to send the letter was some sort of political coup de grace.
It might have been but it hasn't. Like you I'm stunned it keeps being brought up.
I think it was Mr Thompson who brought it up. I think Mr Luckyguy's analysis is fair, except the suggestion that it is "remainers" who brought it up. It was more commentary on Mr Thompson's Comical Ali-like insistence that BoZo didn't send the letter.
No, I responded to people like you who said the PM sent it. His aides sent a letter Parliament put into law.
Why does the PMs name appear at the bottom of it then?
I don’t think PT has quite worked out how these things work .
If Tusk thought there was any legal issue as to who sent the letter he would have said so.
The bottom of the letter states the PM , it’s irrelevant if he didn’t sign it . If Bozo didn’t want his hands stained in any way he could have resigned , he didn’t .
He's dipped his hands in the Benn blood and they've come out cleaner than he could possibly have hoped
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
It surprises me that remainers are still going on this. I'm disappointed the letter was sent, but I recognise that if a legal way around it could have been found, it would have. Everyone else is the same. Apart from being annoyed at the Benn act for undermining the UK's negotiating position (it's highly possible Boris' original plan would have been accepted had the alternative been no deal), the issue isn't emotive for me and I doubt it is for anyone else. Remainers seem to think forcing Boris to send the letter was some sort of political coup de grace.
It might have been but it hasn't. Like you I'm stunned it keeps being brought up.
I think it was Mr Thompson who brought it up. I think Mr Luckyguy's analysis is fair, except the suggestion that it is "remainers" who brought it up. It was more commentary on Mr Thompson's Comical Ali-like insistence that BoZo didn't send the letter.
No, I responded to people like you who said the PM sent it. His aides sent a letter Parliament put into law.
Why does the PMs name appear at the bottom of it then?
I don’t think PT has quite worked out how these things work .
If Tusk thought there was any legal issue as to who sent the letter he would have said so.
The bottom of the letter states the PM , it’s irrelevant if he didn’t sign it . If Bozo didn’t want his hands stained in any way he could have resigned , he didn’t .
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
He could have resigned. He could have chosen to break the law and accept the consequences. He did neither he choose to send it.
It surprises me that remainers are still going on this. I'm disappointed the letter was sent, but I recognise that if a legal way around it could have been found, it would have. Everyone else is the same. Apart from being annoyed at the Benn act for undermining the UK's negotiating position (it's highly possible Boris' original plan would have been accepted had the alternative been no deal), the issue isn't emotive for me and I doubt it is for anyone else. Remainers seem to think forcing Boris to send the letter was some sort of political coup de grace.
It might have been but it hasn't. Like you I'm stunned it keeps being brought up.
I think it was Mr Thompson who brought it up. I think Mr Luckyguy's analysis is fair, except the suggestion that it is "remainers" who brought it up. It was more commentary on Mr Thompson's Comical Ali-like insistence that BoZo didn't send the letter.
No, I responded to people like you who said the PM sent it. His aides sent a letter Parliament put into law.
Why does the PMs name appear at the bottom of it then?
The PMs name didn't appear at the bottom of it actally.
The PMs name did appear on the letter he sent. The PMs title appeared at the bottom of the letter Parliament sent because that is what Parliament put into the law.
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Can you actually add the '...and Unionist' bit any more?
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
He could have resigned. He could have chosen to break the law and accept the consequences. He did neither he choose to send it.
He has no reason to do either. He followed the law and wrote and sent his own letter to go with Parliaments letter.
Incidentally I believe his own letter had his own name and was on his own letterheaded paper, while I believe that Parliament's letter neither had his name nor was it on his letterheaded paper.
It surprises me that remainers are still going on this. I'm disappointed the letter was sent, but I recognise that if a legal way around it could have been found, it would have. Everyone else is the same. Apart from being annoyed at the Benn act for undermining the UK's negotiating position (it's highly possible Boris' original plan would have been accepted had the alternative been no deal), the issue isn't emotive for me and I doubt it is for anyone else. Remainers seem to think forcing Boris to send the letter was some sort of political coup de grace.
It might have been but it hasn't. Like you I'm stunned it keeps being brought up.
I think it was Mr Thompson who brought it up. I think Mr Luckyguy's analysis is fair, except the suggestion that it is "remainers" who brought it up. It was more commentary on Mr Thompson's Comical Ali-like insistence that BoZo didn't send the letter.
No, I responded to people like you who said the PM sent it. His aides sent a letter Parliament put into law.
Why does the PMs name appear at the bottom of it then?
I don’t think PT has quite worked out how these things work .
If Tusk thought there was any legal issue as to who sent the letter he would have said so.
The bottom of the letter states the PM , it’s irrelevant if he didn’t sign it . If Bozo didn’t want his hands stained in any way he could have resigned , he didn’t .
He's dipped his hands in the Benn blood and they've come out cleaner than he could possibly have hoped
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
Mr Thompson, please do define "democrat" from your perspective. Is it similar to those that call themselves "English Democrats"? All of your posts that I have read (which I accept will be a minority of them as you seem quite prolific) point to you being an English nationalist. I would not regard that as a compliment, as it is a doctrine that is normally associated with people that find thuggery and unpleasantness acceptable if it provides a means to a particular end.
Democracy is people voting peacefully in a free and fair manner to make the decisions that affect their lives.
I oppose all thuggery and unpleasantness which is inimicable to democracy.
Democracy actually has a number of interpretations. If you believe in parliamentary liberal democracy, this may be somewhat different to the form practiced in the former GDR. Nailing it is a bit like the proverbial jelly. I asked you though, what you think being a "democrat" is, which is related but different. Many fascists (not suggesting you are) claim to be democrats as they think they represent the "will of the people". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?
It is a phrase that has been used by just about every US President in the 20th century. Why, do you think they were fascists too?
Some may have had "tendencies", most particularly the current one.
It is a dangerous and arrogant phrase that is designed to close down debate and delegitimise minority views. It isn't necessarily "fascist", but it is "populist", so not far off.
Populism being a term used by those who don't agree with what the electorate wants. All democracies are based on some form of 'populism'. It is only used in derogatory ways by those who disagree with democracy because they are losing.
Before we started this Brexit nonsense we should really have legislated for ads on the BBC parliament channel. Given the enhanced viewing figures it might have helped fund the license fee or Gary Lineker's salary.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
If he had resigned, as HYUFD told us he would, then he would have been leader of the Opposition while Prime Minister Corbyn sent the letter.
Clearly Johnson preferred to remain Prime Minister than to stick by his pledge and not send the request.
He will break other pledges in the future when it suits him to do so, exactly as he's done now. You can't say you weren't warned when it happens. He'll lie about breaking those pledges too.
It surprises me that remainers are still going on this. I'm disappointed the letter was sent, but I recognise that if a legal way around it could have been found, it would have. Everyone else is the same. Apart from being annoyed at the Benn act for undermining the UK's negotiating position (it's highly possible Boris' original plan would have been accepted had the alternative been no deal), the issue isn't emotive for me and I doubt it is for anyone else. Remainers seem to think forcing Boris to send the letter was some sort of political coup de grace.
It might have been but it hasn't. Like you I'm stunned it keeps being brought up.
I think it was Mr Thompson who brought it up. I think Mr Luckyguy's analysis is fair, except the suggestion that it is "remainers" who brought it up. It was more commentary on Mr Thompson's Comical Ali-like insistence that BoZo didn't send the letter.
No, I responded to people like you who said the PM sent it. His aides sent a letter Parliament put into law.
Why does the PMs name appear at the bottom of it then?
I don’t think PT has quite worked out how these things work .
If Tusk thought there was any legal issue as to who sent the letter he would have said so.
The bottom of the letter states the PM , it’s irrelevant if he didn’t sign it . If Bozo didn’t want his hands stained in any way he could have resigned , he didn’t .
I don't think Tusk cares who the letter came from, he cares whether it is a legal request or not. Considering the request came from an Act of Parliament of course it is!
Article 50 does not require an extension to be requested by the PM, it requires the UK to request it and an Act of Parliament represents the UK which is why I believe that letter was on an Act of Parliament's letterhead and not the PM's letterhead.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
If he had resigned, as HYUFD told us he would, then he would have been leader of the Opposition while Prime Minister Corbyn sent the letter.
Clearly Johnson preferred to remain Prime Minister than to stick by his pledge and not send the request.
He will break other pledges in the future when it suits him to do so exactly as he's done now You can't say you weren't warned when it happens. He'll lie about breaking those pledges too.
HYUFD was wrong.
Johnson said all along he would obey the law, he never said he would break it nor did he say he would resign. Parliament sent a letter, it was sent on an Act of Parliament's letterhead not the PM's, it did not have his name and it had the words set by law.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
He could have resigned or broken the law. The latter may well have been the softer option, since there seemed to be no formal penalty attached.
Didn't Cummings flout the law not so long ago by refusing to appear in from of a Parliamentary Committee? He was found to be 'in contempt'. Not sure there was any further penalty.
That's the most cowardly piece of political strategy I've ever heard - so there's every chance Corbyn will go for it.
Of course, you're assuming that Boris and his media machine will simply stay silent and make no moves to expose that cowardice, and that the electorate will not notice Labour's public admission that they are Too Shit To Win.
For an act of supreme cowardice, it's actually quite brave!
This is big ticket politics not a duel under Queensberry rules. A 'Brexit' election in this climate and under these circumstances will probably return a majority government for a Tory Party that has been captured by the reactionary right. Cue 5 years of the people that the Labour Party exist to protect being wazzed upon from a great height. To do everything in their power to prevent such an outcome is not cowardice - it is a duty.
It surprises me that remainers are still going on this. I'm disappointed the letter was sent, but I recognise that if a legal way around it could have been found, it would have. Everyone else is the same. Apart from being annoyed at the Benn act for undermining the UK's negotiating position (it's highly possible Boris' original plan would have been accepted had the alternative been no deal), the issue isn't emotive for me and I doubt it is for anyone else. Remainers seem to think forcing Boris to send the letter was some sort of political coup de grace.
It might have been but it hasn't. Like you I'm stunned it keeps being brought up.
I think it was Mr Thompson who brought it up. I think Mr Luckyguy's analysis is fair, except the suggestion that it is "remainers" who brought it up. It was more commentary on Mr Thompson's Comical Ali-like insistence that BoZo didn't send the letter.
No, I responded to people like you who said the PM sent it. His aides sent a letter Parliament put into law.
Why does the PMs name appear at the bottom of it then?
I don’t think PT has quite worked out how these things work .
If Tusk thought there was any legal issue as to who sent the letter he would have said so.
The bottom of the letter states the PM , it’s irrelevant if he didn’t sign it . If Bozo didn’t want his hands stained in any way he could have resigned , he didn’t .
He's dipped his hands in the Benn blood and they've come out cleaner than he could possibly have hoped
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
Absolutely!
The Benn Act gave Johnson a 'get out of jail free' card.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
And when he said earlier that he would refuse to send it he knew that refusing to send it would be against the law.
Telegraph reporting Boris could call a vote on an election as early as this evening?
Surely bollocks - the EC's extension decision is tomorrow.
Actually it all lines up timewise.
Isn't the next Parliamentary sitting day Monday? And the EC is making its decision tomorrow? And a vote is generally called the sitting day before the vote.
So timeline looks to me.
This evening: PM calls for a vote on an election. Tomorrow: EC knowing an election has been called for grants extension long enough for election. Monday: Commons must vote on whether to hold an election, having had a long enough extension already granted.
The full weekend would be dominated by election campaigning. How could the opposition hide on Monday?
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
And when he said earlier that he would refuse to send it he knew that refusing to send it would be against the law.
He didn't send it. His aides sent Parliament's letter and he sent his own on his own letterheaded paper.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
And when he said earlier that he would refuse to send it he knew that refusing to send it would be against the law.
He didn't send it. His aides sent Parliament's letter and he sent his own on his own letterheaded paper.
Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
Eh?
He said we were leaving, do or die, deal or no deal.
You're not suggesting, I hope, that he was being less than truthful when he said that?
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Can you actually add the '...and Unionist' bit any more?
I am not sure. It is quite an extraordinary move and I see Dom's fingerprints all over it because I think he doesn't give a damn. The PM I had thought might.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
If he had resigned, as HYUFD told us he would, then he would have been leader of the Opposition while Prime Minister Corbyn sent the letter.
Clearly Johnson preferred to remain Prime Minister than to stick by his pledge and not send the request.
He will break other pledges in the future when it suits him to do so exactly as he's done now You can't say you weren't warned when it happens. He'll lie about breaking those pledges too.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
And when he said earlier that he would refuse to send it he knew that refusing to send it would be against the law.
He didn't send it. His aides sent Parliament's letter and he sent his own on his own letterheaded paper.
LOL
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
If I receive a letter then the letterhead normally says who that letter came from.
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
Make Labour an absolute laughing stock?
It also makes him look paralysed and increasingly ridiculous. Labour can reasonably say it is ready to proceed with the WAIB and blame Johnson for failing to do so.
Boris will throw the DUP under a bus if he wins a majority. He only cares about GB leaving the EU, single market and Customs Union and getting a FTA with the EU, he will let Northern Ireland voters decide on the backstop by referendum, even the Sunday Times last week confirmed that was what some Boris aides were planning
HYUFD didn't quite get the "if Boris wins a majority" bit right but here from July 11 and the referendum was turned into a negative consent mechanism but the broad thrust was here.......
Here is a question for parliamentary experts. Is there any point for the queens speech if it doesnt matter if the govt loses the vote?
If not, why didnt we just allocate the time from the meaningless queens speech debate to the apparently urgent and essential WA act which the govt wants done asap but parliament wants extra time to scrutinise?
That's the most cowardly piece of political strategy I've ever heard - so there's every chance Corbyn will go for it.
Of course, you're assuming that Boris and his media machine will simply stay silent and make no moves to expose that cowardice, and that the electorate will not notice Labour's public admission that they are Too Shit To Win.
For an act of supreme cowardice, it's actually quite brave!
This is big ticket politics not a duel under Queensberry rules. A 'Brexit' election in this climate and under these circumstances will probably return a majority government for a Tory Party that has been captured by the reactionary right. Cue 5 years of the people that the Labour Party exist to protect being wazzed upon from a great height. To do everything in their power to prevent such an outcome is not cowardice - it is a duty.
Then change your leader and/or your policies until a majority of the people want what "you" are offering,
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Can you actually add the '...and Unionist' bit any more?
I am not sure. It is quite an extraordinary move and I see Dom's fingerprints all over it because I think he doesn't give a damn. The PM I had thought might.
What’s even more extraordinary is the way that activists who spent months saying we can’t put a border within the previous union have embraced the deal without question.
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
Make Labour an absolute laughing stock?
It also makes him look paralysed and increasingly ridiculous. Labour can reasonably say it is ready to proceed with the WAIB and blame Johnson for failing to do so.
No it makes Labour look paralysed and increasingly ridiculous. The PM can reasonably say Parliament should pass his WAIB unamended or face the voters.
The suggestion Boris could call an election in the next 24 hours makes political sense.
The HOC is not sitting tomorrow so when they return on Monday Blackford is going to demand an election. Boris will not want to be seen acquiescing to the SNP so gets in first
Good politics if it happens
And if this is Cummings he obviously knows high stakes politics
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
And when he said earlier that he would refuse to send it he knew that refusing to send it would be against the law.
He didn't send it. His aides sent Parliament's letter and he sent his own on his own letterheaded paper.
LOL
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
If I receive a letter then the letterhead normally says who that letter came from.
Boris will throw the DUP under a bus if he wins a majority. He only cares about GB leaving the EU, single market and Customs Union and getting a FTA with the EU, he will let Northern Ireland voters decide on the backstop by referendum, even the Sunday Times last week confirmed that was what some Boris aides were planning
HYUFD didn't quite get the "if Boris wins a majority" bit right but here from July 11 and the referendum was turned into a negative consent mechanism but the broad thrust was here.......
Yes that is true. But tbf I think we are in stopped clock territory. The one element of the sentence has to be read together with the other. He didn't get a majority which renders the rest nonsensical in the light of what he has done.
Surely the next moves are predicated on the moves by EU leaders wrt Boris Johnsons surrender letter the letter mandated to Johnson, that he penned in accordance with the Benn Act ?
The suggestion Boris could call an election in the next 24 hours makes political sense.
The HOC is not sitting tomorrow so when they return on Monday Blackford is going to demand an election. Boris will not want to be seen acquiescing to the SNP so gets in first
Good politics if it happens
And if this is Cummings he obviously knows high stakes politics
The suggestion Boris could call an election in the next 24 hours makes political sense.
The HOC is not sitting tomorrow so when they return on Monday Blackford is going to demand an election. Boris will not want to be seen acquiescing to the SNP so gets in first
Good politics if it happens
And if this is Cummings he obviously knows high stakes politics
Zero chance he gets an election from parliament before the EU respond.
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
Make Labour an absolute laughing stock?
It also makes him look paralysed and increasingly ridiculous. Labour can reasonably say it is ready to proceed with the WAIB and blame Johnson for failing to do so.
I'd be perfectly content if the deal were passed. As a second choice itd be fine. When he was trying to pass it before it was still before the decision on an extension were known - if he had won a vote on a new timetable he might have been able to show the bill was on its way to passing and so short extension justified, it would obviate the need for GE in advance. Instead he stops . It's quite clear his priority is a GE, by his admission, rather than achieving Brexit sooner but in a harder fight.
Yes, what we are in the throes of is not Brexit - that's incidental - it is the Boris Johnson project. Objective, just the one - win a majority at a GE asap. Brexit is merely grist to the mill. Everything makes more sense when you view it this way.
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Can you actually add the '...and Unionist' bit any more?
I am not sure. It is quite an extraordinary move and I see Dom's fingerprints all over it because I think he doesn't give a damn. The PM I had thought might.
What’s even more extraordinary is the way that activists who spent months saying we can’t put a border within the previous union have embraced the deal without question.
That is also a feature of recent events. I mean Labour I get might, just might do this (and it would be funny to hear the PB Brexiters if they even whispered a vague intention to do so). But a Conservative (and...) Party? I just didn't see it coming.
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
Make Labour an absolute laughing stock?
It also makes him look paralysed and increasingly ridiculous. Labour can reasonably say it is ready to proceed with the WAIB and blame Johnson for failing to do so.
Does labour want to go sub 20% in the polls
That is a non sequitur - though that did occur with Yougov in the post EU election - late July period.
The suggestion Boris could call an election in the next 24 hours makes political sense.
The HOC is not sitting tomorrow so when they return on Monday Blackford is going to demand an election. Boris will not want to be seen acquiescing to the SNP so gets in first
Good politics if it happens
And if this is Cummings he obviously knows high stakes politics
Precisely! And think about this Game Theory wise.
If the Tories and SNP are backing an election then what should the Lib Dems and Labour do?
Lib Dems don't affect the numbers so may as well line up with the SNP and back an election. If Labour then don't the Lib Dems can blame Labour cowardice for Boris remaining in Downing Street and for Brexit proceeding. The Lib Dems can portray themselves as the only GB-wide party seeking to get Boris out of Downing Street.
So realistically we will have the Tories, SNP and Lib Dems all backing an election. It all comes down to Labour. What do they do?
If Labour vote it down they will be cowards facilitating a Tory government. Their voters will flock to the SNP and Lib Dems who will ruthlessly exploit it. The Lib Dems will almost immediately overtake Labour in the polls and the longer this drags on the more chance of a permanent crossover with the Lib Dems being the future official opposition to the Tories.
If Labour vote it through we get the election and they probably lose seats.
Yes, what we are in the throes of is not Brexit - that's incidental - it is the Boris Johnson project. Objective, just the one - win a majority at a GE asap. Brexit is merely grist to the mill. Everything makes more sense when you view it this way.
There may yet come a day when BoZo announces he will reverse Brexit.
If he thought it would win him the election he would do it in a heartbeat
As for the letter thing I will simply say, which I think will bring both sides together, that I would rather associate, have a drink, and be a fellow traveller with someone who, looking at the events, makes the assessment that Boris sent the letter than someone who thinks he didn't send the letter.
I Didn't think EU would drop backstop Ii Thought Boris do or die pledge would mean he had to resign
I was genuinely surprised that, duplicitous shit as we know him to be, he could have thrown the DUP under the bus with such ease. He is playing fast and loose with the Union in a way that I thought, together with Johnson himself, no British Prime Minister would or could eve do. Certainly no Prime Minister from the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Can you actually add the '...and Unionist' bit any more?
I am not sure. It is quite an extraordinary move and I see Dom's fingerprints all over it because I think he doesn't give a damn. The PM I had thought might.
What’s even more extraordinary is the way that activists who spent months saying we can’t put a border within the previous union have embraced the deal without question.
That is also a feature of recent events. I mean Labour I get might, just might do this (and it would be funny to hear the PB Brexiters if they even whispered a vague intention to do so). But a Conservative (and...) Party? I just didn't see it coming.
I just noticed that my phone autocorrected to “previous union” instead of “precious union”. It must know something.
That's the most cowardly piece of political strategy I've ever heard - so there's every chance Corbyn will go for it.
Of course, you're assuming that Boris and his media machine will simply stay silent and make no moves to expose that cowardice, and that the electorate will not notice Labour's public admission that they are Too Shit To Win.
For an act of supreme cowardice, it's actually quite brave!
This is big ticket politics not a duel under Queensberry rules. A 'Brexit' election in this climate and under these circumstances will probably return a majority government for a Tory Party that has been captured by the reactionary right. Cue 5 years of the people that the Labour Party exist to protect being wazzed upon from a great height. To do everything in their power to prevent such an outcome is not cowardice - it is a duty.
Then change your leader and/or your policies until a majority of the people want what "you" are offering,
And there's the problem.
The Labour Party has not been fulfilling its historic role, and shows no sign of doing so.
The EU's policies have been starving Africa for decades. Supporters of the EU are apologists for the starvation of Africans. Remainers are a racist starvation cult.
A post that demonstrates the damaging effect of fake news.
and the limited intellect of the poster.
Have you heard of Calestous Juma?
He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., a Fellow of The World Academy of Sciences in Trieste in Italy, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering in London, a Fellow of the African Academy of Sciences in Nairobi in Kenya, a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science in the USA, and a Fellow of the New York Academy of Sciences.
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
They wont
If i were Labour and wanted an election (or did not really object), surely in strategic terms it is better to defeat the QS and then having a VONC, than, just agreeing to an election? That is the way I would do it as an opposition party as it removes control from BJ as a launch pad for the election.
I've never seen such desperate nonsense written about the letter. It was addressed to someone, it had the PMs name and position at the end of it and it had a request in it starting with the word 'I' and was sent. For goodness sake that is a letter.
A signature is irrelevant. I communicate solely by email and attach letters. For the last 7 years I have been involved in a campaign which involves me writing to government departments and ministers. I have never signed a single letter and many I receive are unsigned. It has no relevance.
Others suggesting he didn't send it but someone else did. Probably true, but it was sent with his authority and therefore from him. You have to be an idiot to think that letters you receive from say CEOs of large companies, etc were actually sent by them personally. If it was sent without his authority he should be declaring that an imposter sent it. He hasn't.
This is absolutely desperate pathetic stuff that borders on cult following.
It wasn't sent with his authority, it was sent with the authority of law.
It may have his title and the word I but he didn't write it, MPs did. Just because they put someone else's name in it doesn't make the letter belong to the person whose name they put on it.
He could have refused to send it. he didn't.
No he couldn't, that was against the law.
And when he said earlier that he would refuse to send it he knew that refusing to send it would be against the law.
He didn't send it. His aides sent Parliament's letter and he sent his own on his own letterheaded paper.
LOL
Whose letterhead was on Parliament's letter?
If I receive a letter then the letterhead normally says who that letter came from.
LOL
Nervous laughter when you know you've lost an argument is always awkward. My sympathies.
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
Make Labour an absolute laughing stock?
It also makes him look paralysed and increasingly ridiculous. Labour can reasonably say it is ready to proceed with the WAIB and blame Johnson for failing to do so.
Ha Haaaaa
Labour really isn't connected to the optics of the current time, in my opinion.
Johnson is going to nick Labour's "Great deal for towns" schtick in the next election. Can feel it - sunlit uplands, soft focus NHS feelgood politics and hosing money on leave areas.
The suggestion Boris could call an election in the next 24 hours makes political sense.
The HOC is not sitting tomorrow so when they return on Monday Blackford is going to demand an election. Boris will not want to be seen acquiescing to the SNP so gets in first
Good politics if it happens
And if this is Cummings he obviously knows high stakes politics
Zero chance he gets an election from parliament before the EU respond.
I would expect the EU would respond with an immediate extension to the 31st January and breath a huge sigh of relief. Reports this morning of bitter rifts in the EU over the extension timeline
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
They wont
If i were Labour and wanted an election (or did not really object), surely in strategic terms it is better to defeat the QS and then having a VONC, than, just agreeing to an election? That is the way I would do it as an opposition party as it removes control from BJ as a launch pad for the election.
What difference does it make? That Parliament is against this government would not be news to anyone.
And you would have extended BJ's launchpad. If on Monday the Tories, SNP and LDs all vote for an election and Labour are the only ones who don't they will be humiliated. If days later they back one it will be seen as them being dragged kicking and screaming after their humiliation.
I think we may have missed something when JRM said we are still leaving on the 31/10 and are reading the wrong things into the political cabinet this afternoon. The cunning plan is about to be revealed standby with popcorn and strong liquor!
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
Labour hope tactical voting from the libdems and green will save them, but with the Tories having a double digit lead even with the Brexit Party on double digits, wont a collapse to the two biggest parties mean Tories simply maintain their lead?
Labour hope tactical voting from the libdems and green will save them, but with the Tories having a double digit lead even with the Brexit Party on double digits, wont a collapse to the two biggest parties mean Tories simply maintain their lead?
What can Johnson do if Labour denies him the 2/3 majority?
They wont
If i were Labour and wanted an election (or did not really object), surely in strategic terms it is better to defeat the QS and then having a VONC, than, just agreeing to an election? That is the way I would do it as an opposition party as it removes control from BJ as a launch pad for the election.
Cummings has made the Benn act Johnson's strength. It's been a masterclass of political Jiu Jitsu.
Yes - the Benn Act was a mistake. It has allowed Johnson to deflect blame for the extension that IMO he would have caved and sought in any case.
Let's not repeat the error for 31 Jan.
I think Johnson would win the Deal / No Deal / Revoke poker game against the other forces of Parliament. If the Benn act hadn't mandated an application for an extension (still not granted) he would have won the battle to leave on 31/10/19.
The fear of No Deal or the consequences (electoral) of revoke would have given him the winning hand holding his shiny new deal card. The battle of WDA amendments would not have been pretty!
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
Exactly. Just imagine if - without Benn - Boris had not had the internal leverage to get his new deal agreed by the ERG and was staring No Deal in the face today with no alternative but Revoke... he'd have been destroyed either way.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
My view entirely. Absent the (ill judged) Benn Act he would have had to own the choice for 31 Oct of a WTO Brexit or seeking an extension. Rock. Hard place.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The main reason for the Benn Act was to stop no deal not destroy the PM. It has worked, no deal was seen as a realistic proposition from the ERG and co in the summer, it is now very unlikely.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
So what did the "do or die" pledge mean?
Well he tried to get this session of Parliament to die to get the mandate from the country, but the cowards hid behind the sofa. They can't keep doing that forever.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
I think we do need an election. This can’t go on forever.
@Philip_Thompson tying himself in knots trying to pretend Boris in fact kept his promise that we’d leave on 31st October is very funny.
I'm not. Johnson was blocked by Parliament quite clearly which is why we need an election.
Why does that mean an election is needed? A Prime Minister who was not elected leading a government without a majority cannot expect to get a policy that no one voted for through on a deadline that he has chosen without the sanction of the electorate.
That would be why he is seeking the sanction of the electorate.
If Parliament doesn't want the PM's policies it should VONC and choose a new PM, or we should go to the polls and let the public sort it out.
Labour hope tactical voting from the libdems and green will save them, but with the Tories having a double digit lead even with the Brexit Party on double digits, wont a collapse to the two biggest parties mean Tories simply maintain their lead?
Probably. 🤷♂️
Nobody knows. As always, events dear boy, events...
I'm surprised the Cons want a winter election when all it takes is a bad flu season / a particularly chilly period to hit for it to all turn to the NHS and social care again, screwing them and feeding into Corbyn.
No matter how much money Johnson is willing to throw at the NHS, I still think people are more sceptical of Conservatives when it comes to the social safety net, and it is where Corbyn is a good campaigner. I doubt Johnson will do "Dementia Tax" levels of bad policy, but I'm sure something will catch him out.
Comments
If Tusk thought there was any legal issue as to who sent the letter he would have said so.
The bottom of the letter states the PM , it’s irrelevant if he didn’t sign it . If Bozo didn’t want his hands stained in any way he could have resigned , he didn’t .
The public doesnt care he sent the letter!
Its a clever wheeze that is being seen as exactly that. Johnson continues to climb in the polls.
No one cares. Except remain anoraks on PB
The PMs name did appear on the letter he sent. The PMs title appeared at the bottom of the letter Parliament sent because that is what Parliament put into the law.
Incidentally I believe his own letter had his own name and was on his own letterheaded paper, while I believe that Parliament's letter neither had his name nor was it on his letterheaded paper.
So the Benn Act actually saved him and the Conservative Party, as the Benn family has been doing for generations. Thanks guys!
Clearly Johnson preferred to remain Prime Minister than to stick by his pledge and not send the request.
He will break other pledges in the future when it suits him to do so, exactly as he's done now. You can't say you weren't warned when it happens. He'll lie about breaking those pledges too.
A December election on its way
Article 50 does not require an extension to be requested by the PM, it requires the UK to request it and an Act of Parliament represents the UK which is why I believe that letter was on an Act of Parliament's letterhead and not the PM's letterhead.
Johnson said all along he would obey the law, he never said he would break it nor did he say he would resign. Parliament sent a letter, it was sent on an Act of Parliament's letterhead not the PM's, it did not have his name and it had the words set by law.
Didn't Cummings flout the law not so long ago by refusing to appear in from of a Parliamentary Committee? He was found to be 'in contempt'. Not sure there was any further penalty.
The Benn Act gave Johnson a 'get out of jail free' card.
Won't happen therefore.
He said we were leaving, do or die, deal or no deal.
You're not suggesting, I hope, that he was being less than truthful when he said that?
If I receive a letter then the letterhead normally says who that letter came from.
If not, why didnt we just allocate the time from the meaningless queens speech debate to the apparently urgent and essential WA act which the govt wants done asap but parliament wants extra time to scrutinise?
The HOC is not sitting tomorrow so when they return on Monday Blackford is going to demand an election. Boris will not want to be seen acquiescing to the SNP so gets in first
Good politics if it happens
And if this is Cummings he obviously knows high stakes politics
Let's not repeat the error for 31 Jan.
Boris Johnsons surrender letterthe letter mandated to Johnson, that he penned in accordance with the Benn Act ?We have to wait !
If the Tories and SNP are backing an election then what should the Lib Dems and Labour do?
Lib Dems don't affect the numbers so may as well line up with the SNP and back an election. If Labour then don't the Lib Dems can blame Labour cowardice for Boris remaining in Downing Street and for Brexit proceeding. The Lib Dems can portray themselves as the only GB-wide party seeking to get Boris out of Downing Street.
So realistically we will have the Tories, SNP and Lib Dems all backing an election. It all comes down to Labour. What do they do?
If Labour vote it down they will be cowards facilitating a Tory government. Their voters will flock to the SNP and Lib Dems who will ruthlessly exploit it. The Lib Dems will almost immediately overtake Labour in the polls and the longer this drags on the more chance of a permanent crossover with the Lib Dems being the future official opposition to the Tories.
If Labour vote it through we get the election and they probably lose seats.
So what does everyone do?
If he thought it would win him the election he would do it in a heartbeat
The Labour Party has not been fulfilling its historic role, and shows no sign of doing so.
But he's not the only one of this opinion. Here's a few more articles for you to fact check on behalf of your starvation cult..
https://mg.co.za/article/2017-11-10-00-eu-chicken-dumping-starves-africa/
https://law-in-action.com/tag/eu-starves-africa/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05/jean-ziegler-africa-starve
https://www.politico.eu/article/hunger-that-starves-on-eus-flawed-trade-policy/
I know it's tough to find out that you're part of an evil cult. I discovered here on PB that I'm a xenophobic death cultist.
Labour really isn't connected to the optics of the current time, in my opinion.
Just a feeling in my waters.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1187293563543052288
And you would have extended BJ's launchpad. If on Monday the Tories, SNP and LDs all vote for an election and Labour are the only ones who don't they will be humiliated. If days later they back one it will be seen as them being dragged kicking and screaming after their humiliation.
I am hoping that come 31 Jan that IS where Labour put him. Let's out-Dom Dom.
The fear of No Deal or the consequences (electoral) of revoke would have given him the winning hand holding his shiny new deal card. The battle of WDA amendments would not have been pretty!
As everything Boris says it was complete bollocks.
If Parliament doesn't want the PM's policies it should VONC and choose a new PM, or we should go to the polls and let the public sort it out.
I'm surprised the Cons want a winter election when all it takes is a bad flu season / a particularly chilly period to hit for it to all turn to the NHS and social care again, screwing them and feeding into Corbyn.
No matter how much money Johnson is willing to throw at the NHS, I still think people are more sceptical of Conservatives when it comes to the social safety net, and it is where Corbyn is a good campaigner. I doubt Johnson will do "Dementia Tax" levels of bad policy, but I'm sure something will catch him out.