I guess Johnson (and Corbyn) will not want to be seen to dance to the Lib Dems' tune so this is not likely to get anywhere. Such a bill would need either government support or an SO 24 motion to get parliamentary time. And, of course, MPs have no control over the length of the A50 extension the EU might offer.
Boris will take it.
He wants an election badly.
I get the impression the Tories went for the 12th December knowing it would be changed to 5th December by the opposition. They probably don't care either way.
Just make it the end of November. Who needs a long campaign? If you are changing one law, change two.
I haven't had time recently to got through the polling data in detail, but are they still having to upweight leave voters to reach a 52/48 split? Is the polls incorrectly basing Brexit sentiment and enthusiasm on a vote from 3 years ago Corbyn's only hope? After 5 weeks of an election campaign where voters are told that Boris' deal is just the start of even more negotiations will they really still want to "get Brexit done"?
I live in a bubble in Remainer-central, so can't say anything off anecdotal reports as no one will admit to voting to leave round here, but I do wonder if most people really care that much about Brexit. Voters' views reflect what's on the news - in a GE campaign there will be discussion of stuff other than Brexit, so how will the main parties' policies on other issues go down (if they even have any)?
Boris has just had his QS passed and there is the manifesto plus a few popular bits added
Unfortunately the QS got completely overtaken by Brexit drama on the news, so I have no idea what was in it. The result barely seemed to be reported in the papers. I'd actually have been quite interested in knowing what the non-Brexit related policies are, as other than Brexit I'm much closer to the Tories than Labour politically. I read something about Priti Patel wanting to recruit more police, but other than that have no idea what the government proposed. If I'm that clueless about it, as someone who follows politics more closely than average, then what will the average voter have taken away from it all?
Nothing really but the point is that will be their manifesto including 20,000 more police, 40 new hospitals, big uplift in the pupil premium, and £9 per hour minimum wage for all 21s plus
It is NOT 40 new hospitals. Total spin from the party previously known as conservative.
And pie in the sky, while they can't even get work restarted on the Midland Metropolitan Hospital.
Hmm, looks like I might have to eat my words about there not being an election this year.
As such, I may as well make another prediction which will blow up in my face: both the Tories and Labour are going to do better than polls currently predict. I'll say something like 42% for the Tories, 37% for Labour.
It's going to be Clinton/Trump all over again: people thought those two being so unpopular meant third parties would surge, but, in the end, so many people thought one of the two options was so grotesque that they ended up going with someone they thought was only mildly grotesque.
Labour to have another amazing campaign that raises them from 25% to 37%?
Yes I have, but it does not get excited by a bunch of blokes sticking their tongues out, waving their arms around and grinding their groins up and down in the air.
I haven't had time recently to got through the polling data in detail, but are they still having to upweight leave voters to reach a 52/48 split? Is the polls incorrectly basing Brexit sentiment and enthusiasm on a vote from 3 years ago Corbyn's only hope? After 5 weeks of an election campaign where voters are told that Boris' deal is just the start of even more negotiations will they really still want to "get Brexit done"?
I live in a bubble in Remainer-central, so can't say anything off anecdotal reports as no one will admit to voting to leave round here, but I do wonder if most people really care that much about Brexit. Voters' views reflect what's on the news - in a GE campaign there will be discussion of stuff other than Brexit, so how will the main parties' policies on other issues go down (if they even have any)?
Corbyn's major hope is that the electorate has changed a lot since 2016 and 2017.
There's been 100,000s of voters added to the electoral roll that have disproportionately come from the 3 million EU citizens who weren't eligible to vote in general elections.
Well unless they’ve successfully acquired British citizenship, or are citizens or Ireland Malta or Cyprus they’re still not eligible to vote in a GE.
How may have acquired citizenship? Genuine question.
I did see a figure of 400,000 applications since June 2016 earlier on this year.
Alastair also did a piece on why the electorate may have changed since 2016 and why reweighting back to 52:48 maybe wrong.
According to the Immigration Service 42,037 EU citizens became British citizens in 2018. Up from 25,000 in 2017.
Our immigration team has never been busier with citizenship applications
I suspect there will be a lot more this year. As I said a few days ago I have sponsored/referreed 3 friends this year. But the numbers of EU citizens taking British citizenship in 2017 and 2018 was a lot less than I expected.
Why bother to amend the FTPA? Why not just scrap it?
At least this way I get to vote. I'm scheduled to fly somewhere sunny on 12/12.
I believe because it replaced a Royal Prerogative. Under our law once a prerogative has been removed it cannot be reinstated. That means that scrapping the FTPA would require a completely new set of laws regarding the ability to call elections.
Hmm, looks like I might have to eat my words about there not being an election this year.
As such, I may as well make another prediction which will blow up in my face: both the Tories and Labour are going to do better than polls currently predict. I'll say something like 42% for the Tories, 37% for Labour.
It's going to be Clinton/Trump all over again: people thought those two being so unpopular meant third parties would surge, but, in the end, so many people thought one of the two options was so grotesque that they ended up going with someone they thought was only mildly grotesque.
Labour to have another amazing campaign that raises them from 25% to 37%?
The funny thing is that people who think Corbyn is fundamentally crap should be more concerned about the potential for a 2017 repeat.
If your view is that Labour's result in 2017 was caused by Corbyn being an uncharacteristically great performer for a few weeks, and by people loving Labour's policies...then yeah, there's reason to think that was a one-time deal which won't repeat this time.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time? There's still going to be a hell of a lot of people (even if they're currently telling pollsters that they'll vote LibDem or Green) who want to stop a Tory landslide / stop Brexit / are predisposed to believing bad interpretations of Tory policy.
So in summary all the parties want an election but they want to be the ones that brought it about, basically. The net result is, no one know when the sodding election will be if it even ever happens.
Why bother to amend the FTPA? Why not just scrap it?
At least this way I get to vote. I'm scheduled to fly somewhere sunny on 12/12.
I believe because it replaced a Royal Prerogative. Under our law once a prerogative has been removed it cannot be reinstated. That means that scrapping the FTPA would require a completely new set of laws regarding the ability to call elections.
It also repealed the septennial act. If FTPA was repealed there'd be no limit on the length of a parliament.
Labour getting marmalised for the LibDems - possibly replacing the DUP as the power brokers in a hung Parliament; SNP getting a mandate for another referendum.
That Labour haven't spotted this route is weird - we've all been talking about it on here for weeks.
Nobody's spotted Tory Swinson is a Tory enabler?
I think they have.
Sheer madness by the Libs. A Tory win and brexit on Johnson's terms almost inevitable. Swinson can kiss her revocation or referendum goodbye. She may as well kiss Johnsons arse She must be a Tory in disguise. Quick calculation not sure, unless a load of Labour vote for it, that it will get through.
It would probably be pretty helpful to Labour - adding credence to the Tory Little Helper theme. Not good for SNP in Scotland either.
Why bad for SNP. LD's will go nowhere in Scotland, they are crap.
Hmm, looks like I might have to eat my words about there not being an election this year.
As such, I may as well make another prediction which will blow up in my face: both the Tories and Labour are going to do better than polls currently predict. I'll say something like 42% for the Tories, 37% for Labour.
It's going to be Clinton/Trump all over again: people thought those two being so unpopular meant third parties would surge, but, in the end, so many people thought one of the two options was so grotesque that they ended up going with someone they thought was only mildly grotesque.
Labour to have another amazing campaign that raises them from 25% to 37%?
The funny thing is that people who think Corbyn is fundamentally crap should be more concerned about the potential for a 2017 repeat.
If your view is that Labour's result in 2017 was caused by Corbyn being an uncharacteristically great performer for a few weeks, and by people loving Labour's policies...then yeah, there's reason to think that was a one-time deal which won't repeat this time.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time?
I agree, the lesser evil argument is a strong one. It won't be quite so marked as 2017 imo. There may well be more effective tactical voting though.
Labour getting marmalised for the LibDems - possibly replacing the DUP as the power brokers in a hung Parliament; SNP getting a mandate for another referendum.
That Labour haven't spotted this route is weird - we've all been talking about it on here for weeks.
Nobody's spotted Tory Swinson is a Tory enabler?
I think they have.
Sheer madness by the Libs. A Tory win and brexit on Johnson's terms almost inevitable. Swinson can kiss her revocation or referendum goodbye. She may as well kiss Johnsons arse She must be a Tory in disguise. Quick calculation not sure, unless a load of Labour vote for it, that it will get through.
It would probably be pretty helpful to Labour - adding credence to the Tory Little Helper theme. Not good for SNP in Scotland either.
Why bad for SNP. LD's will go nowhere in Scotland, they are crap.
It is always bad for the SNP in Scotland according to Justin
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time?
Because Boris Johnson is much better at politics and cares much less about policy than Theresa May.
Theresa May looked at the problems she thought needed solving and made proposals to fix them like the dementia tax, which was easy to demagogue. Boris Johnson will work out what the voters want to hear, and pretend he's going to give them that.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time?
Because Boris Johnson is much better at politics and cares much less about policy than Theresa May.
Theresa May looked at the problems she thought needed solving and made proposals to fix them like the dementia tax, which was easy to demagogue. Boris Johnson will work out what the voters want ro hear, and pretend he's going to give them that.
I don't think that we will have a Dec election, but if we do, I expect BoZo's dislike of scrutiny and absence of detail to be major issues.
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
As for the Lib Dem plan Bozo won’t accept it because the spoilt brat has to have everything his own way .
Obviously there's nothing sacred about Thursdays, but accepting any weekday as being arbitrary their explanation for wanting it on that day doesn't make much sense to me either. Lacking a good reason to move it, why change the convention of it being Thursday? That's my general approach with conventions - why shift something that developed over time without a reason?
Presumably the planned amendment to the FTPA will set a new 'fixed' date to aim for, so we aren't in theory committed to December elections on a fixed cycle though.
What’s worse for Corbyn , the Tories going into an election after Brexit of before.
Difficult decision .
After. Before has its problems, the Tories could clean up the Brexit vote and keep Tory remain voters satisfied with some kind of deal, but it at least has the chance of BXP spoiling the Tory party, and the inherent strength of the Labour brand plus the hope of Corbyn repeating his campaigning skills of last time, resulting in either mitigating the bad result, or who knows even preventing a Tory win. That may not be considered likely, but it has a chance.
Conversely, if the election takes place after Brexit what harm is there for angry Remain voters in voting for the most passionately remain party, the LDs? The Tories will already have achieved a terrible thing, off the back of Labour rebel votes no less, so more chance someone decides they can punish Labour?
Before but for a different reason - the outlet for remainers will be LDs, squeezing the Labour vote massively. After Brexit, the LD's will not be as attractive since many people will have given up on the outcome.
An interesting theory, one which many people hold. I think Labour will hold up before Brexit by people holding their noses and voting tactically, otherwise Brexit might happen. I just don't think remainers will shoot themselves in the foot by mass voting for the LDs.
I think, in a GE, despite it offering the 'best' chance for Remain that they're screwed.
If everyone who wanted to Remain voted LD, then LD would probably landslide it on 45% of the vote.
The problem is tribalism. Coming from Bootle I see it daily, and see it first hand. "Do you want to stop Brexit?" "Yes! I hate it. I want to Remain. Anything to Remain!". "So, you'll be voting Lib Dem then?" "What? Eh?! No... I'm voting Labour! LABOUR." "But they don't support Remain. Best you get is a 2nd Ref, and even then they haven't committed to campaigning for Remain, they've left the door open to leaving with 'their' deal."
At this point, you should usually see a 'head explodes' scene as they realise the incompatibility of this position with their hatred of Brexit. But you don't. Instead its a simple and calm, "That's not true; and even if it were, I'm still voting Labour."
Labour almost certainly won't get less than 25% in a GE. And massive vote efficiency probably ensures at least 160 seats, if not more.
It means Remain are doomed, because a good chunk of that 25%, if they switched to LD would deliver a LD minority government. But the tribals can't do it. They can't not vote Labour. They have to vote Labour. It's the law.
So in summary all the parties want an election but they want to be the ones that brought it about, basically. The net result is, no one know when the sodding election will be if it even ever happens.
Meanwhile, in 5 days time, we crash out of the EU without any sort of WA.
It’s kinda important but is in danger of being forgotten. Or are we just assuming that the French will agree to an extension.....?
Hmm, looks like I might have to eat my words about there not being an election this year.
As such, I may as well make another prediction which will blow up in my face: both the Tories and Labour are going to do better than polls currently predict. I'll say something like 42% for the Tories, 37% for Labour.
It's going to be Clinton/Trump all over again: people thought those two being so unpopular meant third parties would surge, but, in the end, so many people thought one of the two options was so grotesque that they ended up going with someone they thought was only mildly grotesque.
Labour to have another amazing campaign that raises them from 25% to 37%?
The funny thing is that people who think Corbyn is fundamentally crap should be more concerned about the potential for a 2017 repeat.
If your view is that Labour's result in 2017 was caused by Corbyn being an uncharacteristically great performer for a few weeks, and by people loving Labour's policies...then yeah, there's reason to think that was a one-time deal which won't repeat this time.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time? There's still going to be a hell of a lot of people (even if they're currently telling pollsters that they'll vote LibDem or Green) who want to stop a Tory landslide / stop Brexit / are predisposed to believing bad interpretations of Tory policy.
Correct. If there is an early election the Tories will start off with a big polling lead. Everyone will expect them to win. Then people will start to wonder about whether they really want to give Johnson unfettered power. Is his deal really as good as he says? Can he be trusted? Why does he lie so easily, even about trivial issues? The Lib Dems will say that they could never support Corbyn as PM. And nobody will believe Labour could win a majority, so the risk of Corbyn actually becoming PM is minimal. It will be quite safe for remainers to vote Labour in seats where the Lib Dems have no chance, because it is clear that this will not result in a Corbyn premiership.
As for the Lib Dem plan Bozo won’t accept it because the spoilt brat has to have everything his own way .
Wasn't it to do with avoiding employers coercing their employees?
I can’t find a definitive answer. Historically elections happened over a period of up to four weeks and, of course, if you had to be an employee you probably couldn’t afford to vote. GEs have only consistently been held on Thursdays since 1935.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time?
Because Boris Johnson is much better at politics and cares much less about policy than Theresa May.
Theresa May looked at the problems she thought needed solving and made proposals to fix them like the dementia tax, which was easy to demagogue. Boris Johnson will work out what the voters want ro hear, and pretend he's going to give them that.
I don't think that we will have a Dec election, but if we do, I expect BoZo's dislike of scrutiny and absence of detail to be major issues.
I dont expect a Dec election either. When it does come expect Johnson to be ducking and diving to avoid any sort of scrutiny of his policies
So in summary all the parties want an election but they want to be the ones that brought it about, basically. The net result is, no one know when the sodding election will be if it even ever happens.
Meanwhile, in 5 days time, we crash out of the EU without any sort of WA.
It’s kinda important but is in danger of being forgotten. Or are we just assuming that the French will agree to an extension.....?
Yes. And we'll be right.
But if, by any chance, we are not, the hollowness of the weeping of those who stated they would prevent no deal at any cost will be on full display. So many people have cried great big crocodile tears about no deal while taking circuitious routes to avoid it, because the most direct route did not give them what they wanted and they lacked the balls to take the second most direct route.
I don't want to see it happen, but the downright lies of those who claimed to hate no deal so much while keeping it alive so they could try to get the other thing they wanted, would be something to see.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time?
Because Boris Johnson is much better at politics and cares much less about policy than Theresa May.
Theresa May looked at the problems she thought needed solving and made proposals to fix them like the dementia tax, which was easy to demagogue. Boris Johnson will work out what the voters want ro hear, and pretend he's going to give them that.
I don't think that we will have a Dec election, but if we do, I expect BoZo's dislike of scrutiny and absence of detail to be major issues.
I dont expect a Dec election either. When it does come expect Johnson to be ducking and diving to avoid any sort of scrutiny of his policies
Yeah, and Labour will be different because they will be welcoming forensic interrogation of their own financial provisions!
Because I have nothing better to do this evening, I've looked at the tables for the last few YouGovs to see if there's anything interesting (it doesn't look like there is to me). I doubt a few percent either way in the weighting will make a difference after a GE campaign, particularly given YouGov can keep track of their samples, but in case anyone is interested (hopefully the formatting turns out ok):
Date
Weighted Remain / Leave
(Unweighted Remain / Leave)
Unweighted Remain %
17-18-Oct
619 / 661
(710/680)
48.9%
20-21-Oct
650 / 696
(736/696)
48.6%
23-24-Oct
632 / 676
(721/669)
48.1%
Women seem to be over-represented in all three surveys (>55%), which might explain some of the unweighted difference. Unless Corbyn and Swinson can make Farage relevant again I can't see a result other than a small Johnson majority based on the current polling.
As an aside, it's amazing what people will pay pollsters to check. What does PB think cats say? Is it miaow or meow?
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
May result in fewer Christian fundamentalists voting, though...
So in summary all the parties want an election but they want to be the ones that brought it about, basically. The net result is, no one know when the sodding election will be if it even ever happens.
Meanwhile, in 5 days time, we crash out of the EU without any sort of WA.
It’s kinda important but is in danger of being forgotten. Or are we just assuming that the French will agree to an extension.....?
Which means that on 22:55 on the 31st, Boris sends the "Revoke" email
Why bother to amend the FTPA? Why not just scrap it?
At least this way I get to vote. I'm scheduled to fly somewhere sunny on 12/12.
I believe because it replaced a Royal Prerogative. Under our law once a prerogative has been removed it cannot be reinstated. That means that scrapping the FTPA would require a completely new set of laws regarding the ability to call elections.
Theoretically Parliament could explicitly reinstate the Royal Prerogative but that has never been done before. It could read something along the lines of “From commencement of this Act, the Royal Prerogative with regard to dissolution and elections to Parliament shall be restored and shall subsist in the same manner as the day before the commencement of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011”. But the trend of history has been to reduce, not increase, the scope of the Royal Prerogative and I can’t see such a provision passing.
As for the Lib Dem plan Bozo won’t accept it because the spoilt brat has to have everything his own way .
Obviously there's nothing sacred about Thursdays, but accepting any weekday as being arbitrary their explanation for wanting it on that day doesn't make much sense to me either. Lacking a good reason to move it, why change the convention of it being Thursday? That's my general approach with conventions - why shift something that developed over time without a reason?
Presumably the planned amendment to the FTPA will set a new 'fixed' date to aim for, so we aren't in theory committed to December elections on a fixed cycle though.
If I understand it, the FTPA (assuming it isn't repealled) sets the date to the first Thursday in May in the fourth/fifth year after the last election.
If we did have a December 2019 election, the next one would be May 2024 assuming FTPA stays, and Parliament runs its course.
Hmm, looks like I might have to eat my words about there not being an election this year.
As such, I may as well make another prediction which will blow up in my face: both the Tories and Labour are going to do better than polls currently predict. I'll say something like 42% for the Tories, 37% for Labour.
It's going to be Clinton/Trump all over again: people thought those two being so unpopular meant third parties would surge, but, in the end, so many people thought one of the two options was so grotesque that they ended up going with someone they thought was only mildly grotesque.
I don't agree with your percentages but I do agree with your logic.
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
May result in fewer Christian fundamentalists voting, though...
The explanation on Wikipedia for Thursday is that it's as far away from Sunday sermons as possible and yet before Friday payday turns the electorate into uninhibited drunkards.
Sunday church attendance is still falling though. There were possibly more WWI veterans in 1974 than there are now regular churchgoers.
Labour getting marmalised for the LibDems - possibly replacing the DUP as the power brokers in a hung Parliament; SNP getting a mandate for another referendum.
That Labour haven't spotted this route is weird - we've all been talking about it on here for weeks.
Nobody's spotted Tory Swinson is a Tory enabler?
I think they have.
Sheer madness by the Libs. A Tory win and brexit on Johnson's terms almost inevitable. Swinson can kiss her revocation or referendum goodbye. She may as well kiss Johnsons arse She must be a Tory in disguise. Quick calculation not sure, unless a load of Labour vote for it, that it will get through.
Bolocks to Brexit is a campaign slogan, not a raison d'etre. Jo Swinson wants to maximise the number of LibDem MPs. She judges that that is best acheived by having an election before Brexit is settled, so that they can gain seats from Labour on a remain platform.
If it ultimately ends up with a Tory govt and Brexit, but a substantial increase in LibDem MPs, then it is a net success from their perspective. The aim is more MPs. Everything else is a means to an end. I don't mean this as a criticism either.
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
If we have a Sunday election, you bet I’m choosing “Come, labour on” as one of the hymns for the service.
Not that I’m a Labour supporter, but as an organist I have a troublemaking reputation to keep up.
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
If we have a Sunday election, you bet I’m choosing “Come, labour on” as one of the hymns for the service.
Not that I’m a Labour supporter, but as an organist I have a troublemaking reputation to keep up.
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
Also wouldn't you have lots of people who work the election on overtime/time and a half etc ? Could end up being expensive for local authorities.
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
Also wouldn't you have lots of people who work the election on overtime/time and a half etc ? Could end up being expensive for local authorities.
It's not like you are paid your regular hourly rate for electoral duty, it's just a set amount (I have no idea if it varies from area to area, I assume so). I don't think it'd be guaranteed it would cost more as they could offer the same amount, but they might need to offer more to get more volunteers to do the work, so it could be.
Enjoy the extra hour in bad - all those not watching the rugby. No clock change in Japan so the game starts at 8.00 am.
You sure? ITV coverage starts at 8am but the game at 9am. (Seems odd the two semi finals start at different times but Japan doesn't have clock change.)
It does seem hard to see how we avoid a December election now. The EU are, for now, calling our bluff, it's pretty obvious they would prefer an indication from us in advance, and anti no dealers would be being very irresponsible to go into the final week without a plan other than hoping the EU say yes, no matter how likely it is they will. An agreement to GE on Monday gives the signal to the EU to say yes.
The only alternatives, to settle things before a GE as I would prefer, just don't have the numbers (Eg, pass a timetable to approve the WAIB, and pass it or amend it as needed). Labour don't need to worry about Johnson passing it if a GE is agreed either - no reason for Labour rebels to back it when they can claim they hope Labour win an election and negotiate a customs union Brexit or something.
The Lib Dem offer is more designed for the EU than for Johnson .
In an effort to get the longer extension . There’s no guarantees that the 3 month extension is going to be offered unless the EU think an election is going to happen .
Whether Remainers like it or not there are few avenues left to stop Brexit . The only one is an election .
As for Macrons position , he isn’t going to veto but try to get the other EU members to agree on a shorter extension.
Although he’s isolated at the moment I expect more countries will take a tougher stance after Monday if there’s no sign of an election .
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
Elections not on a Thursday? What madness is this.
There is something comforting about the Thursday election day tradition.
I am not saying that it can't be changed. But it would be better to move it to a Sunday than a different weekday if change is really necessary (which I don't believe it is)
Sunday would be problematic. I think I've voted in churches in two different constituencies in general elections, out of five general elections in four different constituencies.
Churches should not be used as polling stations.
In one place where I voted in a church I think the choice would have been: church, close the Primary school for the day, or not have a polling station within walking distance.
Labour getting marmalised for the LibDems - possibly replacing the DUP as the power brokers in a hung Parliament; SNP getting a mandate for another referendum.
That Labour haven't spotted this route is weird - we've all been talking about it on here for weeks.
Nobody's spotted Tory Swinson is a Tory enabler?
I think they have.
Sheer madness by the Libs. A Tory win and brexit on Johnson's terms almost inevitable. Swinson can kiss her revocation or referendum goodbye. She may as well kiss Johnsons arse She must be a Tory in disguise. Quick calculation not sure, unless a load of Labour vote for it, that it will get through.
It would probably be pretty helpful to Labour - adding credence to the Tory Little Helper theme. Not good for SNP in Scotland either.
Why bad for SNP. LD's will go nowhere in Scotland, they are crap.
Former Labour voters who see the SNP as Tory helpers will not be impressed.
Hmm, looks like I might have to eat my words about there not being an election this year.
It's going to be Clinton/Trump all over again: people thought those two being so unpopular meant third parties would surge, but, in the end, so many people thought one of the two options was so grotesque that they ended up going with someone they thought was only mildly grotesque.
Labour to have another amazing campaign that raises them from 25% to 37%?
The funny thing is that people who think Corbyn is fundamentally crap should be more concerned about the potential for a 2017 repeat.
If your view is that Labour's result in 2017 was caused by Corbyn being an uncharacteristically great performer for a few weeks, and by people loving Labour's policies...then yeah, there's reason to think that was a one-time deal which won't repeat this time.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time? There's still going to be a hell of a lot of people (even if they're currently telling pollsters that they'll vote LibDem or Green) who want to stop a Tory landslide / stop Brexit / are predisposed to believing bad interpretations of Tory policy.
Correct. If there is an early election the Tories will start off with a big polling lead. Everyone will expect them to win. Then people will start to wonder about whether they really want to give Johnson unfettered power. Is his deal really as good as he says? Can he be trusted? Why does he lie so easily, even about trivial issues? The Lib Dems will say that they could never support Corbyn as PM. And nobody will believe Labour could win a majority, so the risk of Corbyn actually becoming PM is minimal. It will be quite safe for remainers to vote Labour in seats where the Lib Dems have no chance, because it is clear that this will not result in a Corbyn premiership.
Just like 2017. And the result will be similar.
The public would have to be absolutely fucking insane to do that - the botch job remainers made by supporting Corbyn "risk-free" in 2017 led directly to the hideous paralysis of the last 2 and a half years, and to the rise of Boris himself.
They need to give the Conservatives a clear majority, or face the same stasis for another whole Parliamentary term!
Bebb, Greening, Harrington and Stewart have all said they are standing down.
Ah right, i'd missed that.
Working on the presumption that there is a tiny Tory majority to try and get the deal through then there is little sense in giving the whip back to MPs who have made it clear they will fight the bill.
Every vote will count before and after any ratification and carrying 5+ MPs who can't be relied upon doesn't make any sense.
Bebb, Greening, Harrington and Stewart have all said they are standing down.
Ah right, i'd missed that.
Working on the presumption that there is a tiny Tory majority to try and get the deal through then there is little sense in giving the whip back to MPs who have made it clear they will fight the bill.
Every vote will count before and after any ratification and carrying 5+ MPs who can't be relied upon doesn't make any sense.
Of course, we may end up with JC in No.10.
Most of them seem to be supporting the deal.
OTOH think about the other end. Imagine the Tories get a majority, their new intake is full of No Deal enthusiasts, and there's no longer a parliamentary majority to block No Deal. Why would No Deal enthusiasts support the deal and only get half of what they want, when they can vote it down and get all of what they want?
I think, in a GE, despite it offering the 'best' chance for Remain that they're screwed.
If everyone who wanted to Remain voted LD, then LD would probably landslide it on 45% of the vote.
The problem is tribalism. Coming from Bootle I see it daily, and see it first hand. "Do you want to stop Brexit?" "Yes! I hate it. I want to Remain. Anything to Remain!". "So, you'll be voting Lib Dem then?" "What? Eh?! No... I'm voting Labour! LABOUR." "But they don't support Remain. Best you get is a 2nd Ref, and even then they haven't committed to campaigning for Remain, they've left the door open to leaving with 'their' deal."
At this point, you should usually see a 'head explodes' scene as they realise the incompatibility of this position with their hatred of Brexit. But you don't. Instead its a simple and calm, "That's not true; and even if it were, I'm still voting Labour."
Labour almost certainly won't get less than 25% in a GE. And massive vote efficiency probably ensures at least 160 seats, if not more.
It means Remain are doomed, because a good chunk of that 25%, if they switched to LD would deliver a LD minority government. But the tribals can't do it. They can't not vote Labour. They have to vote Labour. It's the law.
That's very plausible.
But let me offer a completely different, and slightly less plausible, but still possible scenario.
Labour Remainers in much of London and the market towns of South East England care passionately about Brexit. They break decisively for the LibDems.
Labour Leavers in Solihull don't care that much about Brexit. They reluctantly stick with Corbyn.
It does seem hard to see how we avoid a December election now. The EU are, for now, calling our bluff, it's pretty obvious they would prefer an indication from us in advance, and anti no dealers would be being very irresponsible to go into the final week without a plan other than hoping the EU say yes, no matter how likely it is they will. An agreement to GE on Monday gives the signal to the EU to say yes.
The only alternatives, to settle things before a GE as I would prefer, just don't have the numbers (Eg, pass a timetable to approve the WAIB, and pass it or amend it as needed). Labour don't need to worry about Johnson passing it if a GE is agreed either - no reason for Labour rebels to back it when they can claim they hope Labour win an election and negotiate a customs union Brexit or something.
The Tories may not agree with the LD/SNP idea for a new bill. That means we're back to the 434 MPs needed for the FTPA, and that may not happen. So that would mean no December election.
The Tories may not agree with the LD/SNP idea for a new bill. That means we're back to the 434 MPs needed for the FTPA, and that may not happen. So that would mean no December election.
Providing there is an agreement that any amendments are voted down then I can't see why Boris wouldn't go for it.
The popular one of giving 16yo the vote would apparently be very challenging for local authorities to implement in the timescale available. I don't know how true this is.
The Tories may not agree with the LD/SNP idea for a new bill. That means we're back to the 434 MPs needed for the FTPA, and that may not happen. So that would mean no December election.
Providing there is an agreement that any amendments are voted down then I can't see why Boris wouldn't go for it.
The popular one of giving 16yo the vote would apparently be very challenging for local authorities to implement in the timescale available. I don't know how true this is.
It would be impossible, not just challenging. You can't just create a new electoral register in a few weeks. I'm pretty sure there's no majority in the HoC for votes at 16 however.
Local authorities are already in semi advanced planning for 5th or 12th December. If they have to chuck a lot of this out just to move this to a Monday in between they will be spewing.
It is also, incidentally, a very bad look for our democracy to have politicians arguing in effect that the days of the week/specific dates that elections are held can have meaningful impacts on the outcome.
Local authorities are already in semi advanced planning for 5th or 12th December. If they have to chuck a lot of this out just to move this to a Monday in between they will be spewing.
It is also, incidentally, a very bad look for our democracy to have politicians arguing in effect that the days of the week/specific dates that elections are held can have meaningful impacts on the outcome.
I'm going to be in London on 5 December, so would prefer that
Why bother to amend the FTPA? Why not just scrap it?
At least this way I get to vote. I'm scheduled to fly somewhere sunny on 12/12.
I believe because it replaced a Royal Prerogative. Under our law once a prerogative has been removed it cannot be reinstated. That means that scrapping the FTPA would require a completely new set of laws regarding the ability to call elections.
It also repealed the septennial act. If FTPA was repealed there'd be no limit on the length of a parliament.
That would probably suit this Parliament perfectly.
Local authorities are already in semi advanced planning for 5th or 12th December. If they have to chuck a lot of this out just to move this to a Monday in between they will be spewing.
It is also, incidentally, a very bad look for our democracy to have politicians arguing in effect that the days of the week/specific dates that elections are held can have meaningful impacts on the outcome.
It's their job to do whatever they're told to do, they shouldn't really be expressing an opinion on it. Sorry to be harsh.
Enjoy the extra hour in bad - all those not watching the rugby. No clock change in Japan so the game starts at 8.00 am.
You sure? ITV coverage starts at 8am but the game at 9am. (Seems odd the two semi finals start at different times but Japan doesn't have clock change.)
Complete rubbish/fake news. The game kicks off at 0900 GMT, it’s an hour earlier in Japan but is the same time here as yesterday’s final. I have no idea why he posted that, it’s nonsense.
Local authorities are already in semi advanced planning for 5th or 12th December. If they have to chuck a lot of this out just to move this to a Monday in between they will be spewing.
It is also, incidentally, a very bad look for our democracy to have politicians arguing in effect that the days of the week/specific dates that elections are held can have meaningful impacts on the outcome.
It's their job to do whatever they're told to do, they shouldn't really be expressing an opinion on it. Sorry to be harsh.
And yet just a few posts earlier you were pointing out that they can’t do the impossible... It might be worthwhile them expressing an opinion on that, just in case...
Of course they will do what they are told to do (within the bounds of possibility). They have every right to expect that politicians taking decisions about things they have to deliver, should have thought for the practical difficulties they face (especially if done for reasons essentially of political game playing). You can bet if things are made difficult unnecessarily, and the election becomes a shambles, the politicians won’t be the ones taking the blame for it.
One might also point out that those who know the most about practicalities of elections are those who are responsible for delivering them. Unless you are one of the “had enough of experts brigade” it would be downright stupid not to seek their opinion about how best to allow them to happen smoothly.
Maybe we should give them a non-voting Member in the Commons instead, as the Americans give Guam, Puerto Rico and a couple of Indian tribes non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives. They can initiate legislation and sit on committees, but cannot take part in votes. Also Bermuda and other colonies.
Maybe we should give them a non-voting Member in the Commons instead, as the Americans give Guam, Puerto Rico and a couple of Indian tribes non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives. They can initiate legislation and sit on committees, but cannot take part in votes. Also Bermuda and other colonies.
I believe they should be given an MP with full voting rights, and similar representation in the Lords, perhaps an appointee of the governor of each territory?
Maybe we should give them a non-voting Member in the Commons instead, as the Americans give Guam, Puerto Rico and a couple of Indian tribes non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives. They can initiate legislation and sit on committees, but cannot take part in votes. Also Bermuda and other colonies.
I believe they should be given an MP with full voting rights, and similar representation in the Lords, perhaps an appointee of the governor of each territory?
There are already far too many MPs who vote on English matters when they don't represent English constituencies. I don't want us to add yet more.
Of course, if we finally established an English Parliament, and just had Westminster voting on Union matters, that problem would be solved, but that doesn't seem in prospect at the moment.
Is the Saj burying bad news on the economy? Probably.
Sajid Javid has called off the 6 November Budget because of plans for a general election - meaning he is not obliged to release new predictions from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) on growth, state borrowing and the tax take.
The OBR had already started work on a fiscal and economic outlook to be published alongside the Chancellor's spending plans. Economists expected this to show a major deterioration in the public finances which could harm the Tories' reputation for managing Britain's books.
MPs and former top Treasury official Lord Nick Macpherson questioned if the Budget was called off to avoid negative headlines from the bleak update.
Maybe we should give them a non-voting Member in the Commons instead, as the Americans give Guam, Puerto Rico and a couple of Indian tribes non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives. They can initiate legislation and sit on committees, but cannot take part in votes. Also Bermuda and other colonies.
I believe they should be given an MP with full voting rights, and similar representation in the Lords, perhaps an appointee of the governor of each territory?
Also, now I think about it, another issue with giving them an MP each is that they have wildly differing populations - Bermuda has 71,000, which is roughly the size of a UK Parliamentary constituency, and Gibraltar has 32,000, which is similar to Western Isles, but the Falklands only have 3,400 and Pitcairn only 81.
Maybe we should give them a non-voting Member in the Commons instead, as the Americans give Guam, Puerto Rico and a couple of Indian tribes non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives. They can initiate legislation and sit on committees, but cannot take part in votes. Also Bermuda and other colonies.
I believe they should be given an MP with full voting rights, and similar representation in the Lords, perhaps an appointee of the governor of each territory?
Also, now I think about it, another issue with giving them an MP each is that they have wildly differing populations - Bermuda has 71,000, which is roughly the size of a UK Parliamentary constituency, and Gibraltar has 32,000, which is similar to Western Isles, but the Falklands only have 3,400 and Pitcairn only 81.
That's a good point, for the top few it makes sense, but not the very sparsely populated ones. Perhaps that's why nothing has been done in the past?
I think, in a GE, despite it offering the 'best' chance for Remain that they're screwed.
If everyone who wanted to Remain voted LD, then LD would probably landslide it on 45% of the vote.
The problem is tribalism. Coming from Bootle I see it daily, and see it first hand. "Do you want to stop Brexit?" "Yes! I hate it. I want to Remain. Anything to Remain!". "So, you'll be voting Lib Dem then?" "What? Eh?! No... I'm voting Labour! LABOUR." "But they don't support Remain. Best you get is a 2nd Ref, and even then they haven't committed to campaigning for Remain, they've left the door open to leaving with 'their' deal."
At this point, you should usually see a 'head explodes' scene as they realise the incompatibility of this position with their hatred of Brexit. But you don't. Instead its a simple and calm, "That's not true; and even if it were, I'm still voting Labour."
Labour almost certainly won't get less than 25% in a GE. And massive vote efficiency probably ensures at least 160 seats, if not more.
It means Remain are doomed, because a good chunk of that 25%, if they switched to LD would deliver a LD minority government. But the tribals can't do it. They can't not vote Labour. They have to vote Labour. It's the law.
That's very plausible.
But let me offer a completely different, and slightly less plausible, but still possible scenario.
Labour Remainers in much of London and the market towns of South East England care passionately about Brexit. They break decisively for the LibDems.
Labour Leavers in Solihull don't care that much about Brexit. They reluctantly stick with Corbyn.
Likely? Not likely, but possible.
This is why we desperately need regional polling. I think it's possible that the Lib Dems clean up in London in a similar way to what the SNP did in Scotland (perhaps more like 2017 rather than 2015). But I think in those circumstances away from the Liverpools and Sheffield, the Tories would absolutely rout Labour.
Maybe we should give them a non-voting Member in the Commons instead, as the Americans give Guam, Puerto Rico and a couple of Indian tribes non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives. They can initiate legislation and sit on committees, but cannot take part in votes. Also Bermuda and other colonies.
I believe they should be given an MP with full voting rights, and similar representation in the Lords, perhaps an appointee of the governor of each territory?
Also, now I think about it, another issue with giving them an MP each is that they have wildly differing populations - Bermuda has 71,000, which is roughly the size of a UK Parliamentary constituency, and Gibraltar has 32,000, which is similar to Western Isles, but the Falklands only have 3,400 and Pitcairn only 81.
One for Bermuda and one for all the other overseas territories. Somebody would have a weirdly large constituency but if they got around it once a year or two and did the rest remotely it would be way better than the status quo.
Or follow the Oshima/Chichijima model and make the Falklands part of London.
That now 9% gap between LibDems and Labour is interesting. Revoke not a winner?
Wrong again, Mr Mark! It may have escaped your notice that over the last few days several members of the Labour Leadership have been trying to persuade people that Labour is, after all, in favour of remaining. At the same time, however, the rest of the Labour Leadership is still in favour of leaving, and is aiding and abetting Bovingdon Boris`s wrecking of the economy. This kind of situation just cannot go on, can it?
Comments
It only needs 92 labour mps who want a future
https://twitter.com/GlasgowTories/status/1188061645995675648?s=20
At least this way I get to vote. I'm scheduled to fly somewhere sunny on 12/12.
Were they playing cricket today? I did not know Wales played cricket.
As for the Lib Dem plan Bozo won’t accept it because the spoilt brat has to have everything his own way .
Boris - full of win!
All 105% of the electorate voting for Boris?
If your view is that Labour's result in 2017 was caused by Corbyn being an uncharacteristically great performer for a few weeks, and by people loving Labour's policies...then yeah, there's reason to think that was a one-time deal which won't repeat this time.
If, on the other hand, you think Corbyn did not run a particularly great campaign last time, that people weren't especially enamoured by Labour's policies, that Labour's result was just caused by people defaulting to Labour as the lesser evil (because they just wanted to stop a Tory landslide / wanted to stop Brexit / didn't take much persuading to believe the Tories were evil and so overreacted to things like the 'dementia tax')....then why wouldn't those same dynamics assert themselves this time? There's still going to be a hell of a lot of people (even if they're currently telling pollsters that they'll vote LibDem or Green) who want to stop a Tory landslide / stop Brexit / are predisposed to believing bad interpretations of Tory policy.
Hope you are still enjoying your holiday Malc
Theresa May looked at the problems she thought needed solving and made proposals to fix them like the dementia tax, which was easy to demagogue. Boris Johnson will work out what the voters want to hear, and pretend he's going to give them that.
Presumably the planned amendment to the FTPA will set a new 'fixed' date to aim for, so we aren't in theory committed to December elections on a fixed cycle though.
It’s kinda important but is in danger of being forgotten. Or are we just assuming that the French will agree to an extension.....?
Just like 2017. And the result will be similar.
But if, by any chance, we are not, the hollowness of the weeping of those who stated they would prevent no deal at any cost will be on full display. So many people have cried great big crocodile tears about no deal while taking circuitious routes to avoid it, because the most direct route did not give them what they wanted and they lacked the balls to take the second most direct route.
I don't want to see it happen, but the downright lies of those who claimed to hate no deal so much while keeping it alive so they could try to get the other thing they wanted, would be something to see.
As an aside, it's amazing what people will pay pollsters to check. What does PB think cats say? Is it miaow or meow?
But he does not sign it
If we did have a December 2019 election, the next one would be May 2024 assuming FTPA stays, and Parliament runs its course.
Sunday church attendance is still falling though. There were possibly more WWI veterans in 1974 than there are now regular churchgoers.
Jezza can't afford for it to look like Jo and Nicola are dragging him kicking and screaming to the polls.
If it ultimately ends up with a Tory govt and Brexit, but a substantial increase in LibDem MPs, then it is a net success from their perspective. The aim is more MPs. Everything else is a means to an end. I don't mean this as a criticism either.
Not that I’m a Labour supporter, but as an organist I have a troublemaking reputation to keep up.
If they hate the deal so much then explain why to the pubic . Their MPs have a choice , if they’re so pro EU then put up or shut up .
The only way to a second vote is through an election. There is zip chance to a second vote with the Tories in charge.
The only alternatives, to settle things before a GE as I would prefer, just don't have the numbers (Eg, pass a timetable to approve the WAIB, and pass it or amend it as needed). Labour don't need to worry about Johnson passing it if a GE is agreed either - no reason for Labour rebels to back it when they can claim they hope Labour win an election and negotiate a customs union Brexit or something.
In an effort to get the longer extension . There’s no guarantees that the 3 month extension is going to be offered unless the EU think an election is going to happen .
Whether Remainers like it or not there are few avenues left to stop Brexit . The only one is an election .
As for Macrons position , he isn’t going to veto but try to get the other EU members to agree on a shorter extension.
Although he’s isolated at the moment I expect more countries will take a tougher stance after Monday if there’s no sign of an election .
I assume there must be a CHQ standby list.
Bebb, Grieve, Greening, Hammond, Harrington, Milton, Sandbach, Stewart, Nokes?
They need to give the Conservatives a clear majority, or face the same stasis for another whole Parliamentary term!
Working on the presumption that there is a tiny Tory majority to try and get the deal through then there is little sense in giving the whip back to MPs who have made it clear they will fight the bill.
Every vote will count before and after any ratification and carrying 5+ MPs who can't be relied upon doesn't make any sense.
Of course, we may end up with JC in No.10.
OTOH think about the other end. Imagine the Tories get a majority, their new intake is full of No Deal enthusiasts, and there's no longer a parliamentary majority to block No Deal. Why would No Deal enthusiasts support the deal and only get half of what they want, when they can vote it down and get all of what they want?
But let me offer a completely different, and slightly less plausible, but still possible scenario.
Labour Remainers in much of London and the market towns of South East England care passionately about Brexit. They break decisively for the LibDems.
Labour Leavers in Solihull don't care that much about Brexit. They reluctantly stick with Corbyn.
Likely? Not likely, but possible.
The popular one of giving 16yo the vote would apparently be very challenging for local authorities to implement in the timescale available. I don't know how true this is.
It is also, incidentally, a very bad look for our democracy to have politicians arguing in effect that the days of the week/specific dates that elections are held can have meaningful impacts on the outcome.
Of course they will do what they are told to do (within the bounds of possibility). They have every right to expect that politicians taking decisions about things they have to deliver, should have thought for the practical difficulties they face (especially if done for reasons essentially of political game playing). You can bet if things are made difficult unnecessarily, and the election becomes a shambles, the politicians won’t be the ones taking the blame for it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/26/not-enough-time-add-16-year-olds-electoral-roll-snap-election/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/26/british-island-invaded-name-french-king-group-put-patagonian/
Boris finally has a chance to show us all whether he is a second Churchill. If we can find out who the enemy is, anyway...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/26/gibraltar-wants-peer-house-lords-replace-meps-brexit/
Maybe we should give them a non-voting Member in the Commons instead, as the Americans give Guam, Puerto Rico and a couple of Indian tribes non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives. They can initiate legislation and sit on committees, but cannot take part in votes. Also Bermuda and other colonies.
Of course, if we finally established an English Parliament, and just had Westminster voting on Union matters, that problem would be solved, but that doesn't seem in prospect at the moment.
Sajid Javid has called off the 6 November Budget because of plans for a general election - meaning he is not obliged to release new predictions from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) on growth, state borrowing and the tax take.
The OBR had already started work on a fiscal and economic outlook to be published alongside the Chancellor's spending plans. Economists expected this to show a major deterioration in the public finances which could harm the Tories' reputation for managing Britain's books.
MPs and former top Treasury official Lord Nick Macpherson questioned if the Budget was called off to avoid negative headlines from the bleak update.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/25/publish-forecast-anyway-no-budget-mps-pressure-obr-reveal-economic/
Or follow the Oshima/Chichijima model and make the Falklands part of London.