There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Thankfully we have First Past the Post not PR and long may it continue. England has 533 seats
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
So your definition of democracy is the system which gives you what you want.
No it is what the voters elect. The voters in England elected Conservative majority. In 2005 as much as I didn't like it they did elect Labour.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
You would because you’re a hypocrite and pick and choose what is democratic and what isn’t when it suits.
No, I agree with FPTP even when it gives results I don't like - like in 2005.
Now says January extension won’t take no deal off the table . This is becoming ridiculous, the only way no deal comes off the table is if a government decides to and therefore you need an election to change the government to one which will rule that out.
I fear this is rapidly moving beyond Jezza's control...
You mean like most of his leadership ! The latest election avoidance is becoming desperate .
Labour Remainers need to realize that Corbyn wants the deal to go through because his actions are going to lead to a short extension.
The Labour MPs who are pro EU are seemingly more worried about saving their seats than stopping Brexit.
I’m sick of the lot of them , I’ll be voting Lib Dem even though I’m uncomfortable with their revoke policy . And will still vote Lib Dem even if Brexit happens .
Friedland summed this up well yesterday in Guardian.
The membership's determination to stick with Corbyn despite the overwhelming evidence that he is going to lose and lose badly is a betrayal of the poor and the dispossessed that they pretend they care passionately about.
Now says January extension won’t take no deal off the table . This is becoming ridiculous, the only way no deal comes off the table is if a government decides to and therefore you need an election to change the government to one which will rule that out.
I fear this is rapidly moving beyond Jezza's control...
You mean like most of his leadership ! The latest election avoidance is becoming desperate .
Labour Remainers need to realize that Corbyn wants the deal to go through because his actions are going to lead to a short extension.
The Labour MPs who are pro EU are seemingly more worried about saving their seats than stopping Brexit.
I’m sick of the lot of them , I’ll be voting Lib Dem even though I’m uncomfortable with their revoke policy . And will still vote Lib Dem even if Brexit happens .
Friedland summed this up well yesterday in Guardian.
The membership's determination to stick with Corbyn despite the overwhelming evidence that he is going to lose and lose badly is a betrayal of the poor and the dispossessed that they pretend they care passionately about.
Now says January extension won’t take no deal off the table . This is becoming ridiculous, the only way no deal comes off the table is if a government decides to and therefore you need an election to change the government to one which will rule that out.
I fear this is rapidly moving beyond Jezza's control...
You mean like most of his leadership ! The latest election avoidance is becoming desperate .
Labour Remainers need to realize that Corbyn wants the deal to go through because his actions are going to lead to a short extension.
The Labour MPs who are pro EU are seemingly more worried about saving their seats than stopping Brexit.
I’m sick of the lot of them , I’ll be voting Lib Dem even though I’m uncomfortable with their revoke policy . And will still vote Lib Dem even if Brexit happens .
I don't quite understand why Labour dealers (other than the core of 5-6) would assist at this point in timetabling the WAIB - with an election imminent they can say how much they will back a labour renegotiation to leave, whereas a timetable to pass it would see them cast out by Labour if it did pass. Many of them are not standing again, but others are so no need to push it through if there's an election coming.
People can want the same things for different reasons, I don't understand why that would be the slightest bit intriguing. While only one can be right, probably, that he sees a gain for him and Brexiteers seen a gain for them and the country can coexist as motivations, so what's intriguing about it? It seems more like someone trying to be snarky about how clever they are vs how dumb the Brexiteers. And I think some of them have been quite dumb, but the stated point is not an example of it.
He must know he's got somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope of winning as an independent and I'm sure he can make much more money in "private consultancy" ?
Don’t MPs get a much better pension if they’re below state retirement age and they lose their seat rather than chose not to run again.
The pension is unaffected but you get a resettlement allowance (now I think 1-2 months pay, used to be 6) if you lose, whereas if you go voluntarily you don't - just like redundancy pay vs going off to take a different job.
I don't quite understand why Labour dealers (other than the core of 5-6) would assist at this point in timetabling the WAIB - with an election imminent they can say how much they will back a labour renegotiation to leave, whereas a timetable to pass it would see them cast out by Labour if it did pass. Many of them are not standing again, but others are so no need to push it through if there's an election coming.
A Labour renegotiation to leave - that they will vote against in a referendum.
Anyone in Labour asked the EU how long they'll need to schedule for that renegotiation? Five minutes? The full half hour?
He must know he's got somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope of winning as an independent and I'm sure he can make much more money in "private consultancy" ?
You get the exit payment if you stand and lose, but I would have assumed he didn't really need the money.
Perhaps he's hoping to soak up enough votes to squeeze the Con candidate's vote, and let the LD or Lab candidate in.
Didn't the LDs say they wouldn't stand against Tory defectors? Though I think they are standing vs Soubry.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
Then you have to withdraw the 2005 "problem". Under FPTP, England voted Labour in 2005, and it got Labour.
I already did, I said to be fair Labour did win a majority in 2005 and I said that in 4 of the last 7 the UK and England voted differently - 2005 was one of the three in which it didn't.
1992. England healthy Tory majority, UK tiny and unstable Tory majority. Different result. 1997. England and UK Labour landslide. Same result. 2001. England and UK Labour landslide. Same result. 2005. England and UK healthy Labour majority. Same result. 2010. England healthy Tory majority, UK Tory/LD coalition. Different result. 2015. England landslide Tory majority, UK tiny and unstabe Tory majority. Different result. 2017. England healthy Tory majority, UK Tory minority government. Different result.
I don't quite understand why Labour dealers (other than the core of 5-6) would assist at this point in timetabling the WAIB - with an election imminent they can say how much they will back a labour renegotiation to leave, whereas a timetable to pass it would see them cast out by Labour if it did pass. Many of them are not standing again, but others are so no need to push it through if there's an election coming.
A Labour renegotiation to leave - that they will vote against in a referendum.
Anyone in Labour asked the EU how long they'll need to schedule for that renegotiation? Five minutes? The full half hour?
It is risible.
I think you've missed the point, which is however risible it is, the Labour leavers who are critical to timetabling and/or passing the WAIB can use it as justification to not doing so. The likes of Nandy or Kinnock who make a song and dance about thinking we need to leave can say continue to justify not going for a horrible Boris Brexit, on the basis that official Labour policy is negotiation.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
Indeed just as Sweden is obliged to adopt the Euro.
Sweden was a member before the Euro was introduced.
But it didn’t negotiate an opt-out from the Euro like the UK and Denmark did, so is bound to join the Euro. However, to qualify to join the Euro, it has to join the ERM first, and it is not bound to join the ERM. I dare say an Indy Scotland could figure out a similar fudge for Schengen if it wanted to.
The Scots will still have to come up with a currency. If not the Euro, it will have to be something else as it won't be the pound. Perhaps for the price of a few more golf courses, the Donald will let them use the US dollar?
I don't quite understand why Labour dealers (other than the core of 5-6) would assist at this point in timetabling the WAIB - with an election imminent they can say how much they will back a labour renegotiation to leave, whereas a timetable to pass it would see them cast out by Labour if it did pass. Many of them are not standing again, but others are so no need to push it through if there's an election coming.
A Labour renegotiation to leave - that they will vote against in a referendum.
Anyone in Labour asked the EU how long they'll need to schedule for that renegotiation? Five minutes? The full half hour?
It is risible.
I think you've missed the point, which is however risible it is, the Labour leavers who are critical to timetabling and/or passing the WAIB can use it as justification to not doing so. The likes of Nandy or Kinnock who make a song and dance about thinking we need to leave can say continue to justify not going for a horrible Boris Brexit, on the basis that official Labour policy is negotiation.
Meanwhile, the voters just point and laugh at Labour.....
If we do get another hung parliament, with a majority of MPs elected on manifesto commitments to either a second referendum or cancelling Brexit outright, I wonder if the PBTories will stick to their recent insistence that that election should decide Brexit once and for all.
People only have so much attention for what politicians are saying. Labour won't waste those moments talking about how we arrived at having an election.
It will (if it happens) damage their tactical vote. Tactical voters are the most clued-up serctor of the electorate, and they notice things like a Con-Lib stitch-up, especially if it looks like having the side-effect of a big Tory majority and hard Brexit.
If we do get another hung parliament, with a majority of MPs elected on manifesto commitments to either a second referendum or cancelling Brexit outright, I wonder if the PBTories will stick to their recent insistence that that election should decide Brexit once and for all.
It's a big reason Boris should have gone the harder route of trying the WAIB when he could have. A lot of remainers thought it would get through. Instead he got frit, saw it would be tough, and like May gave in to temptation to get a big majority to do it properly, and while he might succeed where she failed, he's opened the door to remain after it was almost shut in their faces.
Has anyone informed Ruth Cadbury MP that officials have said it would be impossible to organise a December election with an electoral register that includes 16 and 17 year olds? She seems to think it's possible.
Has anyone informed Ruth Cadbury MP that officials have said it would be impossible to organise a December election with an electoral register that includes 16 and 17 year olds? She seems to think it's possible.
She doesn't care. She'll just blame the evil Tories.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
Then you have to withdraw the 2005 "problem". Under FPTP, England voted Labour in 2005, and it got Labour.
We'll worry about that when Labour gets another Tony Blair.
I'm sure it is just round the corner with the current Labour Party. Althugh it will have to be an anti-semitic Tony Blair. Hmmm, I can see a problem......
I'm not sure you've followed the thread of this conversation. The issue is not to do with the merits or otherwise of voting Labour now or in 2005.
I've followed that you hate acknowledging that only Tony Blair got Labour power since 1974.
Tom Newton Dunn The plot thickens: No10 now reveals it wants to keep a one line bill option for an election on the table, with or without WAB passing, if FTPA motion fails on Monday. Not what Morgan and Cleverly were saying on broadcast this morning, so appears Cabinet v No10 split remains.
No, it appears Boris knows how to do spin, unlike May, i.e. lie through your teeth.
I think we would all agree on that assessment of ABDPJ. His only problem is that nobody believes a word he says. (Except dear old HY, of course, bur he seems to have gone a bit quiet today. Probably a bit confused by the large number of Tory lines.)
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
Indeed just as Sweden is obliged to adopt the Euro.
Sweden was a member before the Euro was introduced.
But it didn’t negotiate an opt-out from the Euro like the UK and Denmark did, so is bound to join the Euro. However, to qualify to join the Euro, it has to join the ERM first, and it is not bound to join the ERM. I dare say an Indy Scotland could figure out a similar fudge for Schengen if it wanted to.
The Scots will still have to come up with a currency. If not the Euro, it will have to be something else as it won't be the pound. Perhaps for the price of a few more golf courses, the Donald will let them use the US dollar?
Not impressed with Cleverly on Marr. Why not just say "we'll consider the Lib Dem/SNP proposal, but on Monday they have the chance to vote for an election etc. etc."
Cleverly is a donkey of donkeys
Is there anyone you are a fan of!?
On politicians , as I have posted before , very few. Ken Clarke , Joanna Cherry , ex politicians Alex Salmond was the best of them all.
Comments
The membership's determination to stick with Corbyn despite the overwhelming evidence that he is going to lose and lose badly is a betrayal of the poor and the dispossessed that they pretend they care passionately about.
Anyone in Labour asked the EU how long they'll need to schedule for that renegotiation? Five minutes? The full half hour?
It is risible.
His MPs didn't want an election then, and still don't want one now.
1992. England healthy Tory majority, UK tiny and unstable Tory majority. Different result.
1997. England and UK Labour landslide. Same result.
2001. England and UK Labour landslide. Same result.
2005. England and UK healthy Labour majority. Same result.
2010. England healthy Tory majority, UK Tory/LD coalition. Different result.
2015. England landslide Tory majority, UK tiny and unstabe Tory majority. Different result.
2017. England healthy Tory majority, UK Tory minority government. Different result.
NEW THREAD