I am given to understand by @Gabs2 and @MarqueeMark that Boris had no intention of NoDeal, so presumably @HYUFD will confirm that by stating that Boris accepted this extension entirely voluntarily and wasn't coerced, oh dear me no, heaven forfend...
If it's leaver bias, then Boris is okay. His worry is if Brexit party supporters don't believe he gave it his all.
Yes, and I reckon he's cracked it. They think he's Proper Leave. If he gets his Dec election - as it looks like he will - I struggle to see any result apart from big Tory win. All I can do to mitigate the downer is at least make some money on the betting. Need to drop the Mr Gloomy persona, though, because I am supposed to be doing some canvassing for Labour. No-one wants to see a misery guts on their doorstep.
Maybe. Nigel Farage will not be letting him off the hook though.
What I do think though is that at the end we'll have a decisive result.
The country is sick of this impasse and will swing decisively one way or another IMO...
It'd be nice.
My suspicion though is that the public will prove to be as decisive as the HoC has been lately, and vote for Tories 310ish, and we go back to the cycle of endless repeated extensions.
All politicians make promises in election campaigns. None of them couch them in language of caveats. It is widely accepted those promises are contingent on the degree of political control they win.
When politicians fail to achieve them, the voters hold it against them when it is their fault and don't hold it against them if it is thwarted by others.
You say Boris should uniquely be held to a standard where he has to make caveats other politicians never had.
That, I submit, is anti-Brexit bias. That's a prime case of anti-Brexit bias right there.
Oh no (!) not the templating thing. And you're wrong. I am being objective. I've pressed my special button.
It's like THIS -
Should Boris be politically crucified for breaking his totemic promise? No - he is not entirely without excuses.
Should Boris avoid any serious political damage for breaking his totemic promise? No way - having excuses does not and should not buy you that in big ticket politics. Not for a pledge as high profile and personal and influential as this one.
If in doubt ask Nick Clegg.
Nick Clegg pledged to abolish tuition fees and voted to treble them instead.
Johnson voted against the extension.
Do you not see the difference?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
All politicians make promises in election campaigns. None of them couch them in language of caveats. It is widely accepted those promises are contingent on the degree of political control they win.
When politicians fail to achieve them, the voters hold it against them when it is their fault and don't hold it against them if it is thwarted by others.
You say Boris should uniquely be held to a standard where he has to make caveats other politicians never had.
That, I submit, is anti-Brexit bias. That's a prime case of anti-Brexit bias right there.
Oh no (!) not the templating thing. And you're wrong. I am being objective. I've pressed my special button.
It's like THIS -
Should Boris be politically crucified for breaking his totemic promise? No - he is not entirely without excuses.
Should Boris avoid any serious political damage for breaking his totemic promise? No way - having excuses does not and should not buy you that in big ticket politics. Not for a pledge as high profile and personal and influential as this one.
If in doubt ask Nick Clegg.
Nick Clegg wasn't legally forced to accept tuition fee increases.
All politicians make promises in election campaigns. None of them couch them in language of caveats. It is widely accepted those promises are contingent on the degree of political control they win.
When politicians fail to achieve them, the voters hold it against them when it is their fault and don't hold it against them if it is thwarted by others.
You say Boris should uniquely be held to a standard where he has to make caveats other politicians never had.
That, I submit, is anti-Brexit bias. That's a prime case of anti-Brexit bias right there.
Oh no (!) not the templating thing. And you're wrong. I am being objective. I've pressed my special button.
It's like THIS -
Should Boris be politically crucified for breaking his totemic promise? No - he is not entirely without excuses.
Should Boris avoid any serious political damage for breaking his totemic promise? No way - having excuses does not and should not buy you that in big ticket politics. Not for a pledge as high profile and personal and influential as this one.
If in doubt ask Nick Clegg.
Nick Clegg wasn't legally forced to accept tuition fee increases.
Having pledged to abolish tuition fees Nick Clegg voted for tuition fee increases.
The comparison would be valid if Boris had voted for revocation.
If it's leaver bias, then Boris is okay. His worry is if Brexit party supporters don't believe he gave it his all.
Yes, and I reckon he's cracked it. They think he's Proper Leave. If he gets his Dec election - as it looks like he will - I struggle to see any result apart from big Tory win. All I can do to mitigate the downer is at least make some money on the betting. Need to drop the Mr Gloomy persona, though, because I am supposed to be doing some canvassing for Labour. No-one wants to see a misery guts on their doorstep.
Maybe. Nigel Farage will not be letting him off the hook though.
Farage has let him off the hook today. I am suspicious of an election pact. Remember a dozen safe Tory seats have had their MPs deprieved of the whip...
Nowhere in the letter does Boris support the extension and he makes clear in the first paragraph the Government opposes it but Parliament has imposed the extension.
He also makes clear he is seeking an election to get a majority for his Deal and Brexit
If it's leaver bias, then Boris is okay. His worry is if Brexit party supporters don't believe he gave it his all.
Yes, and I reckon he's cracked it. They think he's Proper Leave. If he gets his Dec election - as it looks like he will - I struggle to see any result apart from big Tory win. All I can do to mitigate the downer is at least make some money on the betting. Need to drop the Mr Gloomy persona, though, because I am supposed to be doing some canvassing for Labour. No-one wants to see a misery guts on their doorstep.
Maybe. Nigel Farage will not be letting him off the hook though.
Pretty funny that Corbyn gave as one of his excuses that there's not enough daylight on Dec 12, whilst indicating that he'd be happy with the second week in January.
Pretty funny that Corbyn gave as one of his excuses that there's not enough daylight on Dec 12, whilst indicating that he'd be happy with the second week in January.
He opposed second week of October because that was too close to the end of October deadline, but with an end of January deadline the second week of January is something he'd be happy with?
Pretty funny that Corbyn gave as one of his excuses that there's not enough daylight on Dec 12, whilst indicating that he'd be happy with the second week in January.
He opposed second week of October because that was too close to the end of October deadline, but with an end of January deadline the second week of January is something he'd be happy with?
I think this election is wide open and could easily go wrong for Con but what other choice do they have?
What I do think though is that at the end we'll have a decisive result.
The country is sick of this impasse and will swing decisively one way or another IMO...
A majority for someone? But who?
Imagine this:
Many people would have voted Labour in 2005, then gave the Tories a chance in 2010, 2015, 2017 and now they are asking again in 2019/2020.
Will these voters vote Tory again for the fourth time in ten years?
More pertinently, many people will have voted Labour in 2017 believing Bexit was assured. Because that is what Labour told them. Will these voters vote Labour again?
I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight
"Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"
Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.
I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.
I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight
"Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"
Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.
I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
Nicola can win 50+ Seats in a December election without gerrymandering the franchise. She has no need to play games, she can win a fair fight and with it a mandate for a 2020 referendum which I hope she'd win.
Pretty funny that Corbyn gave as one of his excuses that there's not enough daylight on Dec 12, whilst indicating that he'd be happy with the second week in January.
He opposed second week of October because that was too close to the end of October deadline, but with an end of January deadline the second week of January is something he'd be happy with?
Go figure.
A significant difference is no party in parliament is likely to be campaigning for no deal in January, no one knew if that would be the case when the October election was being discussed. Many tory posters were cheering the possibility of a tory party campaigning for no deal.
Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.
Is it not simply because this vote was introduced first and there was no reason to cancel this debate and vote?
Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.
He has lost control. In office but not in power. The only thing BJ likes is power or more precisely the trappings of power. He has crashed his party after only a few weeks by withdrawing the whip to 20 odd MPs...
I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight
"Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"
Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.
I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
Nicola can win 50+ Seats in a December election without gerrymandering the franchise. She has no need to play games, she can win a fair fight and with it a mandate for a 2020 referendum which I hope she'd win.
Why jeopardise that playing silly buggers?
Because...
(a) while the SNP's chances are good anyway, they are probably even better with more younger voters enrolled, so why would she not take the chance of getting both an election and younger voters enfranchised?
(b) maybe, just maybe, the SNP believe in votes at 16 as a principle, and don't see it as "gerrymandering the franchise".
I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight
"Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"
Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.
I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
Not going to happen. The one line is going through unamended on the evidence in the HOC just now
I also don't see why people view votes for 16 and 17 year olds as a "wrecking" amendment, or one that would cause the Tories to pull support for the Bill. I would've thought, even if that amendment passes, they would still support an election; they're too far committed to it now to back down.
Pretty funny that Corbyn gave as one of his excuses that there's not enough daylight on Dec 12, whilst indicating that he'd be happy with the second week in January.
He opposed second week of October because that was too close to the end of October deadline, but with an end of January deadline the second week of January is something he'd be happy with?
Go figure.
There is no figuring. Labour is just an incoherent rambling mess.
Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.
I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight
"Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"
Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.
I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
Not going to happen. The one line is going through unamended on the evidence in the HOC just now
I don't know how you've got that impression. Blackford implied that, while he would still support an election even without a 16/17 year olds amendment, he would still support that amendment. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know; something not being a "priority" or a "red line" doesn't preclude trying to get it if possible.
Of course, there's no guarantee of a majority for 16/17 year olds, even with SNP support.
Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.
He has lost control. In office but not in power. The only thing BJ likes is power or more precisely the trappings of power. He has crashed his party after only a few weeks by withdrawing the whip to 20 odd MPs...
Nope. They weren’t going to vote for his policies anyway. He wants an election. Fair enough. FWIW I think that he will win. He should be looking for the shortest line between 2 points, not messing about.
I also don't see why people view votes for 16 and 17 year olds as a "wrecking" amendment, or one that would cause the Tories to pull support for the Bill. I would've thought, even if that amendment passes, they would still support an election; they're too far committed to it now to back down.
It would be gerrymandering on an industrial scale.
I actually don't mind it because a majority government in the future would have a green light to gerrymander to their own benefit.
I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight
"Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"
Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.
I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
Not going to happen. The one line is going through unamended on the evidence in the HOC just now
I don't know how you've got that impression. Blackford implied that, while he would still support an election even without a 16/17 year olds amendment, he would still support that amendment. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know; something not being a "priority" or a "red line" doesn't preclude trying to get it if possible.
Of course, there's no guarantee of a majority for 16/17 year olds, even with SNP support.
Comments
It'd be nice.
My suspicion though is that the public will prove to be as decisive as the HoC has been lately, and vote for Tories 310ish, and we go back to the cycle of endless repeated extensions.
Johnson voted against the extension.
Do you not see the difference?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The comparison would be valid if Boris had voted for revocation.
He also makes clear he is seeking an election to get a majority for his Deal and Brexit
Not feasible.
Have I misunderstood? Are Tories being ambushed?
Many people would have voted Labour in 2005, then gave the Tories a chance in 2010, 2015, 2017 and now they are asking again in 2019/2020.
Will these voters vote Tory again for the fourth time in ten years?
It is the end of days.
That SNP demand lasted, oooh, about 50 seconds.
He has got carried away and scored an own goal
I`m not sure that he has - I have a bad feeling about this. They are trying to gerrymander the next election.
It looks like he was talking about future elections after this one .
Journalists are split over the precise implications of Corbyn’s words.
"Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"
I like her.
Go figure.
There is far more sense from her than Corbyn.
I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
If we lose and Brexit is cancelled democraticaly I can live with that. If that is the will of the voters so be it.
I would be more upset if we lose and see Corbyn and McDonnell in Downing Street.
Why jeopardise that playing silly buggers?
Very wise.
(a) while the SNP's chances are good anyway, they are probably even better with more younger voters enrolled, so why would she not take the chance of getting both an election and younger voters enfranchised?
(b) maybe, just maybe, the SNP believe in votes at 16 as a principle, and don't see it as "gerrymandering the franchise".
Whilst Corbyn was doing bugger all at least they had the sense to step in.
One million more voters split across 650 constituencies is 1500 votes. Doubt it would change the price of fish.
Of course, there's no guarantee of a majority for 16/17 year olds, even with SNP support.
You are a Tory she is a Tory.
Both voted for Austerity Neither voted against stopping US taking over the NHS Both are happy with the current system.
Only one Party represents real change and you will never vote for it.
I actually don't mind it because a majority government in the future would have a green light to gerrymander to their own benefit.
DUP very annoyed will not support the motion