Why would the LDs be against EU citizens getting the vote? I think they are against kids voting, but surely they think having EU citizens getting the opportunity to nullify the referendum is in their interests...
They are not, but they want a December election, and realise that it's not compatible with that.
Why would the LDs be against EU citizens getting the vote? I think they are against kids voting, but surely they think having EU citizens getting the opportunity to nullify the referendum is in their interests...
They are not, but they want a December election, and realise that it's not compatible with that.
Why? They are already on the register.
To put it more clearly, getting a bill through the HoC to hold the December election very probably isn't going to happen if they hold out for that condition.
Frenchman Jerome Garces to referee England's Rugby World Cup final against South Africa despite his controversial role in Wales' semi-final exit... with Nigel Owens out injured
Crazy. The election is going to happen regardless, it's just a question of who gets on the electoral register for it.
Votes at 16 / for EU citizens is not going to be a "red line" for the Tories even if those amendments were to pass; they're too far down the election rabbit-hole now to back out.
If Johnson is to be stopped the under 40's will be absolutely key.
That figure simply has to be wrong doesn't it? Quite apart from its inherent unbelievability, where did Ms Swindon get it from?
I've seen it (or something similar enough that I thought it was the same) a few times on twitter from different people. Edit: There is a chance I have just seen that tweet twice several hours apart but I could have sworn I saw something similar from somebody else on twitter (though they could be unreliable)
Should have clarified (I do sometimes) that I can't personally vouch for the figure.
Young people move about a lot, so are more likely to need to register again and a decent portion vote for the first time when they are young and so presumably register for the first time. You do get more sign ups when an election looks likely but it does sound like a big figure.
Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925: Punishment of abuses in connection with the grant of honours. (1)If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. (2)If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour (3)Any person guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and where the person convicted (whether on indictment or summarily) received any such gift, money, or consideration as aforesaid which is capable of forfeiture, he shall in addition to any other punishment be liable to forfeit the same to His Majesty. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/72/section/1
Sounds like you can’t give cash for honours. Doesn’t say anything about backroom deals.
If you think it applies only to cash, obviously you need to read it again. Or maybe just read it.
Johnson has taken a huge gamble. Especially given the volatile nature of electorate.
In theory, Corbyn should be shellacked.
But...
The smart move would be for Labour to reverse weaponise the NHS against Brexit. The inverse of the £350m bus.
That secret NHS drugs negotiation with the US Government that Channel 4 dispatches has started to unearth (if it is as advertised) looks potentially very damaging.
Channel 4 will throw everything they can at the Tories but I'm not sure most of the electorate will be listening.
Dunno. Feels a bit Zimmerman telegram to me.
It links NHS/American system and Brexit together in the worst possible way.
My political clusterfuck antenna are going crazy over this.
I think theres little doubt about that. If there were, he would have waited before trying what he has.
Much confusion can be caused by a failure to recognize that this is the Boris Johnson Project with everything else, including Brexit, subservient to its single objective - the promotion of Brand Boris Johnson.
It would ensure that during the main debate on the bill MPs can propose amendments in the usual way. Under the government’s plan, only amendments from the government would be put to a vote. (courtesy Guardian live blog)
Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925: Punishment of abuses in connection with the grant of honours. (1)If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. (2)If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour (3)Any person guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and where the person convicted (whether on indictment or summarily) received any such gift, money, or consideration as aforesaid which is capable of forfeiture, he shall in addition to any other punishment be liable to forfeit the same to His Majesty. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/72/section/1
Sounds like you can’t give cash for honours. Doesn’t say anything about backroom deals.
If you think it applies only to cash, obviously you need to read it again. Or maybe just read it.
No need to be snide. Would you could call a backroom deal a “valuable consideration”?
Hello from Spain. Was keeping up with things on Twitter from poolside. Kids now back in so BBC Parliament on the laptop.
Have tried to explain to my 11yr old son what's going on. He finds it very funny but very baffling. Especially when you try and explain why the MPs who wouldn't vote for an election yesterday to be held on the 12th may vote today for an election to be held on the 12th or 11th...
Hello from Spain. Was keeping up with things on Twitter from poolside. Kids now back in so BBC Parliament on the laptop.
Have tried to explain to my 11yr old son what's going on. He finds it very funny but very baffling. Especially when you try and explain why the MPs who wouldn't vote for an election yesterday to be held on the 12th may vote today for an election to be held on the 12th or 11th...
The date of the election at the end is immaterial but the amount of time remaining before dissolution to (potentially) do evil things is very material. Bottom line: no-one trusts Bozo.
Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925: Punishment of abuses in connection with the grant of honours. (1)If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. (2)If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour (3)Any person guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and where the person convicted (whether on indictment or summarily) received any such gift, money, or consideration as aforesaid which is capable of forfeiture, he shall in addition to any other punishment be liable to forfeit the same to His Majesty. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/72/section/1
Sounds like you can’t give cash for honours. Doesn’t say anything about backroom deals.
If you think it applies only to cash, obviously you need to read it again. Or maybe just read it.
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Maybe they're symbolic amendments. Everyone knows 16 and 17 year olds can't be added in time for a December election, but supporters of the idea seem to want to talk about it anyway, maybe just to annoy the Tories.
Only this time he went on national TV and said he was ready and would be campaigning for a radical plan all over the UK etc etc.
These people are beyond words.
Sky are reporting that Lindsay Hoyle will select the amendments and the December GE is still on the table
It depends on how mps especially lib dems, snp vote in regard to the amendments and even Lindsay Hoyle may not allow votes for 16s at it is a wrecking amendment
Only this time he went on national TV and said he was ready and would be campaigning for a radical plan all over the UK etc etc.
These people are beyond words.
The PM wants an election on terms that are different to those that happen by default.
Why on earth should the opposition accept his choice of election terms rather than parliaments? There is nothing wrong with the Creasy amendment, if it wrecks the election that would solely be because the PM refuses to negotiate and compromise. Without the votes in our sovereign body, he needs to negotiate and compromise, that is how the system works, we are not yet a dictatorship.
I'm not sure. The business motion would have been defeated if the Creasy amendment had not been passed. I think this is about MPs wanting some control over the process; let's see what, if anything, they do with it. Perfectly conceivable they just want some insurance against Boris pulling a fast one again.
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
I'm not sure. The business motion would have been defeated if the Creasy amendment had not been passed. I think this is about MPs wanting some control over the process; let's see what, if anything, they do with it. Perfectly conceivable they just want some insurance against Boris pulling a fast one again.
Bozo’s past potency feeds directly to his impotence today...
I'm not sure. The business motion would have been defeated if the Creasy amendment had not been passed. I think this is about MPs wanting some control over the process; let's see what, if anything, they do with it. Perfectly conceivable they just want some insurance against Boris pulling a fast one again.
The original government motion was pretty outrageous, wasn't it? A government bill on which amendments are not allowed.
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
Didn’t the civil service yesterday say it’d take six months to get everything in order? But hey, why do things properly when you are seeking to achieve the biggest gerrymander in modern history.
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Ms Swinson is off at the hairdressers. @Richard_Nabavi insisted yesterday, that she should get a hairstyle he approves of.
Now I understand, it was a cunning ruse to derail Parliament by making her miss crucial votes...
I do wish some on here would grow up.
It was a perfectly sensible question, her absence having been noted on the floor of the House. She wants an election and has it in her gift to avoid the amendments that might kill it and play the grownup.
Hello from Spain. Was keeping up with things on Twitter from poolside. Kids now back in so BBC Parliament on the laptop.
Have tried to explain to my 11yr old son what's going on. He finds it very funny but very baffling. Especially when you try and explain why the MPs who wouldn't vote for an election yesterday to be held on the 12th may vote today for an election to be held on the 12th or 11th...
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
We should not be seeking to make such a major constitutional change at this point in time.
There are those who want a debate - which is fine - I believe they are wrong. 18 is a perfectly legitimate age to become an adult. And voting is a right that should only come with the advent of adulthood.
Other than the special case of Irish citizens, why should the UK offer GE voting rights to EU nationals - when that is a right that is not afforded in any other EU nation?
A national debate on such issues - fine. Trying to rush it through now is just wrong. The timing does not allow for a seemly extension of the franchise to new groups even it were desirable.
Serious commentators do not believe that there is adequate time for this sort of extension to take place in a fair way.
The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
Why aren't they feasible?
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
They are more feasible and less damaging than no deal Brexit would have been, plenty were content to inflict that on us.
Comments
I was there, but didn't lay any wreath.
If anything like that gets traction I don’t think anyone can guess how the election will end up
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1189170445582569472
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1189178189181964289
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1189163970034327554
Andy, if you've got any other spreadsheets let me know, they will get published.
Votes at 16 / for EU citizens is not going to be a "red line" for the Tories even if those amendments were to pass; they're too far down the election rabbit-hole now to back out.
Not that the amendments are going to pass anyway.
Should have clarified (I do sometimes) that I can't personally vouch for the figure.
Young people move about a lot, so are more likely to need to register again and a decent portion vote for the first time when they are young and so presumably register for the first time. You do get more sign ups when an election looks likely but it does sound like a big figure.
Anyone know why?
It links NHS/American system and Brexit together in the worst possible way.
My political clusterfuck antenna are going crazy over this.
Meanwhile there is a gathering mood to postpone the Speaker election until the next parliament
Insurgency
They do not aim to win, they merely aim to stop the Tories winning.
"as Bercow stays on"? Have I missed something?
I imagine Stephen Timms will be straining every sinew to defend his wafer-thin 39,883 majority.
He's already scared off @HYUFD who apparently won't be door knocking so a small triumph for Labour in the opening skirmishes (or perhaps not).
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1189181980572712962
Have tried to explain to my 11yr old son what's going on. He finds it very funny but very baffling. Especially when you try and explain why the MPs who wouldn't vote for an election yesterday to be held on the 12th may vote today for an election to be held on the 12th or 11th...
Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.
Only this time he went on national TV and said he was ready and would be campaigning for a radical plan all over the UK etc etc.
These people are beyond words.
Who would throw the other overboard first?
List of amendments will be published before the house moves into committee stage
I suspect so - Labour are going to kill it via amendments.
Feels dead to me.
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/10/28/election-showdown-future-of-brexit-comes-down-to-fight-over
It depends on how mps especially lib dems, snp vote in regard to the amendments and even Lindsay Hoyle may not allow votes for 16s at it is a wrecking amendment
Why on earth should the opposition accept his choice of election terms rather than parliaments? There is nothing wrong with the Creasy amendment, if it wrecks the election that would solely be because the PM refuses to negotiate and compromise. Without the votes in our sovereign body, he needs to negotiate and compromise, that is how the system works, we are not yet a dictatorship.
The business motion would have been defeated if the Creasy amendment had not been passed. I think this is about MPs wanting some control over the process; let's see what, if anything, they do with it.
Perfectly conceivable they just want some insurance against Boris pulling a fast one again.
Now I understand, it was a cunning ruse to derail Parliament by making her miss crucial votes...
EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.
They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
Oh, and polar bears. Sorry, Nigel..... I would have tried to stop it, but you know, I had no gun to scare it off....
*sound of gun plopping into freezing water.....*
It was a perfectly sensible question, her absence having been noted on the floor of the House. She wants an election and has it in her gift to avoid the amendments that might kill it and play the grownup.
I kind of think they might. Maybe there should be a ref.....
There are those who want a debate - which is fine - I believe they are wrong. 18 is a perfectly legitimate age to become an adult. And voting is a right that should only come with the advent of adulthood.
Other than the special case of Irish citizens, why should the UK offer GE voting rights to EU nationals - when that is a right that is not afforded in any other EU nation?
A national debate on such issues - fine. Trying to rush it through now is just wrong. The timing does not allow for a seemly extension of the franchise to new groups even it were desirable.
Serious commentators do not believe that there is adequate time for this sort of extension to take place in a fair way.
Am I now to understand that it is off?