Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the latest Democratic debate watch Klobuchar

24

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Minnesota neighbours Iowa and so if Klobuchar bested Buttigieg in the debate that could help her become the insurgent ahead of the caucus
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Parliamentary scrutiny parallel to negotiation is not something we’ve had for any of the previous 100 years of our history. The 2 year period of Parliament asserting authority over a Government’s every move haven’t exactly been a shining example of things being so wrong before.
  • We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc

    There will be no select committees holding the government to account on FTAs. That’s the point.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    rkrkrk said:

    50/50 for me on Trump re-election.

    Looking at the map, even if we give him Florida, he needs to recreate his success in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

    His net approval in those swing states don't look great at the moment either.
    OH (-5), MI (-14), PA (-7). https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/

    If Warren is the Democratic nominee Trump will likely beat her in all those states given he already leads her in the national popular vote which was not the case v Hillary in 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1207823083857416192?s=20
  • We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc

    There will be no select committees holding the government to account on FTAs. That’s the point.

    When have there ever been? Do the irreversible ones the EU negotiates get held to this absurd level of scrutiny you desire by our Parliament?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Cyclefree said:

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there has been zero debate about them during the election campaign and precious little said in the manifestos either. Blocking is not scrutiny. A VoNC is not scrutiny.
    Do you believe the current legislature would set different priorities for negotiations than the Executive? It seems to me that a lot of people still seem to be commenting on the basis of the Parliament of two years ago, not the Parliament of today.

    With a target date of 2020 there really isn’t much time to waste.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited December 2019
    Animal_pb said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.
    That really isn’t scrutiny. Proper scrutiny would be to look in detail at all aspects as the negotiations are happening so that feedback and input can be provided and, hopefully, a better outcome is reached. Having no say and then being told that you have to take it or leave it at the end, especially when a 3-line whip is imposed is not an adequate substitute.

    We have not even had any discussion of Britain’s negotiating mandate or priorities during the election campaign and, unlike the US or EU, have not even set these out anywhere. And the executive in the WB is seeking to give itself extensive Henry VIII powers to do what it wants without regard to anyone else.

    How this is meant to be an improvement or any sort of meaningful taking back of control is a mystery to me.
    Oh, come on. Scrutiny of all aspects of the negotiations as they're going on? That's not what the legislature is for, and you know it. Negotiations of these sorts are clearly the domain of the executive - a confirmatory (or otherwise) vote on their outcome is an entirely appropriate level of parliamentary involvement. If the HoC feels strongly enough that the executive is pursuing the wrong course of action, well, that's what VoNC is for.
    Who says that legislatures - our elected representatives - should not have a say in determining our negotiating mandate, our priorities and have input into the negotiations in order to ensure there is sufficient consensus?

    I can see that not doing this suits an executive which wants to get its own way, not have to explain or justify and do whatever it wants. But I see no reason why we should revert to a “l’etat c’est moi” style of unaccountable government just because it suits the current holder of the office of PM. Especially not when the whole point - allegedly - of Brexit was to return power back to the people, whose elected representatives sit in the legislature.
  • We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc

    There will be no select committees holding the government to account on FTAs. That’s the point.

    When have there ever been? Do the irreversible ones the EU negotiates get held to this absurd level of scrutiny you desire by our Parliament?

    I am loving this taking back control. It essentially means we give all power to an executive appointed on the backs of votes cast by a minority of the population!! If you think MPs being able to question ministers about trade negotiations is absurd, so be it. We will just have to agree to disagree.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.
  • alex_ said:

    Parliamentary scrutiny parallel to negotiation is not something we’ve had for any of the previous 100 years of our history. The 2 year period of Parliament asserting authority over a Government’s every move haven’t exactly been a shining example of things being so wrong before.

    Asking questions of ministers and being able to suggest improvements is not the same as asserting authority over the government.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
    All because Andrew Neil dared to challenge Boris to an interview. Humility didn’t last long.
    Someone seems to be forgetting a number of us have been arguing for this for years
    Oh come on, churlish to pretend your long standing views are why we’re talking about this now. This is revenge for Neil, pure and simple. There is a pattern here. Anyone with the temerity to challenge in any way Boris gets sacked.

  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    50/50 for me on Trump re-election.

    Looking at the map, even if we give him Florida, he needs to recreate his success in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

    His net approval in those swing states don't look great at the moment either.
    OH (-5), MI (-14), PA (-7). https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/

    If Warren is the Democratic nominee Trump will likely beat her in all those states given he already leads her in the national popular vote which was not the case v Hillary in 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1207823083857416192?s=20
    Including that poll the average of Trump against the top 3 is 47-48.5 for December with 6 polls, almost identical to 2016.

    And the state polling averages also agrees, only Georgia is more than 2 points away from either the 2016 or 2018 results.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited December 2019


    I think we should consult the pb.com archive from Feb 1979 to see if the same arguments were going on back then. Transition from minority to solid majority government takes some getting used to...
  • Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Hmmm, why would parties in power do things they believe will help them retain power? I really cannot imagine!!

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    I think weve seen over the last 3 years that our elected representatives aren't quite the champions of the nation you think they are. Labour could have voted through Mays soft Brexit but decided to play silly buggers instead. Listening to their MPs says they knew Jezza was crap but wouldn't do much about it simply reinforces the view that MPs act as a herd rather than fight on principle.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Animal_pb said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.
    That really isn’t scrutiny. Proper scrutiny would be to look in detail at all aspects as the negotiations are happening so that feedback and input can be provided and, hopefully, a better outcome is reached. Having no say and then being told that you have to take it or leave it at the end, especially when a 3-line whip is imposed is not an adequate substitute.

    We have not even had any discussion of Britain’s negotiating mandate or priorities during the election campaign and, unlike the US or EU, have not even set these out anywhere. And the executive in the WB is seeking to give itself extensive Henry VIII powers to do what it wants without regard to anyone else.

    How this is meant to be an improvement or any sort of meaningful taking back of control is a mystery to me.
    Oh, come on. Scrutiny of all aspects of the negotiations as they're going on? That's not what the legislature is for, and you know it. Negotiations of these sorts are clearly the domain of the executive - a confirmatory (or otherwise) vote on their outcome is an entirely appropriate level of parliamentary involvement. If the HoC feels strongly enough that the executive is pursuing the wrong course of action, well, that's what VoNC is for.
    Who says that legislatures - our elected representatives - should not have a say in determining our negotiating mandate, our priorities and have input into the negotiations in order to ensure there is sufficient consensus?

    I can see that not doing this suits an executive which wants to get its own way, not have to explain or justify and do whatever it wants. But I see no reason why we should revert to a “l’etat c’est moi” style of unaccountable government just because it suits the current holder of the office of PM. Especially not when the whole point - allegedly - of Brexit was to return power back to the people, whose elected representatives sit in the legislature.

    Indeed - and for a government with a majority the size of the Tory one it should not be a problem anyway.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    I think weve seen over the last 3 years that our elected representatives aren't quite the champions of the nation you think they are. Labour could have voted through Mays soft Brexit but decided to play silly buggers instead. Listening to their MPs says they knew Jezza was crap but wouldn't do much about it simply reinforces the view that MPs act as a herd rather than fight on principle.
    Boris =\= Britain

    Not yet anyway.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    Parliamentary scrutiny parallel to negotiation is not something we’ve had for any of the previous 100 years of our history. The 2 year period of Parliament asserting authority over a Government’s every move haven’t exactly been a shining example of things being so wrong before.

    Asking questions of ministers and being able to suggest improvements is not the same as asserting authority over the government.

    Ministerial questions and select committees are being abolished?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there has been zero debate about them during the election campaign and precious little said in the manifestos either. Blocking is not scrutiny. A VoNC is not scrutiny.
    Do you believe the current legislature would set different priorities for negotiations than the Executive? It seems to me that a lot of people still seem to be commenting on the basis of the Parliament of two years ago, not the Parliament of today.

    With a target date of 2020 there really isn’t much time to waste.
    Agreed. You don't have a massive commercial negotation with all of the shareholders chipping in. This is one where the Board tells its specialist negotiators to do their job, bring back what you've negotiated - and the Board (Cabinet) will say yeah or nay.

    If the Board has got it wrong, they will be voted out at the next AGM.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    edited December 2019
    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
    All because Andrew Neil dared to challenge Boris to an interview. Humility didn’t last long.
    Someone seems to be forgetting a number of us have been arguing for this for years
    If the BBc loses the licence fee, it will be screwed, it would lose more than 50% of likely subscribers overnight
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates?
    No. The impeachment.
    Ah, OK. I know Pelosi is aware of the danger, she didn't really want to go into the process at all, but Trump just kept on committing crimes.
    Nah this is about Biden

    Just don’t know whether it’s his friends or his enemies that pushed the impeachment process
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited December 2019
    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there has been zero debate about them during the election campaign and precious little said in the manifestos either. Blocking is not scrutiny. A VoNC is not scrutiny.
    Do you believe the current legislature would set different priorities for negotiations than the Executive? It seems to me that a lot of people still seem to be commenting on the basis of the Parliament of two years ago, not the Parliament of today.

    With a target date of 2020 there really isn’t much time to waste.
    One clear sign that a a fraud is being perpetrated or that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes or trying to stop you look at the small print and understand what is really happening is the statement that a matter is urgent, there is no time to waste, this offer will only be available for a short time, no time to waste etc etc.

    Quite why so many people are more concerned with getting something done quickly rather than getting it done properly I will leave for others to ponder. To me it is an utterly daft way to proceed when something as important as our post-Brexit trade agreements, which will affect the livelihoods and futures of millions of voters, including the voters the PM is so anxious not to let down are concerned.

    A cynic might think that people are worried that scrutiny might expose matters that are embarrassing or difficult or require people to make hard choices. You can cover stuff up for a while but it will always come back and bite you, one way or another.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests b than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per
    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Hmmm, why would parties in power do things they believe will help them retain power? I really cannot imagine!!

    Parties always do that, this is simply the Tories turn. Labour rolled along quite happily with no boundary changes, duff electoral rolls and stuffing government bodies with their mates.

    If your going to appeal to principle you have to look at both sides otherwise its just sour grapes that you cant do things to suit yourself.
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Parliamentary scrutiny parallel to negotiation is not something we’ve had for any of the previous 100 years of our history. The 2 year period of Parliament asserting authority over a Government’s every move haven’t exactly been a shining example of things being so wrong before.

    Asking questions of ministers and being able to suggest improvements is not the same as asserting authority over the government.

    Ministerial questions and select committees are being abolished?

    There will be no select committee scrutiny of FTA priorities or negotiations. There will be no ministers’ questions on them either.

  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited December 2019
    On the topic.

    Will Klobuchar become the flavour of the month replacing Buttigieg?
    Who knows?
    Does it matter?
    Klobuchar getting Buttigieg's 8% is rather little.

    My advice is to wait, there is another 5 weeks until the Iowa caucus-goers start to decide which of these unloved and underwhelming candidates they dislike the least. In 2012 they decided just days before.

    The reason why Klobuchar and Buttigieg might simply repeat Santorum of 2012 is that all of them severely lack charisma and don't have a single popular policy that you can remember, despite of this people really don't like Biden/Romney and are shopping around for an alternative.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
    All because Andrew Neil dared to challenge Boris to an interview. Humility didn’t last long.
    Someone seems to be forgetting a number of us have been arguing for this for years
    If the BBc loses the licence fee, it will be screwed, it would lose more than 50% of likely subscribers overnight
    “Celebrity ITV Proms get me out of here” sponsored by The Happy Widows over 50s death plan. here we come.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    I think weve seen over the last 3 years that our elected representatives aren't quite the champions of the nation you think they are. Labour could have voted through Mays soft Brexit but decided to play silly buggers instead. Listening to their MPs says they knew Jezza was crap but wouldn't do much about it simply reinforces the view that MPs act as a herd rather than fight on principle.

    No need for Parliament at all, really ...

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc

    There will be no select committees holding the government to account on FTAs. That’s the point.

    When have there ever been? Do the irreversible ones the EU negotiates get held to this absurd level of scrutiny you desire by our Parliament?
    See here - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/trade-policy/trade-agreements/. You will note that negotiations are done in close co-operation with, inter alia, the European Parliament.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The 2024 election debate hosted by Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    I think weve seen over the last 3 years that our elected representatives aren't quite the champions of the nation you think they are. Labour could have voted through Mays soft Brexit but decided to play silly buggers instead. Listening to their MPs says they knew Jezza was crap but wouldn't do much about it simply reinforces the view that MPs act as a herd rather than fight on principle.
    Boris =\= Britain

    Not yet anyway.
    Of course he isn't but Labourites whining they lost when the ignored all the signs and could have done something about it doesn't win much sympathy. Moderate Labour MPs standing on their own this election might well have fared better than rump Corbynites. But you all hung in their and would have gladly inflicted a nutjob and his coterie upon us all. Maybe that's what you should reflect on.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    I think weve seen over the last 3 years that our elected representatives aren't quite the champions of the nation you think they are. Labour could have voted through Mays soft Brexit but decided to play silly buggers instead. Listening to their MPs says they knew Jezza was crap but wouldn't do much about it simply reinforces the view that MPs act as a herd rather than fight on principle.

    No need for Parliament at all, really ...

    How dare they question the nations beloved leader.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The Sky Katie Hopkins PM interviews.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    I think weve seen over the last 3 years that our elected representatives aren't quite the champions of the nation you think they are. Labour could have voted through Mays soft Brexit but decided to play silly buggers instead. Listening to their MPs says they knew Jezza was crap but wouldn't do much about it simply reinforces the view that MPs act as a herd rather than fight on principle.

    No need for Parliament at all, really ...

    Parliament is pointless when a government wins a landslide. Only in exceptional circumstances, such as the PM wanting to start an illegal war, does it actually matter.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    Jonathan said:

    The 2024 election debate hosted by Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield.

    On ice.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there has been zero debate about them during the election campaign and precious little said in the manifestos either. Blocking is not scrutiny. A VoNC is not scrutiny.
    Do you believe the current legislature would set different priorities for negotiations than the Executive? It seems to me that a lot of people still seem to be commenting on the basis of the Parliament of two years ago, not the Parliament of today.

    With a target date of 2020 there really isn’t much time to waste.
    Agreed. You don't have a massive commercial negotation with all of the shareholders chipping in. This is one where the Board tells its specialist negotiators to do their job, bring back what you've negotiated - and the Board (Cabinet) will say yeah or nay.

    If the Board has got it wrong, they will be voted out at the next AGM.
    A trade negotiation for a country is not the same as the negotiation of a commercial agreement for a company.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Cyclefree said:

    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there has been zero debate about them during the election campaign and precious little said in the manifestos either. Blocking is not scrutiny. A VoNC is not scrutiny.
    Do you believe the current legislature would set different priorities for negotiations than the Executive? It seems to me that a lot of people still seem to be commenting on the basis of the Parliament of two years ago, not the Parliament of today.

    With a target date of 2020 there really isn’t much time to waste.
    One clear sign that a a fraud is being perpetrated or that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes or trying to stop you look at the small print and understand what is really happening is the statement that a matter is urgent, there is no time to waste, this offer will only be available for a short time, no time to waste etc etc.

    Quite why so many people are more concerned with getting something done quickly rather than getting it done properly I will leave for others to ponder. To me it is an utterly daft way to proceed when something as important as our post-Brexit trade agreements, which will affect the livelihoods and futures of millions of voters, including the voters the PM is so anxious not to let down are concerned.

    A cynic might think that people are worried that scrutiny might expose matters that are embarrassing or difficult or require people to make hard choices. You can cover stuff up for a while but it will always come back and bite you, one way or another.
    Almost certainly. Although to be honest I don’t expect the Dec2020 agreement will be much more than a minimum standard holding position on post Brexit trade. Not least because anything comprehensive will not have time for European legislative approval. Comprehensive trade agreements will take years.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    The 2024 election debate hosted by Holly Willoughby and Philip Schofield.

    On ice.
    C4 have done ice.
  • Cyclefree said:

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc

    There will be no select committees holding the government to account on FTAs. That’s the point.

    When have there ever been? Do the irreversible ones the EU negotiates get held to this absurd level of scrutiny you desire by our Parliament?
    See here - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/trade-policy/trade-agreements/. You will note that negotiations are done in close co-operation with, inter alia, the European Parliament.
    So if the European Parliament votes through a deal we dislike which is also ratified by the European Council and national Parliaments then at which subsequent election can we reverse it?

    If the UK Parliament passes a deal you dislike you can reverse it at the next UK election.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    HYUFD said:
    He should see the electoral map of France.
    The last one from 2017 dates since the Plantagenets.

    Spain dates back from the reconquista.

    Italy since the 9th century.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    A version of Naked Attraction involving parliamentary candidates and a panel of voters.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    HYUFD said:
    Are the national living wage and minimum wage now synonymous? I think there used to be a difference with some companies paying what they called a national living wage that was higher than the legal minimum.
  • Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests b than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per
    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Hmmm, why would parties in power do things they believe will help them retain power? I really cannot imagine!!

    Parties always do that, this is simply the Tories turn. Labour rolled along quite happily with no boundary changes, duff electoral rolls and stuffing government bodies with their mates.

    If your going to appeal to principle you have to look at both sides otherwise its just sour grapes that you cant do things to suit yourself.

    I wasn’t appealing to principle, I was merely stating what will happen: voter suppression, increased powers for the executive, less scrutiny of the executive and weakened judicial review. The government is taking back control.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    I think weve seen over the last 3 years that our elected representatives aren't quite the champions of the nation you think they are. Labour could have voted through Mays soft Brexit but decided to play silly buggers instead. Listening to their MPs says they knew Jezza was crap but wouldn't do much about it simply reinforces the view that MPs act as a herd rather than fight on principle.

    No need for Parliament at all, really ...

    certainly not the last one.

    Once theyd prima donnaed about suspension and all came rushing back what did they actually do ?

    Bugger all.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited December 2019

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests b than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per
    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Hmmm, why would parties in power do things they believe will help them retain power? I really cannot imagine!!

    Parties always do that, this is simply the Tories turn. Labour rolled along quite happily with no boundary changes, duff electoral rolls and stuffing government bodies with their mates.

    If your going to appeal to principle you have to look at both sides otherwise its just sour grapes that you cant do things to suit yourself.

    I wasn’t appealing to principle, I was merely stating what will happen: voter suppression, increased powers for the executive, less scrutiny of the executive and weakened judicial review. The government is taking back control.

    The nation voted for populist strong man politics. Policy in four syllables.
  • Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests b than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per
    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Hmmm, why would parties in power do things they believe will help them retain power? I really cannot imagine!!

    Parties always do that, this is simply the Tories turn. Labour rolled along quite happily with no boundary changes, duff electoral rolls and stuffing government bodies with their mates.

    If your going to appeal to principle you have to look at both sides otherwise its just sour grapes that you cant do things to suit yourself.

    I wasn’t appealing to principle, I was merely stating what will happen: voter suppression, increased powers for the executive, less scrutiny of the executive and weakened judicial review. The government is taking back control.

    The nation voted for populist strong man politics. Policy in four syllables.
    They voted against a Marxist.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Klobouchar had a good night, but not convinced she has much chance, any more than Buttigieg. But it's noticeable that Biden's lead in the polls, though consistent, is not what it was.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests b than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per
    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Parties always do that, this is simply the Tories turn. Labour rolled along quite happily with no boundary changes, duff electoral rolls and stuffing government bodies with their mates.

    If your going to appeal to principle you have to look at both sides otherwise its just sour grapes that you cant do things to suit yourself.

    I wasn’t appealing to principle, I was merely stating what will happen: voter suppression, increased powers for the executive, less scrutiny of the executive and weakened judicial review. The government is taking back control.

    The nation voted for populist strong man politics. Policy in four syllables.
    They voted against a Marxist.
    And gave Boris a blank cheque.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc

    There will be no select committees holding the government to account on FTAs. That’s the point.

    When have there ever been? Do the irreversible ones the EU negotiates get held to this absurd level of scrutiny you desire by our Parliament?
    See here - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/trade-policy/trade-agreements/. You will note that negotiations are done in close co-operation with, inter alia, the European Parliament.
    So if the European Parliament votes through a deal we dislike which is also ratified by the European Council and national Parliaments then at which subsequent election can we reverse it?

    If the UK Parliament passes a deal you dislike you can reverse it at the next UK election.
    We won’t be in the EU. So why are you still going on about it. You asked what scrutiny EU trade deals got and I gave you the answer which, incidentally, shows that they get rather more than what your beloved government is proposing for our own.

    Now go away and find out how many trade deals which are entered into by any government are ever reversed even if there is a change of government.

    The idea that a GE a few years after a trade agreement comes into force is an adequate substitute for proper scrutiny before a trade deal is agreed is nonsense on stilts. But it seems to be the sort of nonsense we are going to have to endure for the next few years.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Klobouchar had a good night, but not convinced she has much chance, any more than Buttigieg. But it's noticeable that Biden's lead in the polls, though consistent, is not what it was.

    Any regrets about backing Corbyn at all Nick? How do we avoid the same mistake?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests b than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as some he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per
    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Hmmm, why would parties in power do things they believe will help them retain power? I really cannot imagine!!

    Parties always do that, this is simply the Tories turn. Labour rolled along quite happily with no boundary changes, duff electoral rolls and stuffing government bodies with their mates.

    If your going to appeal to principle you have to look at both sides otherwise its just sour grapes that you cant do things to suit yourself.

    I wasn’t appealing to principle, I was merely stating what will happen: voter suppression, increased powers for the executive, less scrutiny of the executive and weakened judicial review. The government is taking back control.

    Well then let it governments always come in and slant the pitch to their choosing. Some of it is simply unpicking the slats the last lot left.

    The judiciary decided it wanted to get involved in politics instead of sensibly sitting it out, Spiderwomans farewell message was a triumph of naivety over realpolitik. We will now be headed to a US style gerrymander the courts system.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,095
    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold

    That's nonsens determines the
    The legislatCommittees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there hcrutiny.
    Do you believe the current legislature would set different priorities for negotiations than the Executive? It seems to me that a lot of people still seem to be commenting on the basis of the Parliament of two years ago, not the Parliament of today.

    With a target date of 2020 there really isn’t much time to waste.
    One clear sign that a a fraud is being perpetrated or that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes or trying to stop you look at the small print and understand what is really happening is the statement that a matter is urgent, there is no time to waste, this offer will only be available for a short time, no time to waste etc etc.

    Quite why so many people are more concerned with getting something done quickly rather than getting it done properly I will leave for others to ponder. To me it is an utterly daft way to proceed when something as important as our post-Brexit trade agreements, which will affect the livelihoods and futures of millions of voters, including the voters the PM is so anxious not to let down are concerned.

    A cynic might think that people are worried that scrutiny might expose matters that are embarrassing or difficult or require people to make hard choices. You can cover stuff up for a while but it will always come back and bite you, one way or another.
    Almost certainly. Although to be honest I don’t expect the Dec2020 agreement will be much more than a minimum standard holding position on post Brexit trade. Not least because anything comprehensive will not have time for European legislative approval. Comprehensive trade agreements will take years.
    I agree. As we get toward the end of spring the government will start to panic, then when summer comes will unveil a deal with the EU that will be temporary in some way (for example subject to an early review) and that will in effect preserve most of the status quo from the transition period, thus sidestepping the NI question for the time being.

    Some of us may point and exclaim that we have a two year extension, but we'll be told that would be as absurd as suggesting the World King has no clothes.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.
  • Cyclefree said:

    We won’t be in the EU. So why are you still going on about it. You asked what scrutiny EU trade deals got and I gave you the answer which, incidentally, shows that they get rather more than what your beloved government is proposing for our own.

    Now go away and find out how many trade deals which are entered into by any government are ever reversed even if there is a change of government.

    The idea that a GE a few years after a trade agreement comes into force is an adequate substitute for proper scrutiny before a trade deal is agreed is nonsense on stilts. But it seems to be the sort of nonsense we are going to have to endure for the next few years.

    No we get less from the EU as I'd just demonstrated and I am going on about it because it is the alternative.

    Our future deals won't just be scrutinised by future general elections (which is more than we get at the minute in the EU) but also by our own Parliament which must approve any deal. Such approval can not be taken for granted (as Theresa May demonstrated) and future elections do matter.
  • Jonathan said:

    They voted against a Marxist.

    And gave Boris a blank cheque.
    Great isn't it?

    And if Boris does a good job then hopefully in 4 years they'll vote to give him another one.
    And if Boris does a bad job then in 4 years or less the voters will remove him from office and pick someone else.

    Its called democracy. Taking back control. Something we didn't have over EU ratchet politics.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    Jonathan said:

    They voted against a Marxist.

    And gave Boris a blank cheque.
    And that is what the voters will give you, if the alternative is a Marxist friend-of-the-terrorist.

    It was entirely predictable.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Alistair said:
    Is he claiming they fixed it to make it look closer for the Telegraph's readers? I doubt that very much.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each oth debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests b than they were when they went in.
    I blockquote>

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wa foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained per
    at the risk of interrupting your latest conspiracy theory, why would Cummings go for voter suppression if his latest surges are based on targeting people who traditionally don't vote ? Turnout won him Brexit.

    The only risk on voter participation is young people like students who cant be arsed to register. Blairin 2001 the lowest turnout figures of modern times at 59%.

    I don't recall the howls of vote suppression.

    Hmmm, why would parties in power do things they believe will help them retain power? I really cannot imagine!!

    Parties always do that, this is simply the Tories turn. Labour rolled along quite happily with no boundary changes, duff electoral rolls and stuffing government bodies with their mates.

    If your going to appeal to principle you have to look at both sides otherwise its just sour grapes that you cant do things to suit yourself.

    I wasn’t appealing to principle, I was merely stating what will happen: voter suppression, increased powers for the executive, less scrutiny of the executive and weakened judicial review. The government is taking back control.

    I love the way you keep using the phrase voter suppression for perfectly reasonable requirements to prevent fraud. Hilarious.
  • No-one talking about Andrew Bailey I see. Not a choice that fills me with confidence. The FCA has been much criticised under him. But who were the other options? There didn't appear to be a stellar list of candidates.

    He's got the support of Lord MacPherson - often a worrying sign.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:
    Is he claiming they fixed it to make it look closer for the Telegraph's readers? I doubt that very much.
    To me the astonishing thing there is how well Opinium did.
    If you halve the sum of the absolute errors as shown on the graph you get the smallest percentage needing to be reallocated between the parties in order to arrive at the actual result, so only 0.2% in the case of Opinium!

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    edited December 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there has been zero debate about them during the election campaign and precious little said in the manifestos either. Blocking is not scrutiny. A VoNC is not scrutiny.
    Do you believe the current legislature would set different priorities for negotiations than the Executive? It seems to me that a lot of people still seem to be commenting on the basis of the Parliament of two years ago, not the Parliament of today.

    With a target date of 2020 there really isn’t much time to waste.
    Agreed. You don't have a massive commercial negotation with all of the shareholders chipping in. This is one where the Board tells its specialist negotiators to do their job, bring back what you've negotiated - and the Board (Cabinet) will say yeah or nay.

    If the Board has got it wrong, they will be voted out at the next AGM.
    A trade negotiation for a country is not the same as the negotiation of a commercial agreement for a company.
    It really is.

    Try having Enron on the other side of your negotiation.....
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Why are people persuaded that Boris and his crew will make good their promise to get us out of the EU anyway? Last time we had a General Election, Soubry, Heidi Allen, Chuka etc all made the same pre election pledge, and campaigned to reverse the referendum result.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:
    Is he claiming they fixed it to make it look closer for the Telegraph's readers? I doubt that very much.
    To me the astonishing thing there is how well Opinium did.
    If you halve the sum of the absolute errors as shown on the graph you get the smallest percentage needing to be reallocated between the parties in order to arrive at the actual result, so only 0.2% in the case of Opinium!

    Move over Survation, we have a new Gold Standard!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:
    Is he claiming they fixed it to make it look closer for the Telegraph's readers? I doubt that very much.
    The Head of ComRes has been known to make the odd statement that suggest a possible slight suggestion at a lack of neutrality.
  • isam said:

    Why are people persuaded that Boris and his crew will make good their promise to get us out of the EU anyway? Last time we had a General Election, Soubry, Heidi Allen, Chuka etc all made the same pre election pledge, and campaigned to reverse the referendum result.

    I guess people view Boris as more trustworthy than Soubry & co. :)
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Animal_pb said:

    isam said:

    Why are people persuaded that Boris and his crew will make good their promise to get us out of the EU anyway? Last time we had a General Election, Soubry, Heidi Allen, Chuka etc all made the same pre election pledge, and campaigned to reverse the referendum result.

    I guess people view Boris as more trustworthy than Soubry & co. :)
    That must be it!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963

    No-one talking about Andrew Bailey I see. Not a choice that fills me with confidence. The FCA has been much criticised under him. But who were the other options? There didn't appear to be a stellar list of candidates.

    He's got the support of Lord MacPherson - often a worrying sign.

    Bailey is a BoE man. I think the issues of the FCA ran deeper than just moving in someone from the Old Lady.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    The Gov'ts line is true here. The trade deals etc will be judged on aggregate by their effect on the economy, immigration, jobs etc.
    The general public don't give a stuff about the particulars of subsection 2.5 as to whether New Zealand Lamb has a non tariff barrier or not say.
  • Interesting quote from the never dull David Blanchflower.

    'In all my time at the BOE I never once met Andrew Bailey, was in a meeting he was in or communicated with him ever or actually saw him. So a mighty presence indeed. His views on monetary policy and economics are well known...but not by me!'
  • Interesting quote from the never dull David Blanchflower.

    'In all my time at the BOE I never once met Andrew Bailey, was in a meeting he was in or communicated with him ever or actually saw him. So a mighty presence indeed. His views on monetary policy and economics are well known...but not by me!'

    Sounds reassuring given what an incompetent numpty Blanchflower was.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    No-one talking about Andrew Bailey I see. Not a choice that fills me with confidence. The FCA has been much criticised under him. But who were the other options? There didn't appear to be a stellar list of candidates.

    He's got the support of Lord MacPherson - often a worrying sign.

    Bailey is a BoE man. I think the issues of the FCA ran deeper than just moving in someone from the Old Lady.
    This is undoubtedly true, but it still doesn't exactly inspire confidence in him that the problems seemingly worsened (and at best, stood still) under his stewardship. It does rather smack of rewarding failure.

    In particular it always felt like Bailey moved to the FCA specifically to bolster his CV for the Governor job. I don't know who exactly else was in the running, but for such an important position we should surely be able to find someone without such an obvious and recent blemish on their record?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    Animal_pb said:

    isam said:

    Why are people persuaded that Boris and his crew will make good their promise to get us out of the EU anyway? Last time we had a General Election, Soubry, Heidi Allen, Chuka etc all made the same pre election pledge, and campaigned to reverse the referendum result.

    I guess people view Boris as more trustworthy than Soubry & co. :)
    How damning is that!
  • rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963

    Interesting quote from the never dull David Blanchflower.

    'In all my time at the BOE I never once met Andrew Bailey, was in a meeting he was in or communicated with him ever or actually saw him. So a mighty presence indeed. His views on monetary policy and economics are well known...but not by me!'

    And that is why Andrew Bailey is the Guv, and you are not, Danny Boy.....
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Interesting quote from the never dull David Blanchflower.

    'In all my time at the BOE I never once met Andrew Bailey, was in a meeting he was in or communicated with him ever or actually saw him. So a mighty presence indeed. His views on monetary policy and economics are well known...but not by me!'

    Sounds reassuring given what an incompetent numpty Blanchflower was.
    It does sound like Andrew Bailey carefully avoided meeting David - he's gone up in my (admittedly low) opinion.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited December 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    The Gov'ts line is true here. The trade deals etc will be judged on aggregate by their effect on the economy, immigration, jobs etc.
    The general public don't give a stuff about the particulars of subsection 2.5 as to whether New Zealand Lamb has a non tariff barrier or not say.
    James O'Brien's got to have something to replace the excitement, now that the massive paedophile ring he was convinced existed (because he didn't like the people it smeared) turned out to be a work of fiction
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279

    rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
    What special political qualities do Morgan and Goldsmith have?
  • rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
    Do you wish we'd go back to MPs like Baron Adonis or Baron Mandelson being in the Cabinet?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    dr_spyn said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
    What special political qualities do Morgan and Goldsmith have?
    Continuity.

    And I believe they were both quite well regarded in their respective posts (happy to discover otherwise).

    However, with a mass of eager, ambitious new talent, Boris is going to have to start throwing some of them a bone..... Filling his Govt. with peers isn't going to keep them sweet!

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    BBC: "The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, introduced in Thursday's Queen's Speech, will have its second reading later.

    The government's 80-seat majority means it is likely to pass."

    Likely???

    Has there been a better racing cert?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:
    Is he claiming they fixed it to make it look closer for the Telegraph's readers? I doubt that very much.
    That distribution looks to be broadly what I'd expect, and the winners and losers are likely just down to chance rather than due to any known* methodological advantage. So drawing ANY conclusions about bias from that chart is very, very silly IMHO. One thing it ought to show I think is the polling intervals for the final polls.

    * It's entirely possible that further review will discover problems with the election polling, but I think that such flaws would have been dealt with if the pollsters had known at the time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    Is Warren trading value at 8 for Iowa on Betfair ?
    Odd, particularly with Saunders at 3.

    Back & lay ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    BBC: "The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, introduced in Thursday's Queen's Speech, will have its second reading later.

    The government's 80-seat majority means it is likely to pass."

    Likely???

    Has there been a better racing cert?

    We'll have to start ticking up the Boris Commons victory counter.
  • Whatever happened to the Meaningful Vote idea by the way? This is a new Parliament so there could be a new Meaningful Vote today. Or were they never necessary?
  • rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
    Do you wish we'd go back to MPs like Baron Adonis or Baron Mandelson being in the Cabinet?
    No I don't, I have never agreed with Peers in the Cabinet.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Whatever happened to the Meaningful Vote idea by the way? This is a new Parliament so there could be a new Meaningful Vote today. Or were they never necessary?

    I think it is still required? But at this stage it is just a formality. Its sole purpose, to stop Brexit, having been avoided.
  • dr_spyn said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
    What special political qualities do Morgan and Goldsmith have?
    Continuity.

    And I believe they were both quite well regarded in their respective posts (happy to discover otherwise).

    However, with a mass of eager, ambitious new talent, Boris is going to have to start throwing some of them a bone..... Filling his Govt. with peers isn't going to keep them sweet!

    Goldsmith wasn't regarded enough by the people of Richmond Park and Morgan couldn't be bothered to ask her constituents again.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    dr_spyn said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
    What special political qualities do Morgan and Goldsmith have?
    Continuity.

    And I believe they were both quite well regarded in their respective posts (happy to discover otherwise).

    However, with a mass of eager, ambitious new talent, Boris is going to have to start throwing some of them a bone..... Filling his Govt. with peers isn't going to keep them sweet!

    The new intake don't qualify for a cabinet post yet - they have some leg work to do first.

    That gives Morgan and Goldsmith a year or 2 before they really would need to be replaced.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Jonathan said:

    Floater said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
    All because Andrew Neil dared to challenge Boris to an interview. Humility didn’t last long.
    Someone seems to be forgetting a number of us have been arguing for this for years
    Oh come on, churlish to pretend your long standing views are why we’re talking about this now. This is revenge for Neil, pure and simple. There is a pattern here. Anyone with the temerity to challenge in any way Boris gets sacked.

    You make a silly accusation, it is rebutted, but rebutting it turns out to be "churlish"? Ok.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    alex_ said:

    Parliamentary scrutiny parallel to negotiation is not something we’ve had for any of the previous 100 years of our history. The 2 year period of Parliament asserting authority over a Government’s every move haven’t exactly been a shining example of things being so wrong before.

    The 2017-19 parliament failed precisely because it didn't apply any if much scrutiny at all. The number of MPs looking to generally scrutinise, amend but essentially still willing to pass the deal you could probably count on the fingers of one hand.
    Corbyn dismissed both deals without even reading them. It was entirely about party advantage and trying to bury the Tories. Well the voters saw through it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,237

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    I'm not sure the last sentence is an accurate assessment of what you will do... :(
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Goldsmith gets to resign over Heathrow again :D
  • dr_spyn said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Am I the only one who thinks we should have more MPs?
    I've never met any MP of mine in any constituency I've lived in...

    More MPs would mean smaller constituencies, and hopefully mean people actually feel more connected to their MP.

    I would agree if I thought our MPs had any power, but they don't. Once a majority is obtained, it doesn't matter how many there are. We have moved toward the US system somewhat, where a President is elected, then he chooses his cabinet from wherever he wants, (cf Morgan and Goldsmith, not even MPs).
    What special political qualities do Morgan and Goldsmith have?
    Continuity.

    And I believe they were both quite well regarded in their respective posts (happy to discover otherwise).

    However, with a mass of eager, ambitious new talent, Boris is going to have to start throwing some of them a bone..... Filling his Govt. with peers isn't going to keep them sweet!

    Goldsmith wasn't regarded enough by the people of Richmond Park and Morgan couldn't be bothered to ask her constituents again.
    Cabinet posts and MPs are not the same thing. I believe a full reshuffle is planned post-Brexit so in January or February most likely. Seems little point in changing the Secretaries just days before the Christmas recess.
This discussion has been closed.