Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Politico survey of early voting data in key WH2020 swing sta

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 11 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Politico survey of early voting data in key WH2020 swing states finds the Democrats building up a marked advantage

Early voting has been going on for a a few days now in group of key states where it’s possible from the data that is being made available to get some indication of how the WH2020 battle is going.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    I wish Politico would tell us the damn numbers, instead of just the difference between the numbers.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 15,025
    2nd like Trump
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    edited September 11
    For Florida they actually give us the numbers. 2.1m:1.4m is a big difference, but I don't think it's nearly as big as what you'd think from the "do you intend to vote by mail?" polling which was 3:1 Dem or something? So it's consistent with a crushing Dem lead, but it's also consistent with the pollsters having mislaid like 1/3 of the Trump voters somewhere, and Biden getting killed and buried in a hole.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241
    It's completely insane but equally completely unavoidable.
  • I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 673
    It's not mentioned here but Bitzer (?) in Old North State politics posted a breakdown of the North Carolina absentee mail in ballots that had been returned and accepted. It was a small number (<2000) but what he found was that the majority of those who had returned their ballots were voters in 2016 and, for the Democrats, over half were early voters (I think he found for the Democrats only 4% who had been registered in 2016 but hadn't voted). The impression given by his numbers was that the mail in process was pulling in voters who had voted early in 2016 rather than gathering new voters.

    Not sure if it is the same with the other states.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,049
    "Unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe [..] that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course. They are wrong."

  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 1,457
    edited September 11
    eek said:

    It's completely insane but equally completely unavoidable.
    I doubt there will be an election, the polls are far too tight for Boris to feel comfortable.

    But if there was: imagine if Starmer offered EEA membership. He'd have to persuade us to accept Free Movement BUT he would get every Remainer vote out there.

    He'd win easily, I think. And he'd gain seats in Remainery/Unionist parts of Scotland.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Yes, isn't it more likely that the point is to let the Lords block it, then blame them in the event that Brexit turns out not to be very good?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    Some good news for Biden if the increase in those coming from those wanting to vote by mail is from Democrats who did not vote in 2016.

    However it should be remembered that 67% of Democrats intend to vote by mail this year compared to only 28% of Republicans, 57% of Republicans will vote in person on the day and only 37% of Democrats intend to vote on polling day itself
    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/august-2020-presidential-race-tightens-after-party-conventions
  • I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
  • Will early mail in voters be counted on election night?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,704
    eek said:

    It's completely insane but equally completely unavoidable.
    Starmer says "we'll stick to the WA and get brexit done".
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,703
    An early election would be great for Labour. Impose moderate candidates on local associations everywhere. 🤓
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,254
    edited September 11

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    It might be what Putin had in mind all along though.

    Not to mention Bill Gates and the Common Purpose crowd.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533

    Will early mail in voters be counted on election night?

    IIUC it depends on the state: Some before, some during, some after.
  • Andy_JS said:
    To be fair, she was only breaking the highway code in a limited and specific way, protecting American values and tradition.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,290
    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,561
    edited September 11

    For Florida they actually give us the numbers. 2.1m:1.4m is a big difference, but I don't think it's nearly as big as what you'd think from the "do you intend to vote by mail?" polling which was 3:1 Dem or something? So it's consistent with a crushing Dem lead, but it's also consistent with the pollsters having mislaid like 1/3 of the Trump voters somewhere, and Biden getting killed and buried in a hole.

    Or also consistent with a bunch of Dem voters telling pollsters that, yes, they're certain to vote, but then somehow not managing to do so (whether due to lack of motivation, or suppression of the vote).
  • eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Im not fully to speed with all the nonsense, but why does it matter a jot if that bill doesnt go through before we actually leave?

    Any dispute over state aid is not going to happen and reach final court decisions before the bill could pass?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Now there is cunning.

    Or put it to a vote, make *them* decide...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    edited September 11
    MrEd said:

    It's not mentioned here but Bitzer (?) in Old North State politics posted a breakdown of the North Carolina absentee mail in ballots that had been returned and accepted. It was a small number (<2000) but what he found was that the majority of those who had returned their ballots were voters in 2016 and, for the Democrats, over half were early voters (<i>I think he found for the Democrats only 4% who had been registered in 2016 but hadn't voted). The impression given by his numbers was that the mail in process was pulling in voters who had voted early in 2016 rather than gathering new voters.

    Not sure if it is the same with the other states.

    That's correct but not the complete picture.

    Here's the North Carolina ballot return story so far.



    3% of the registered Dem vote (4% Ind, 5% GOP) is didn't vote 2016 but there is 19% new vote (21% Ind, 23% GOP) wasn't registered in 2016 to add on top. And the total of the Dem vote is larger so far so the 22% non-2016 vote outweighs the GOP and Independent new vote combined.
  • eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280
    edited September 11
    The suggestions of an election are obviously a joke, but the supposed rationale for this shows why the supposed justification for the Internal Market bill should arose such suspicions, with the powers it grants Ministers going far beyond Brexit.

    Because fundamentally, if Ministers resolve that they can free break International law via ignoring elements of the Withdrawal agreement, then they don't require a change in domestic law to achieve this. They can just do it.

    The UK changing domestic law doesn't change the International illegality of breaking the terms of the agreement. The enforcement mechanisms stay the same, and the EU has the same legal recourse. Unless the WA agreement is actually repudiated, which the Government has said is not going to happen.

    If the Government's argument is that they need to legislate to avoid an "absurd interpretation" of the WA then they don't need to legislate. They just interpret it as they see fit and leave it to the UK courts to agree with them.

    Of course the truth is that it isn't an "absurd interpretation" at all, just one they've decided they wished they hadn't agreed to.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,403

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.

    As the saying goes, 'A Lord a Day Keeps Remoaners Away'.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
  • eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Goodness only knows. But that's a "your lack of planning isn't my crisis" situation.

    Could you imagine doing a general election, less than a year after the previous one, with UK-standard Covid security? That fact alone ought to be enough to seal Johnson's fate, if he goes down that route.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,561

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Yes, isn't it more likely that the point is to let the Lords block it, then blame them in the event that Brexit turns out not to be very good?
    The point of having the Lords block it could be to use it as an excuse to neuter the Lords. Last year he neutered opposition in the Commons by purging his own party and winning an 80-seat majority.

    This year opposition in the Lords is neutered by the creation of hundreds of new Lords Brexit.

    We know that the Queen will do as her Ministers tell her after the prorogation example. Then the way is clear to do various things the Lords might otherwise object to.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,493

    Andy_JS said:
    To be fair, she was only breaking the highway code in a limited and specific way, protecting American values and tradition.
    I broke the law this morning very limited and specific way when I topped out the Carrera 2S at 162mph.

    It's amazing how quickly the phrase has embedded itself in the national vernacular.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,023

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    At a time of a pandemic, recession and Brexit that sounds just what we need.
    A few hundred more Lords troughing away.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,648
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241
    alex_ said:

    The suggestions of an election are obviously a joke, but the supposed rationale for this shows why the supposed justification for the Internal Market bill should arose such suspicions, with the powers it grants Ministers going far beyond Brexit.

    Because fundamentally, if Ministers resolve that they can free break International law via ignoring elements of the Withdrawal agreement, then they don't require a change in domestic law to achieve this. They can just do it.

    The UK changing domestic law doesn't change the International illegality of breaking the terms of the agreement. The enforcement mechanisms stay the same, and the EU has the same legal recourse. Unless the WA agreement is actually repudiated, which the Government has said is not going to happen.

    If the Government's argument is that they need to legislate to avoid an "absurd interpretation" of the WA then they don't need to legislate. They just interpret it as they see fit and leave it to the UK courts to agree with them.

    Of course the truth is that it isn't an "absurd interpretation" at all, just one they've decided they wished they hadn't agreed to.

    I think the issue is that at the moment what Boris plans to do breaks both UK and International law. The Internal Markets act solves the first problem (the new plan would no longer break UK law) but would still break the International treaty Boris wrote and signed earlier this year.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,290
    Pulpstar said:

    MrEd said:

    It's not mentioned here but Bitzer (?) in Old North State politics posted a breakdown of the North Carolina absentee mail in ballots that had been returned and accepted. It was a small number (<2000) but what he found was that the majority of those who had returned their ballots were voters in 2016 and, for the Democrats, over half were early voters (<i>I think he found for the Democrats only 4% who had been registered in 2016 but hadn't voted). The impression given by his numbers was that the mail in process was pulling in voters who had voted early in 2016 rather than gathering new voters.

    Not sure if it is the same with the other states.

    That's correct but not the complete picture.

    Here's the North Carolina ballot return story so far.



    3% of the registered Dem vote (4% Ind, 5% GOP) is didn't vote 2016 but there is 19% new vote (21% Ind, 23% GOP) wasn't registered in 2016 to add on top. And the total of the Dem vote is larger so far so the 22% non-2016 vote outweighs the GOP and Independent new vote combined.
    You don't need as much GOTV if they've already voted, I suppose!
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:
    To be fair, she was only breaking the highway code in a limited and specific way, protecting American values and tradition.
    I broke the law this morning very limited and specific way when I topped out the Carrera 2S at 162mph.

    It's amazing how quickly the phrase has embedded itself in the national vernacular.
    Specific yes but doesnt sound very limited!
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,779
    edited September 11
    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    I have to say I'm not sure about this permutation either. Given the expectations he's now set up, this means an instant Brexit Party surge at a crucial time, and possibly some peeling off from the ERG to them. Surely it has to be presented differently - allow the Lords to block, but grudgingly, and then blaming them, to continue the "forces of the establishment versus the people" narrative, makes the most sense ?
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:
    To be fair, she was only breaking the highway code in a limited and specific way, protecting American values and tradition.
    I broke the law this morning very limited and specific way when I topped out the Carrera 2S at 162mph.

    It's amazing how quickly the phrase has embedded itself in the national vernacular.
    Someone earlier this week said that the phrase wouldn't cut through..
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647
    Scott_xP said:
    As I posted the other day - it's our taxes he's playing venture capital with.

  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280
    eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    This isn't actually correct I think. Ping pong can actually go on indefinitely. It is the Government/House of Commons choice to curtail this and invoke the Parliament Act. They aren't compelled to.

    I can recall some occasions (i think under Blair) when ping pong went on through several iterations (and certainly more than 3).

    I also recall a bill under Blair which got into trouble because they initially introduced it in the Lords and then tried to amend it in the Commons. Bills introduced in the Lords are not subject to the Parliament Act.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,002

    Will early mail in voters be counted on election night?

    I asked this question the other day because I hadn't a clue (I don't know if it was Edmund who replied then), because it seemed that if they were counted on the day or before the only ones that would be in doubt would be late arrivals (where allowed) and thus the result would be known except for really close contests.

    However as explained to me it isn't always as simple as that with verification procedures etc. I believe some are trying to get this done before, but may take rule changes and of course states have different rules.

    Two paragraphs which say I haven't a clue still.
  • eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.

    As the saying goes, 'A Lord a Day Keeps Remoaners Away'.
    Fine if you can get it past the Independent House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Queen.

    And whilst "Don't embarrass the Queen" went out of the window as a principle last year, does Johnson really want to try that? Really?

    This isn't the People's Budget. This is something that famous Remoaner Lord Howard has criticised on the record.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,526
    Dura_Ace said:

    Andy_JS said:
    To be fair, she was only breaking the highway code in a limited and specific way, protecting American values and tradition.
    I broke the law this morning very limited and specific way when I topped out the Carrera 2S at 162mph.

    It's amazing how quickly the phrase has embedded itself in the national vernacular.
    If it were limited, wouldn't you have topped out at 155 ?
  • Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Equally stunning is effing Woodward keeping it to himself for months.
    Like his book sales take precedence over the rest of the country....
    And the news just keeps coming. The worst of it still about this guy still isn't out yet.
    What probability would you assign to the GOP candidate on 3 November not being Trump?

    Michael Cohen's scenario that Trump loses the election to Biden, resigns early, and then gets pardoned by Pence seems unlikely. What would be in it for Pence? If Trump were to resign before the election then this "deal" might be a goer, though, because Pence would at least get a chance to have something else written on his presidential record than "This guy pardoned Trump and then handed over to Biden". Indeed, who knows, if Pence becomes the presidential nominee he might win. In any case, he'll have more of a chance of winning than if he doesn't compete. Cohen realises this, because whilst it's not being front paged across the whole of the media he is actually calling for Trump to resign now, not some time later. In effect he is saying the country should be OK with paying the price of a pardon because at least it would be freed from Trump. (Not an unreasonable position, and indeed quite charitable coming from a chap who has done jail time for what he did to help Trump.)

    Bad things keep happening to Trump. Is the pace picking up? It may be. The Woodward virus "revelation" is a bit of a squib in my opinion, but if someone in the family were to get arrested... Four candidates come to mind straightaway.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    Ping pong is an option. The Parliament Act has a 1 year timer but Ping Pong doesn't. They can Ping Pong, or since Boris is PM they can Whiff Whaff on a daily basis.

    Isn't the limit on creating new Lords a convention? Like following international law it's a rule that can be broken ... or even just threaten if their Lordships fail to accept the primacy of the Commons.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280
    edited September 11
    Creating loads of new peers to get something through the Lords also isn't a serious option when the blockage include a large chunk of the peers taking the Government whip. You've got to at least command the support of your own party and be being constrained by the general lack of a majority in the Lords.

    Finding hundreds of new peers to come in on a single issue may work in theory to pass a single bill, but they aren't likely to be reliable Government supporters on the longer term if the issue is one which has repelled even the Governments normal supporters in the House.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,340
    edited September 11
    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    edited September 11
    NC Party requests (Change from yesterday)
    CONSTITUTION 154 (+11)
    DEMOCRATIC 379,736 (+11565)
    GREEN 319 (+13)
    LIBERTARIAN 2,189 ( +141)
    REPUBLICAN 122,563 (+5981)
    UNAFFILIATED 232,386 (+9108)
    ---------------------------
    Grand Total 737,347 (+26819)

    Total requests at this point in 2016 were 48314
  • The interesting thing about the HoL is that is is usually willing to dig in and fight unless the measure is a manifesto policy. In this case the Hol will be fighting to preserve the manifesto policy of the government, with the Commons fighting against it.

    So yes, I can see an inglorious deadlock very quickly. But how would that lead to a General Election? By the time its become clear that Parliament is deadlocked and we have an election its what, early November? At which point its too late for anything other than the supplicant concede everything deal, or for no deal.

    How do the Tories argue for either of those? And how to they spin in? "A year ago we said we had a brilliant over-ready deal and you should vote for us to Get Brexit Done. Now we're saying that if you vote for us we will be throwing that deal in the bin to, erm, Get Brexit Done."
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,703

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.

    As the saying goes, 'A Lord a Day Keeps Remoaners Away'.
    Fine if you can get it past the Independent House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Queen.

    And whilst "Don't embarrass the Queen" went out of the window as a principle last year, does Johnson really want to try that? Really?

    This isn't the People's Budget. This is something that famous Remoaner Lord Howard has criticised on the record.
    @BluestBlue hasn’t got a clue what they are talking about as usual.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,659
    "Morning Joe" show slams the Wall Street Journal editorial for excusing Trump.
    https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-tries-to-contain-fallout-editorial-board-plays-down-woodward-book-91514437823
    (Joe Scarborough was previously a Republican Member of the House of Representatives)
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    Ping pong is an option. The Parliament Act has a 1 year timer but Ping Pong doesn't. They can Ping Pong, or since Boris is PM they can Whiff Whaff on a daily basis.

    Isn't the limit on creating new Lords a convention? Like following international law it's a rule that can be broken ... or even just threaten if their Lordships fail to accept the primacy of the Commons.
    Sorry, but the Lords exists to amend or reject bad legislation. I know you think this bill is terrific for no other reason than that Boris concocted it, but others entertain different views. You should bear this in mind for when we have a future PM who, unlike Boris, isn't omniscient and infallible.
  • alex_ said:

    The suggestions of an election are obviously a joke, but the supposed rationale for this shows why the supposed justification for the Internal Market bill should arose such suspicions, with the powers it grants Ministers going far beyond Brexit.

    Because fundamentally, if Ministers resolve that they can free break International law via ignoring elements of the Withdrawal agreement, then they don't require a change in domestic law to achieve this. They can just do it.

    The UK changing domestic law doesn't change the International illegality of breaking the terms of the agreement. The enforcement mechanisms stay the same, and the EU has the same legal recourse. Unless the WA agreement is actually repudiated, which the Government has said is not going to happen.

    If the Government's argument is that they need to legislate to avoid an "absurd interpretation" of the WA then they don't need to legislate. They just interpret it as they see fit and leave it to the UK courts to agree with them.

    Of course the truth is that it isn't an "absurd interpretation" at all, just one they've decided they wished they hadn't agreed to.

    If the government can just break international law consequence free then why Brexit at all? We could have stayed in the EU, said "Up Yours Delors" and thrown as much state aid about as we wanted. Like the Belgians and Italians do.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    LizHailey said:


    What probability would you assign to the GOP candidate on 3 November not being Trump?

    Michael Cohen's scenario that Trump loses the election to Biden, resigns early, and then gets pardoned by Pence seems unlikely. What would be in it for Pence? If Trump were to resign before the election then this "deal" might be a goer, though, because Pence would at least get a chance to have something else written on his presidential record than "This guy pardoned Trump and then handed over to Biden". Indeed, who knows, if Pence becomes the presidential nominee he might win. In any case, he'll have more of a chance of winning than if he doesn't compete. Cohen realises this, because whilst it's not being front paged across the whole of the media he is actually calling for Trump to resign now, not some time later. In effect he is saying the country should be OK with paying the price of a pardon because at least it would be freed from Trump. (Not an unreasonable position, and indeed quite charitable coming from a chap who has done jail time for what he did to help Trump.)

    Bad things keep happening to Trump. Is the pace picking up? It may be. The Woodward virus "revelation" is a bit of a squib in my opinion, but if someone in the family were to get arrested... Four candidates come to mind straightaway.

    What would be in it for Pence? Well, he'd be called President from now on, that weird way Americans do. And if he went through with the pardon, presumably Trump would pay him. Also he could pardon any other criminal friends he might have, and they'd pay him too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
    73% of Leave voters voted Conservative at the last general election but only 20% of Remain voters voted Conservative.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    So basically if Boris concedes too much to the EU for a soft Brexit trade deal he potentially risks up to 70% of his current vote defecting to the Brexit Party and Farage.

    However at most even if he lost all his Remain voters from last time to Starmer and the LDs the Tories would still be on about 36% ie the same voteshare Cameron got in 2015 when UKIP got 12%
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,403

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.

    As the saying goes, 'A Lord a Day Keeps Remoaners Away'.
    Fine if you can get it past the Independent House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Queen.

    And whilst "Don't embarrass the Queen" went out of the window as a principle last year, does Johnson really want to try that? Really?

    This isn't the People's Budget. This is something that famous Remoaner Lord Howard has criticised on the record.
    @BluestBlue hasn’t got a clue what they are talking about as usual.
    As usual you have excelled yourself in both literal-mindedness and tediousness. A glorious legal career awaits!
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280

    The interesting thing about the HoL is that is is usually willing to dig in and fight unless the measure is a manifesto policy. In this case the Hol will be fighting to preserve the manifesto policy of the government, with the Commons fighting against it.

    So yes, I can see an inglorious deadlock very quickly. But how would that lead to a General Election? By the time its become clear that Parliament is deadlocked and we have an election its what, early November? At which point its too late for anything other than the supplicant concede everything deal, or for no deal.

    How do the Tories argue for either of those? And how to they spin in? "A year ago we said we had a brilliant over-ready deal and you should vote for us to Get Brexit Done. Now we're saying that if you vote for us we will be throwing that deal in the bin to, erm, Get Brexit Done."

    And anyway it's pretty much accepted that we can't have an election whilst under Pandemic restrictions anyway.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,659
    LizHailey said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Equally stunning is effing Woodward keeping it to himself for months.
    Like his book sales take precedence over the rest of the country....
    And the news just keeps coming. The worst of it still about this guy still isn't out yet.
    What probability would you assign to the GOP candidate on 3 November not being Trump?

    Michael Cohen's scenario that Trump loses the election to Biden, resigns early, and then gets pardoned by Pence seems unlikely. What would be in it for Pence? If Trump were to resign before the election then this "deal" might be a goer, though, because Pence would at least get a chance to have something else written on his presidential record than "This guy pardoned Trump and then handed over to Biden". Indeed, who knows, if Pence becomes the presidential nominee he might win. In any case, he'll have more of a chance of winning than if he doesn't compete. Cohen realises this, because whilst it's not being front paged across the whole of the media he is actually calling for Trump to resign now, not some time later. In effect he is saying the country should be OK with paying the price of a pardon because at least it would be freed from Trump. (Not an unreasonable position, and indeed quite charitable coming from a chap who has done jail time for what he did to help Trump.)

    Bad things keep happening to Trump. Is the pace picking up? It may be. The Woodward virus "revelation" is a bit of a squib in my opinion, but if someone in the family were to get arrested... Four candidates come to mind straightaway.
    Welcome.
    Would Trump accept being a 'Quitter' or will he hold out for 'Loser'?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,779
    edited September 11
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
    73% of Leave voters voted Conservative at the last general election but only 20% of Remain voters voted Conservative.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    So basically if Boris concedes too much to the EU for a soft Brexit trade deal he potentially risks up to 70% of his current vote defecting to the Brexit Party and Farage.

    However at most even if he lost all his Remain voters from last time to Starmer and the LDs the Tories would still be on about 36% ie the same voteshare Cameron got in 2015 when UKIP got 12%
    A lot of leave voters weren't particularly ardent ideological leavers, though. It's this more fed-up proportion he's going to start losing if he's perceived to be backtracking on the election promise to "get Brexit done" as simply as can be - and also crucially just to be gone away, rather than only to be conducted as ideologically purely as possible.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    Cases heading north seems to have coincided with schools going back, now schools are correct to go back but that masking thing in England that was only for lockdown areas should be implemented nationwide I think. Also each school should do an optimisation exercise for class seating arrangements to minimise transmission.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 35,647
    Brilliant piece by Fraser Nelson this morning.

    "If it’s inevitable that a surge in positive tests among the young leads to deaths in the old, why didn’t this happen in Sweden? "

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/10/ignoring-lesson-sweden-makes-tougher-covid-crackdown-inevitable/

    They started a second uptick in July, yet the hospital rates remain low. Why are ministers blindly following Ferguson and Whitty and their model? We have a real world example to follow where none of Ferguson's predictions has happened.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    Has nothing to say about it because it is predicated on it. Like, I've just finished a novel, a good one, very believable and grounded, and yet not once did it mention any of the characters breathing.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    🚨🚨🚨 USC Dornsife Update 🚨🚨🚨

    Same as yesterday
  • LizHailey said:


    What probability would you assign to the GOP candidate on 3 November not being Trump?

    Michael Cohen's scenario that Trump loses the election to Biden, resigns early, and then gets pardoned by Pence seems unlikely. What would be in it for Pence? If Trump were to resign before the election then this "deal" might be a goer, though, because Pence would at least get a chance to have something else written on his presidential record than "This guy pardoned Trump and then handed over to Biden". Indeed, who knows, if Pence becomes the presidential nominee he might win. In any case, he'll have more of a chance of winning than if he doesn't compete. Cohen realises this, because whilst it's not being front paged across the whole of the media he is actually calling for Trump to resign now, not some time later. In effect he is saying the country should be OK with paying the price of a pardon because at least it would be freed from Trump. (Not an unreasonable position, and indeed quite charitable coming from a chap who has done jail time for what he did to help Trump.)

    Bad things keep happening to Trump. Is the pace picking up? It may be. The Woodward virus "revelation" is a bit of a squib in my opinion, but if someone in the family were to get arrested... Four candidates come to mind straightaway.

    What would be in it for Pence? Well, he'd be called President from now on, that weird way Americans do. And if he went through with the pardon, presumably Trump would pay him. Also he could pardon any other criminal friends he might have, and they'd pay him too.
    That's a terrible look as a president's only achievement. At least Gerald Ford did some other stuff when he was in the job. And if Pence did it for payment and then got caught later he'd be unlikely to get a pardon from Biden. He could be in prison while Trump stayed free.

    Right now Trump seems to be keeping his enemies Haley and Cruz close. Not a sign of strength.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 11

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
    73% of Leave voters voted Conservative at the last general election but only 20% of Remain voters voted Conservative.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    So basically if Boris concedes too much to the EU for a soft Brexit trade deal he potentially risks up to 70% of his current vote defecting to the Brexit Party and Farage.

    However at most even if he lost all his Remain voters from last time to Starmer and the LDs the Tories would still be on about 36% ie the same voteshare Cameron got in 2015 when UKIP got 12%
    A lot of leave voters weren't particularly ardent ideological leavers, though. It's this more fed-up proportion he's going to start losing if he's perceived to be backtracking on the election promise to "get Brexit done" as simply as can be - and also crucially just to be gone away, rather than only to be conducted as ideologically purely as possible.
    Maybe some but while 73% of Leave voters see leaving with no deal as acceptable only 42% of Leave voters see remaining in the single market and customs union as acceptable for instance

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gja4f57ex2/AcceptableBrexitOutcomes_190816.pdf
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Yes, the Lords. It's interesting. There is etiquette and precedent that they must not seek to prevent legislation which enacts something that was in the winning GE manifesto. The clear implication, of course, is that they SHOULD seek to prevent any bill - e.g. this one - which is in flagrant breach of said manifesto. Especially given the GE was just 8 months ago.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,971
    F1: Verstappen's odds currently 5, was 6.5 yesterday.

    Saw a tiny bit of practice. Circuit looks narrow and mostly twisty. One long straight. Should be murderous for Ferrari.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    Ping pong is an option. The Parliament Act has a 1 year timer but Ping Pong doesn't. They can Ping Pong, or since Boris is PM they can Whiff Whaff on a daily basis.

    Isn't the limit on creating new Lords a convention? Like following international law it's a rule that can be broken ... or even just threaten if their Lordships fail to accept the primacy of the Commons.
    Sorry, but the Lords exists to amend or reject bad legislation. I know you think this bill is terrific for no other reason than that Boris concocted it, but others entertain different views. You should bear this in mind for when we have a future PM who, unlike Boris, isn't omniscient and infallible.
    The Lord's exists to advise the elected chamber on amendments or rejection but the Commons ultimately gets the final say.

    If the Lord's decide they don't know their place then they can be stuffed or abolished in a year.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,023
    Scott_xP said:
    Good grief. Is he a peer too?
    Pretty soon every member of the Tory Party will be in the HoL.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
    73% of Leave voters voted Conservative at the last general election but only 20% of Remain voters voted Conservative.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    So basically if Boris concedes too much to the EU for a soft Brexit trade deal he potentially risks up to 70% of his current vote defecting to the Brexit Party and Farage.

    However at most even if he lost all his Remain voters from last time to Starmer and the LDs the Tories would still be on about 36% ie the same voteshare Cameron got in 2015 when UKIP got 12%
    A lot of leave voters weren't particularly ardent ideological leavers, though. It's this more fed-up proportion he's going to start losing if he's perceived to be backtracking on the election promise to "get Brexit done" as simply as can be - and also crucially just to be gone away, rather than only to be conducted as ideologically purely as possible.
    Maybe some but while 73% of Leave voters see leaving with no deal as acceptable only 42% of Leave voters see remaining in the single market and customs union as acceptable for instance

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gja4f57ex2/AcceptableBrexitOutcomes_190816.pdf
    So 70% of the population would have been OK with SM+CU. Yet the Tories never offered a compromise on those lines. Why not?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 2,779
    edited September 11
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
    73% of Leave voters voted Conservative at the last general election but only 20% of Remain voters voted Conservative.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    So basically if Boris concedes too much to the EU for a soft Brexit trade deal he potentially risks up to 70% of his current vote defecting to the Brexit Party and Farage.

    However at most even if he lost all his Remain voters from last time to Starmer and the LDs the Tories would still be on about 36% ie the same voteshare Cameron got in 2015 when UKIP got 12%
    A lot of leave voters weren't particularly ardent ideological leavers, though. It's this more fed-up proportion he's going to start losing if he's perceived to be backtracking on the election promise to "get Brexit done" as simply as can be - and also crucially just to be gone away, rather than only to be conducted as ideologically purely as possible.
    Maybe some but while 73% of Leave voters see leaving with no deal as acceptable only 42% of Leave voters see remaining in the single market and customs union as acceptable for instance

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gja4f57ex2/AcceptableBrexitOutcomes_190816.pdf
    Yes, that overall bias is why I'd be a bit flummoxed to see him backing down and dressing it up as a 'listening' exercise to the moderate voices in the party, a positive thing, and a magnanimous concession to the EU and general harmony. Surely it has to be grudging, victimhood : we try and tried our best for you, but look what we're up against.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    LizHailey said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Equally stunning is effing Woodward keeping it to himself for months.
    Like his book sales take precedence over the rest of the country....
    And the news just keeps coming. The worst of it still about this guy still isn't out yet.
    What probability would you assign to the GOP candidate on 3 November not being Trump?

    Michael Cohen's scenario that Trump loses the election to Biden, resigns early, and then gets pardoned by Pence seems unlikely. What would be in it for Pence? If Trump were to resign before the election then this "deal" might be a goer, though, because Pence would at least get a chance to have something else written on his presidential record than "This guy pardoned Trump and then handed over to Biden". Indeed, who knows, if Pence becomes the presidential nominee he might win. In any case, he'll have more of a chance of winning than if he doesn't compete. Cohen realises this, because whilst it's not being front paged across the whole of the media he is actually calling for Trump to resign now, not some time later. In effect he is saying the country should be OK with paying the price of a pardon because at least it would be freed from Trump. (Not an unreasonable position, and indeed quite charitable coming from a chap who has done jail time for what he did to help Trump.)

    Bad things keep happening to Trump. Is the pace picking up? It may be. The Woodward virus "revelation" is a bit of a squib in my opinion, but if someone in the family were to get arrested... Four candidates come to mind straightaway.
    Very small, Pence will not attract the Trump Democrats Trump is still getting even though he would shore up the evangelical vote.

    Plus Trump is now the GOP nominee as nominated by the party at the convention, if he was going to resign he would have done it by now and his voteshare is about the same if not slightly higher than he got in 2016 just Biden is getting a few more third party voters
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,340
    Scott_xP said:
    Starmer will abstain on this amendment and it will fail.

    That leaves Greaves et al with a dilemma. Should they support the unamended bill?
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    Ping pong is an option. The Parliament Act has a 1 year timer but Ping Pong doesn't. They can Ping Pong, or since Boris is PM they can Whiff Whaff on a daily basis.

    Isn't the limit on creating new Lords a convention? Like following international law it's a rule that can be broken ... or even just threaten if their Lordships fail to accept the primacy of the Commons.
    Sorry, but the Lords exists to amend or reject bad legislation. I know you think this bill is terrific for no other reason than that Boris concocted it, but others entertain different views. You should bear this in mind for when we have a future PM who, unlike Boris, isn't omniscient and infallible.
    The Lord's exists to advise the elected chamber on amendments or rejection but the Commons ultimately gets the final say.

    If the Lord's decide they don't know their place then they can be stuffed or abolished in a year.
    I think the Lords has done its job extremely well for many decades. Strange that it only needed to be abolished/stuffed with cronies when Boris came along.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,002
    LizHailey said:

    LizHailey said:


    What probability would you assign to the GOP candidate on 3 November not being Trump?

    Michael Cohen's scenario that Trump loses the election to Biden, resigns early, and then gets pardoned by Pence seems unlikely. What would be in it for Pence? If Trump were to resign before the election then this "deal" might be a goer, though, because Pence would at least get a chance to have something else written on his presidential record than "This guy pardoned Trump and then handed over to Biden". Indeed, who knows, if Pence becomes the presidential nominee he might win. In any case, he'll have more of a chance of winning than if he doesn't compete. Cohen realises this, because whilst it's not being front paged across the whole of the media he is actually calling for Trump to resign now, not some time later. In effect he is saying the country should be OK with paying the price of a pardon because at least it would be freed from Trump. (Not an unreasonable position, and indeed quite charitable coming from a chap who has done jail time for what he did to help Trump.)

    Bad things keep happening to Trump. Is the pace picking up? It may be. The Woodward virus "revelation" is a bit of a squib in my opinion, but if someone in the family were to get arrested... Four candidates come to mind straightaway.

    What would be in it for Pence? Well, he'd be called President from now on, that weird way Americans do. And if he went through with the pardon, presumably Trump would pay him. Also he could pardon any other criminal friends he might have, and they'd pay him too.
    That's a terrible look as a president's only achievement. At least Gerald Ford did some other stuff when he was in the job. And if Pence did it for payment and then got caught later he'd be unlikely to get a pardon from Biden. He could be in prison while Trump stayed free.

    Right now Trump seems to be keeping his enemies Haley and Cruz close. Not a sign of strength.
    Can a president actually give a blanket pardon for an unknown list of crimes or will Trump have to provide a written list of crimes he has committed so Pence can pardon him for them all. That would be fun as would the search afterwards for anything missed.
  • Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?

    I would be very surprised if Labour did not oppose the legislation wholesale. They will argue tha rejecting international law and reneging on treaty commitments not only means the UK loses moral authority, makes clear it cannot be trusted and gives up a great deal of soft power, but also makes getting the deal Johnson promised voters far less likely. On top of which, it also picks unnecessary fights with the devolved governments that will make the future of the UK far more tenuous. Given that all this is is correct, when the GE comes in 2024 the electorate is unlikely to hold it against Labour.

    Labour opposed the Immigration Bill and does not seem to have been harmed by it.

    Oppositions tend to oppose. Voters get that.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 1,124
    edited September 11

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    Ping pong is an option. The Parliament Act has a 1 year timer but Ping Pong doesn't. They can Ping Pong, or since Boris is PM they can Whiff Whaff on a daily basis.

    Isn't the limit on creating new Lords a convention? Like following international law it's a rule that can be broken ... or even just threaten if their Lordships fail to accept the primacy of the Commons.
    Sorry, but the Lords exists to amend or reject bad legislation. I know you think this bill is terrific for no other reason than that Boris concocted it, but others entertain different views. You should bear this in mind for when we have a future PM who, unlike Boris, isn't omniscient and infallible.
    The Lord's exists to advise the elected chamber on amendments or rejection but the Commons ultimately gets the final say.

    If the Lord's decide they don't know their place then they can be stuffed or abolished in a year.
    Yes- and the rule for over 50 years has been that the Lords can delay something by a year, and then the Commons gets its way. Even that doesn't apply to things in the manifesto. Think of it like Jeeves asking Bertie Wooster if his new jacket is entirely wise.

    No 10's inability to plan ahead is nobody's problem but their own, and certainly not a reason to change the workings of parliament in a fit of pique.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 6,746
    Barnesian said:

    That leaves Greaves et al with a dilemma. Should they support the unamended bill?

    They will amend it. Properly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 11

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
    73% of Leave voters voted Conservative at the last general election but only 20% of Remain voters voted Conservative.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    So basically if Boris concedes too much to the EU for a soft Brexit trade deal he potentially risks up to 70% of his current vote defecting to the Brexit Party and Farage.

    However at most even if he lost all his Remain voters from last time to Starmer and the LDs the Tories would still be on about 36% ie the same voteshare Cameron got in 2015 when UKIP got 12%
    A lot of leave voters weren't particularly ardent ideological leavers, though. It's this more fed-up proportion he's going to start losing if he's perceived to be backtracking on the election promise to "get Brexit done" as simply as can be - and also crucially just to be gone away, rather than only to be conducted as ideologically purely as possible.
    Maybe some but while 73% of Leave voters see leaving with no deal as acceptable only 42% of Leave voters see remaining in the single market and customs union as acceptable for instance

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gja4f57ex2/AcceptableBrexitOutcomes_190816.pdf
    So 70% of the population would have been OK with SM+CU. Yet the Tories never offered a compromise on those lines. Why not?
    54% found leaving the EU but staying in the SM and CU acceptable, though not as high as 70% no.

    The Tories refused to do that because as I already pointed out about 2/3 of their voters came from Leave voters who would have defected en masse to Farage and the Brexit Party if the Tories had conceded on SM and CU and allowed free movement and prevented UK trade deals and failed to regain control of our fishing waters.

    We would have ended up with a similar result as we got at the 2019 European elections with the Tories 4th or 5th behind the Brexit Party, Labour, the LDs and even the SNP and Greens.

    The Tories would have faced the fate of their Canadian sister party the Progressive Conservatives in 1993 and been replaced as the main party of the right by a populist rightwing party with the Brexit Party becoming the equivalent of the Canadian Reform Party (which ultimately took over the carcass of the remaining Canadian Tory Party to form today's Conservative Party of Canada in 2003)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
    Scott_xP said:
    Actually Sterling is up a fraction against both the dollar and the yen but who's counting?
  • Barnesian said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Starmer will abstain on this amendment and it will fail.

    That leaves Greaves et al with a dilemma. Should they support the unamended bill?

    I think up to a couple of dozen Tory MPs will abstain on the bill and a handful might vote against. The vast majority of Tory MPs will put their party first, as they always do. It will sail through the Commons.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    Barnesian said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Starmer will abstain on this amendment and it will fail.

    That leaves Greaves et al with a dilemma. Should they support the unamended bill?
    Who is "Greaves" ?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Starmer will abstain on this amendment and it will fail.

    That leaves Greaves et al with a dilemma. Should they support the unamended bill?
    Who is "Greaves" ?
    The late Jimmy Greaves, working spiritually in conjunction with Dominic Grieve outside parliament.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Grandiose said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    My prediction: Boris will say he has heard MP's concerns, simultaneously putting the bill on hold and declaring a mandate to make concessions to the EU to avoid it ever being required.
    Could be.

    Johnson's dilemma is that his 40% share of supporters are made up aproximately of 30% loyal Tories and 10% ex Brexit Party including many ex Labour voters.

    The 30% of loyal Tories are fraying a bit at the edges with one thing and another, and he'll lose the 10% ex BXP if he concedes too much to the EU. What to do?

    He needs Starmer to oppose Brexit so he can rally his supporters. But Starmer refuses to play that game. This latest wheeze is to flush out Starmer. Will he oppose the "destroy WDA" bill or merely abstain? It's a dilemma for Starmer. I suspect he will support Tory amendments to remove the lethal clauses.

    Wii Johnson come clean on his cunning strategy to his troops tonight and persuade them not to table amendments and leave it to Labour?
    73% of Leave voters voted Conservative at the last general election but only 20% of Remain voters voted Conservative.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

    So basically if Boris concedes too much to the EU for a soft Brexit trade deal he potentially risks up to 70% of his current vote defecting to the Brexit Party and Farage.

    However at most even if he lost all his Remain voters from last time to Starmer and the LDs the Tories would still be on about 36% ie the same voteshare Cameron got in 2015 when UKIP got 12%
    A lot of leave voters weren't particularly ardent ideological leavers, though. It's this more fed-up proportion he's going to start losing if he's perceived to be backtracking on the election promise to "get Brexit done" as simply as can be - and also crucially just to be gone away, rather than only to be conducted as ideologically purely as possible.
    Maybe some but while 73% of Leave voters see leaving with no deal as acceptable only 42% of Leave voters see remaining in the single market and customs union as acceptable for instance

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gja4f57ex2/AcceptableBrexitOutcomes_190816.pdf
    So that 42% plus almost 100% of everyone else means there is overwhelming public support for close alignment. Another reason that Johnson will end up there, at least for the foreseeable future, well beyond 2021, probably in perpetuity. But he wants to make a song & dance about it first. He wants to squeeze some more culture war and patriotism stuff out of the thing before it goes away as the main political issue. And of course he wants the perception that the deal he ends up signing was achieved against the odds. To get this perception you first need to make it look like it's all going pear and No Deal is the likely outcome. Then, yo, when the deal comes there is much relief and he gets the benefit. He looks like the tough and smart negotiator who has pulled the fat from the fire for Blighty. Sorry to be so smug and cynical about this, I don't like being this way, but I'm just getting to the end of my tether with the nefarious machinations of this Johnson character.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    Ping pong is an option. The Parliament Act has a 1 year timer but Ping Pong doesn't. They can Ping Pong, or since Boris is PM they can Whiff Whaff on a daily basis.

    Isn't the limit on creating new Lords a convention? Like following international law it's a rule that can be broken ... or even just threaten if their Lordships fail to accept the primacy of the Commons.
    Sorry, but the Lords exists to amend or reject bad legislation. I know you think this bill is terrific for no other reason than that Boris concocted it, but others entertain different views. You should bear this in mind for when we have a future PM who, unlike Boris, isn't omniscient and infallible.
    The Lord's exists to advise the elected chamber on amendments or rejection but the Commons ultimately gets the final say.

    If the Lord's decide they don't know their place then they can be stuffed or abolished in a year.
    I think the Lords has done its job extremely well for many decades. Strange that it only needed to be abolished/stuffed with cronies when Boris came along.
    Don't be ridiculous. The threat to abolish or stuff the Lord's if they get above their station has been deployed for over a century now to keep them in their other place.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Starmer will abstain on this amendment and it will fail.

    That leaves Greaves et al with a dilemma. Should they support the unamended bill?
    Who is "Greaves" ?
    A shinner, perhaps.

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I have to say I'd be exceptionally surprised if a new election at this point was part of Cummings' plan.

    Getting rid of elections is more likely!
    The Internal Market Bill needs to get through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the Lords the opposition includes every former Tory Minister that sits there so the act as is isn't going to get through Parliament but it needs to.

    So if you can't kill a Parliamentary Session and you can't wait a year to force the bill through how else do you square the circle.
    Ping pong until the Lord's accepts the Commons rule.

    Create hundreds of new Lords.
    Ping pong isn't an option - there is a delay of 1 year if the Lord rejects the bill - and the number of exchanges are literally 2, Commons -> Lords -> Commons -> Lords (can't reject but can delay 1 year) and that's it.

    There isn't time to create hundreds of Lords as there are limits on numbers in a time frame.

    But apart from those 2 slight issues I can't see any problems with your solution.
    Ping pong is an option. The Parliament Act has a 1 year timer but Ping Pong doesn't. They can Ping Pong, or since Boris is PM they can Whiff Whaff on a daily basis.

    Isn't the limit on creating new Lords a convention? Like following international law it's a rule that can be broken ... or even just threaten if their Lordships fail to accept the primacy of the Commons.
    Sorry, but the Lords exists to amend or reject bad legislation. I know you think this bill is terrific for no other reason than that Boris concocted it, but others entertain different views. You should bear this in mind for when we have a future PM who, unlike Boris, isn't omniscient and infallible.
    The Lord's exists to advise the elected chamber on amendments or rejection but the Commons ultimately gets the final say.

    If the Lord's decide they don't know their place then they can be stuffed or abolished in a year.
    I think the Lords has done its job extremely well for many decades. Strange that it only needed to be abolished/stuffed with cronies when Boris came along.
    Centuries, not decades.

    When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
    As every child can tell,
    The House of Peers, throughout the war,
    Did nothing in particular,
    And did it very well:
Sign In or Register to comment.