Not hospitalisations yet and so far, though, and I don't know that they will.
I'll defer to the experts, but although hospitalisations seem to be increasingly fairly slightly so far, it seems to be at nothing like the rate of infections.
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.
That rule has been there, with the threat to change the rules if they get out of line, for fifty years.
If they get out of line then the rules can be changed.
Anecdata alert: we just went up to the Catskills for a couple of nights’ break. We stayed off the main highways for a more scenic drive, and so we passed through a lot of the very rural, and so much more Republican-leaning parts of New York State. Here is our count of election yard signs / flags etc.
Biden: 1 Trump: 1 “Bye Don” (geddit.): 1 Trump flag but upside down: 1 No bumper stickers were seen at all.
The election yard signs etc were outnumbered by Black Lives Matters signs, and those were outnumbered by “Thank you essential workers” signs.
Yes, NYS will go heavily Democratic as a whole, but I was quite surprised to see such a small amount of overt Trump support in the countryside. That said, there were very few yard signs out in 2016, compared to 2012. I guess most people feel the polarizarion of views here in the US and don’t want to expose themselves one way or another.
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.
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
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.
Boris may be able to concede on state aid but if he concedes to the EU on fishing too which they also want for a trade deal that would be unacceptable to most leavers and breach the 2019 Tory manifesto.
The Tories could also obviously not have conceded on free movement without losing their Red Wall and working class vote or on trade deals without losing free trade Leavers
Anecdata alert: we just went up to the Catskills for a couple of nights’ break. We stayed off the main highways for a more scenic drive, and so we passed through a lot of the very rural, and so much more Republican-leaning parts of New York State. Here is our count of election yard signs / flags etc.
Biden: 1 Trump: 1 “Bye Don” (geddit.): 1 Trump flag but upside down: 1 No bumper stickers were seen at all.
The election yard signs etc were outnumbered by Black Lives Matters signs, and those were outnumbered by “Thank you essential workers” signs.
Yes, NYS will go heavily Democratic as a whole, but I was quite surprised to see such a small amount of overt Trump support in the countryside. That said, there were very few yard signs out in 2016, compared to 2012. I guess most people feel the polarizarion of views here in the US and don’t want to expose themselves one way or another.
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
@Casino_Royale can I ask you a question please - notwithstanding the "international law" elements which I can understand being a concern on their own right . . . you seem very keen on the idea of compromising to get a deal, even if it means compromising on the LPF.
Would you be OK with the EU telling the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer that a tax cut that Parliament had passed in the Budget was unacceptable "state aid"? Is that in your view an acceptable price worth paying in order to get a deal, or does the idea of that disturb you?
Where's the evidence we wouldn't be able to do that in a no deal scenario without these retrograde measures?
We might be able to in a no deal scenario. There's multiple reports it could have been an issue, but that's murky and not what I was trying to get at.
That's why I said notwithstanding that, he seems to want a deal even if we weren't doing these measures whereas you seem to be against both these measures and against compromising on the LPF - he seems (if I understand correctly) to be happy to compromise on the LPF itself in order to get a deal which is why I wanted to ask the question. Does that make sense?
Again, that's not evidence. It's bullshit chatter from overzealous Eurocrats. We're in a position where we've use first strike capability and in doing so handed the initiative to the opposing side.
Just because we have the ability to go for a first strike, it doesn't mean we should. The fact is neither of us know what the EU would do if we cut corporation tax to 10% in a no deal scenario. Chances are they would just live with it and the theoretical ability to block it via the NI protocol remains theoretical because they wouldn't want to be in a first strike position either.
Nevermind.
I wasn't trying to discuss this 'strike' as you put it. Just ask the question in isolation as to whether handing the EU power to determine that a UK tax cut passed by the Chancellor is acceptable in exchange for a deal, or if that is troublesome.
Once again, there's no evidence that we've handed this power over in the WA. Them asking for it in the FTA isn't the same thing. That they are asking for it is pretty good evidence that they don't think they'd have it under a no deal scenario.
This is similar to what I said yesterday evening - why make it an issue now - why not just break it when we have to? The fact that they are making it an issue now, indicates politics, and it looks very like Doris's tactics during the prorogation fuss that led to Boris's landslide.
I don't know what they are hoping to do, but the fact is that nobody on PB has ventured to predict any of the future 'moves'. We've responded to one move with outrage or disgust, we've seen some response from the EU, but we're just reporting what is, not trying to predict what will happen.
Thanks for this. With respect to James Forsyth, I'm not sure he's quite put his finger on it.
It's something in the response provoked by what they've done, that they're hoping will provoke a counter-response. It would help if we knew what Doris actually wanted - Deal or No Deal. I would imagine it's 'Deal', and if 'Deal' - 'Good Deal'. I have no idea how this can lead to something that achieves that.
It could be that they want the Internal Market bill to fail for example, but what does that lead to? Perhaps it's even something to do with SINDY 2. Perhaps it leads the EU to show a hand that they wouldn't otherwise want to.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
If Remainers want EEA as a soft Brexit compromise they can vote for Starmer or Davey in 2024 as they are both moving in that direction anyway, the Tories are now committed to hard Brexit for a generation
The point about Jimmy Greaves / Dominic Grieve is actually well-taken, because once old grandees still within the party, like May, Major and Howard, start becoming regular media fixtures for anti-government quotes, attention will inevitably return to the expelled grandees and old fixtures too, who've been largely invisible in the last year. See more of Howard and May, and expect to see more of Grieve, Soubry and Heseltine again too. Not part of Dom's plan for the new grassroots Tory movement.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
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.
That rule has been there, with the threat to change the rules if they get out of line, for fifty years. If they get out of line then the rules can be changed.
Yes, quite definitely we need an upper house that will do everything that they are told do do by our great dictator. But...
Anecdata alert: we just went up to the Catskills for a couple of nights’ break. We stayed off the main highways for a more scenic drive, and so we passed through a lot of the very rural, and so much more Republican-leaning parts of New York State. Here is our count of election yard signs / flags etc.
Biden: 1 Trump: 1 “Bye Don” (geddit.): 1 Trump flag but upside down: 1 No bumper stickers were seen at all.
The election yard signs etc were outnumbered by Black Lives Matters signs, and those were outnumbered by “Thank you essential workers” signs.
Yes, NYS will go heavily Democratic as a whole, but I was quite surprised to see such a small amount of overt Trump support in the countryside. That said, there were very few yard signs out in 2016, compared to 2012. I guess most people feel the polarizarion of views here in the US and don’t want to expose themselves one way or another.
Curious - what is a Trump flag?
Does it have his face and a slogan on it?
Just a flag version of the signs you’d see at his rally. Typically a blue background with
TRUMP PENCE 2020 MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
emblazoned on it, The “TRUMP” is much the largest of course.
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.
Because Ferguson is a genius at self-publicising fearmongering. If you can be good at that, people forget that none of your predictions come true.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
There were a number of significant outbreaks due to pubs e.g. in Stone, one individual spread it to a load of people after going to a pub on two occasions. Aberdeen is another one that comes to mind.
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Indeed..but the only way to really help there is to shut the pubs and restuarants again. Which would have put them out of business for sure
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
There were a number of significant outbreaks due to pubs e.g. in Stone, one individual spread it to a load of people after going to a pub on two occasions. Aberdeen is another one that comes to mind.
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
Yeah, quite why people decided that going on the holiday in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea is beyond me. You don't need the government to tell you not to do it for goodness sake.
The other absolutely unforgivable mistakes, why wasn't taking contact details absolutely mandatory via a simple QR app. It is simple tech to deploy and something we are finally getting 2 months too late.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
The British government simply wants No hard border in Ireland as well as no border in the Irish sea, the EU by refusing to concede on fishing rights and state aid is pushing No Deal anyway. Plus if Trump is re elected and the GOP regain Congress a US UK FTA still on
The other absolutely unforgivable mistakes, why wasn't taking contact details absolutely mandatory via a simple QR app. It is simple tech to deploy and something we are finally getting 2 months too late.
Has lunch out today, the first time ive been offically asked to fill out a form before going to the table.
It is rather peculiar. Either the whole thing was a bluff - in which case it was a foolish game to play as much of the damage will persist even if Boris eventually backs down - or the US implications never entered Boris's imagination. Reckless or witless: take your pick.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
There were a number of significant outbreaks due to pubs e.g. in Stone, one individual spread it to a load of people after going to a pub on two occasions. Aberdeen is another one that comes to mind.
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
Yeah, quite why people decided that going on the holiday in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea is beyond me. You don't need the government to tell you not to do it for goodness sake.
Well remember in March,l / April, total twats kept travelling and then were the first to moan when they were stranded and wanted to know why the government wasn't flying then back immediately.
This time the government basically encouraged it by this airbridge nonsense.
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
If Remainers want EEA as a soft Brexit compromise they can vote for Starmer or Davey in 2024 as they are both moving in that direction anyway, the Tories are now committed to hard Brexit for a generation
Is the risk really higher at a restaurant with proper distancing?
In an indoor setting, then I'd say yes.
Worse than going round someone's house without distancing?
Not as high as that, but higher than normal.
Could be higher. A lot more people in a restaurant than in a typical family home. If both households have been WFH with limited outside interaction I would imagine would be much less risky than meeting in a crowded restaurant, talking to a waiter who has talked to 50 other people that night.
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.
That rule has been there, with the threat to change the rules if they get out of line, for fifty years. If they get out of line then the rules can be changed.
Yes, quite definitely we need an upper house that will do everything that they are told do do by our great dictator. But...
Are you quite sure about that?
We need an upper house that will respect the elected houses supremacy. Absolutely sure of that.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
There were a number of significant outbreaks due to pubs e.g. in Stone, one individual spread it to a load of people after going to a pub on two occasions. Aberdeen is another one that comes to mind.
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
Yeah, quite why people decided that going on the holiday in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea is beyond me. You don't need the government to tell you not to do it for goodness sake.
Well remember in March,l / April, total twats kept travelling and then were the first to moan when they were stranded and wanted to know why the government wasn't flying then back immediately.
This time the government basically encouraged it by this airbridge nonsense.
There are many things not prohibited by the government. That doesn't mean doing them is a good idea! Just a bit of common sense would tell you to hold off on your foreign holidays for a year.
I'm conflicted on this. I don't want a trade deal with Trump's America but I do want one if he's gone. So if it were the case that we only get one with him as POTUS that's me stymied. What a world.
I'm conflicted on this. I don't want a trade deal with Trump's America but I do want one if he's gone. So if it were the case that we only get one with him as POTUS that's me stymied. What a world.
I don't think the deal will be all that different. The agricultural lobby will still be exactly the same for starters.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
That is the whole point of social distancing, yes.
I was shocked there wasnt an outbreak in March. All the travel of staff and students back from China for New year, plus plenty of student with have gone skiing and done apres ski, then obviously the high density of people on a campus.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
There were a number of significant outbreaks due to pubs e.g. in Stone, one individual spread it to a load of people after going to a pub on two occasions. Aberdeen is another one that comes to mind.
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
Yeah, quite why people decided that going on the holiday in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea is beyond me. You don't need the government to tell you not to do it for goodness sake.
Yet, a foreign holidaying increase may just have a silver lining. Ifff we think that HMG has got its quarantine list about right and ifff those returning are following quarantine and ifff we now suppose foreign holidays are reducing as the season ends, then a cycle of R being low as the returnees don't pass COVID on is possible.
Although, just in case you missed the emphasis - IFFF.
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
If Remainers want EEA as a soft Brexit compromise they can vote for Starmer or Davey in 2024 as they are both moving in that direction anyway, the Tories are now committed to hard Brexit for a generation
So will you be voting for Starmer or Davey?
No, as I believe Brexit now has to be delivered in full
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
I seemed to remember early research about risks in such settings is air con is a big problem as it drives the airflow and so a cough gets spread far and wide.
I'm conflicted on this. I don't want a trade deal with Trump's America but I do want one if he's gone. So if it were the case that we only get one with him as POTUS that's me stymied. What a world.
Trump did not invent chlorinated chicken or secret tribunals. Whether or not it's Trump's America we go for an FTA with, will make little material difference to the deal (imo).
The British government simply wants No hard border in Ireland as well as no border in the Irish sea, the EU by refusing to concede on fishing rights and state aid is pushing No Deal anyway. Plus if Trump is re elected and the GOP regain Congress a US UK FTA still on
But but but why do we care what they about state aid? Aren't we sovereign and free to break the law in a very limited and specific way?
The EU are refusing to concede on fishing rights by restoring to England quotas sold by the English. Just because your boy wazzock told the fishermen that voting Brexit would restore the fishing rights they sold doesn't mean that in the real world it is true.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
If Remainers want EEA as a soft Brexit compromise they can vote for Starmer or Davey in 2024 as they are both moving in that direction anyway, the Tories are now committed to hard Brexit for a generation
So will you be voting for Starmer or Davey?
No, as I believe Brexit now has to be delivered in full
So I was right. It is as I feared. Your political ideals, such as they are (they are nothing more than a chimera) chop and change with the seasons. A dilettante who has no firm convictions.
I really like your contributions and you are king of the poll commentary.
But I find it difficult to respect that tbh. Are you not embarrassed?
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
There were a number of significant outbreaks due to pubs e.g. in Stone, one individual spread it to a load of people after going to a pub on two occasions. Aberdeen is another one that comes to mind.
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
Yeah, quite why people decided that going on the holiday in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea is beyond me. You don't need the government to tell you not to do it for goodness sake.
Yet, a foreign holidaying increase may just have a silver lining. Ifff we think that HMG has got its quarantine list about right and ifff those returning are following quarantine and ifff we now suppose foreign holidays are reducing as the season ends, then a cycle of R being low as the returnees don't pass COVID on is possible.
Although, just in case you missed the emphasis - IFFF.
Mrs RP took the kids over to Spain to see her family (rightly) thinking that the window to even have that as an option would be limited. Same with several of my colleagues who went abroad on an actual holiday.
Its hard to discuss common sense when we have the government coming out with guff like the Rule of Shit. Which they are highly likely to amend on the Ridge show on Sunday after the PM gets roasted at tonight's 1922 meeting.
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
If Remainers want EEA as a soft Brexit compromise they can vote for Starmer or Davey in 2024 as they are both moving in that direction anyway, the Tories are now committed to hard Brexit for a generation
So will you be voting for Starmer or Davey?
No, as I believe Brexit now has to be delivered in full
For the good of the party - the politcal equivalent of the mouth of Sauron; useful to know what his lords in the party thinks but free of any real principles: a moral vacuum.
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
If Remainers want EEA as a soft Brexit compromise they can vote for Starmer or Davey in 2024 as they are both moving in that direction anyway, the Tories are now committed to hard Brexit for a generation
So will you be voting for Starmer or Davey?
No, as I believe Brexit now has to be delivered in full
So I was right. It is as I feared. Your political ideals, such as they are (they are nothing more than a chimera) chop and change with the seasons. A dilettante who has no firm convictions.
I really like your contributions and you are king of the poll commentary.
But I find it difficult to respect that tbh. Are you not embarrassed?
He's the politcal equivalent of the mouth of Sauron; useful to know what his lords in the party thinks but free of any real principles: a moral vacuum.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
That's not the main driver of infections though, is it? I'm talking about parties at home, which the new regs are targeting.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
Along with almost every other aspect of life. Why bother?!
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
The scenes of pubs over the summer seem far worse. 100s of people rammed together, and of course after they have had a few shandies they completely ignore any concept of social distancing.
Interesting that didn't do anything to the case rate though. A combination of more activity and people becoming a little more lax, perhaps?
There were a number of significant outbreaks due to pubs e.g. in Stone, one individual spread it to a load of people after going to a pub on two occasions. Aberdeen is another one that comes to mind.
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
Yeah, quite why people decided that going on the holiday in the middle of a pandemic was a good idea is beyond me. You don't need the government to tell you not to do it for goodness sake.
Yet, a foreign holidaying increase may just have a silver lining. Ifff we think that HMG has got its quarantine list about right and ifff those returning are following quarantine and ifff we now suppose foreign holidays are reducing as the season ends, then a cycle of R being low as the returnees don't pass COVID on is possible.
Although, just in case you missed the emphasis - IFFF.
Mrs RP took the kids over to Spain to see her family (rightly) thinking that the window to even have that as an option would be limited. Same with several of my colleagues who went abroad on an actual holiday.
Its hard to discuss common sense when we have the government coming out with guff like the Rule of Shit. Which they are highly likely to amend on the Ridge show on Sunday after the PM gets roasted at tonight's 1922 meeting.
You can ditch your common sense if the government has a bad policy? That's an interesting attitude!
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
That's not the main driver of infections though, is it? I'm talking about parties at home, which the new regs are targeting.
Isn't it? We can't meet more than 6 people from separate households outdoors even but can sit in an air-conditioned pub with 100 people circulating whatever they have in it. Isn't the reality that there have been various examples of house parties and raves going on that they want to crack down on for pour encourages reasons?
The British government simply wants No hard border in Ireland as well as no border in the Irish sea, the EU by refusing to concede on fishing rights and state aid is pushing No Deal anyway. Plus if Trump is re elected and the GOP regain Congress a US UK FTA still on
But but but why do we care what they about state aid? Aren't we sovereign and free to break the law in a very limited and specific way?
The EU are refusing to concede on fishing rights by restoring to England quotas sold by the English. Just because your boy wazzock told the fishermen that voting Brexit would restore the fishing rights they sold doesn't mean that in the real world it is true.
I'm sorry, your last paragraph is a basic misunderstanding of the concept. This has nothing to do with British fishing rights that have been sold to foreign fishing concerns. The confusion arises because both things are called 'quotas'.
To explain it to you, let's call individual fishing companies' fishing rights 'patches' instead (though it isn't the most apt word). Under the Common Fisheries Policy, all European countries have quotas governing how much they can fish. Within those quotas, individual 'patches' are awarded and some of the UK ones have been sold to foreign fishing concerns. That has nothing to do with the fact that the overall British 'quota' is significantly less than it would be if maritime law applied, and Britain was able to fish in its own territorial waters. The difference is distributed between other European fishing nations. It is THIS that will be taken back when we leave, and if you can provide any reason why it shouldn't be, I'm all ears.
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
That's not the main driver of infections though, is it? I'm talking about parties at home, which the new regs are targeting.
Isn't it? We can't meet more than 6 people from separate households outdoors even but can sit in an air-conditioned pub with 100 people circulating whatever they have in it. Isn't the reality that there have been various examples of house parties and raves going on that they want to crack down on for pour encourages reasons?
I agree that crowded pubs are an issue, but aren't we talking about restaurants here in the context of the deal?
A series of tougher measures have been imposed in Birmingham after a surge in Covid-19 cases.
The move follows two days of discussions between the government and regional health and local authority leaders after the city’s seven-day infection rate rose to 78.2 cases per 100,000 of the population.
Guidance that people cannot socialise outside of their households in the city will be made law, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, has announced. .
Anecdata alert: we just went up to the Catskills for a couple of nights’ break. We stayed off the main highways for a more scenic drive, and so we passed through a lot of the very rural, and so much more Republican-leaning parts of New York State. Here is our count of election yard signs / flags etc.
Biden: 1 Trump: 1 “Bye Don” (geddit.): 1 Trump flag but upside down: 1 No bumper stickers were seen at all.
The election yard signs etc were outnumbered by Black Lives Matters signs, and those were outnumbered by “Thank you essential workers” signs.
Yes, NYS will go heavily Democratic as a whole, but I was quite surprised to see such a small amount of overt Trump support in the countryside. That said, there were very few yard signs out in 2016, compared to 2012. I guess most people feel the polarizarion of views here in the US and don’t want to expose themselves one way or another.
Curious - what is a Trump flag?
Does it have his face and a slogan on it?
Just a flag version of the signs you’d see at his rally. Typically a blue background with
TRUMP PENCE 2020 MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
emblazoned on it, The “TRUMP” is much the largest of course.
Ah right. Bit disappointing. I thought it might be his face and something new such as "Let Him Finish The Job."
I'm conflicted on this. I don't want a trade deal with Trump's America but I do want one if he's gone. So if it were the case that we only get one with him as POTUS that's me stymied. What a world.
Trump did not invent chlorinated chicken or secret tribunals. Whether or not it's Trump's America we go for an FTA with, will make little material difference to the deal (imo).
There is zero chance of any US UK FTA if Biden is President and/or Pelosi Speaker of the House next year if Boris goes ahead and removes the border in the Irish Sea (despite the fact the Dems seem unable to understand Boris still wants no border within Ireland)
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
That's not the main driver of infections though, is it? I'm talking about parties at home, which the new regs are targeting.
Isn't it? We can't meet more than 6 people from separate households outdoors even but can sit in an air-conditioned pub with 100 people circulating whatever they have in it. Isn't the reality that there have been various examples of house parties and raves going on that they want to crack down on for pour encourages reasons?
I agree that crowded pubs are an issue, but aren't we talking about restaurants here in the context of the deal?
My restaurant of choice was a pub. Its people sat indoors in large numbers at tables. Whats the difference.
I'm conflicted on this. I don't want a trade deal with Trump's America but I do want one if he's gone. So if it were the case that we only get one with him as POTUS that's me stymied. What a world.
Trump did not invent chlorinated chicken or secret tribunals. Whether or not it's Trump's America we go for an FTA with, will make little material difference to the deal (imo).
There is zero chance of any US UK FTA if Biden is President and/or Pelosi Speaker of the House next year if Boris goes ahead and removes the border in the Irish Sea (despite the fact the Dems seem unable to understand Boris still wants no border within Ireland)
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.
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
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)
Thanks for confirming that the decision reflected putting the interests of the party ahead of the country. Let's have no more of this "if only the Remainers had been willing to compromise" bollox. A compromise has always been available, it has never been offered.
If Remainers want EEA as a soft Brexit compromise they can vote for Starmer or Davey in 2024 as they are both moving in that direction anyway, the Tories are now committed to hard Brexit for a generation
So will you be voting for Starmer or Davey?
No, as I believe Brexit now has to be delivered in full
So I was right. It is as I feared. Your political ideals, such as they are (they are nothing more than a chimera) chop and change with the seasons. A dilettante who has no firm convictions.
I really like your contributions and you are king of the poll commentary.
But I find it difficult to respect that tbh. Are you not embarrassed?
No, I am a Tory Party branch chairman and you know my loyalty to the party comes first.
Plus I respect the fact Leave won and the platform it won on, however if Starmer becomes PM in 2024 and takes us back into the EEA as a democrat I would accept that too
If someone who hated Tories could design one to throw darts at a picture on their wall!
Jonathan Sumption made the same point as Swayne on the DT podcast. I would think a large minority of the country agree. Unfortunately we are back to the bad old days of nothing between the main parties big guns on the big issue of the day
I'm conflicted on this. I don't want a trade deal with Trump's America but I do want one if he's gone. So if it were the case that we only get one with him as POTUS that's me stymied. What a world.
Trump did not invent chlorinated chicken or secret tribunals. Whether or not it's Trump's America we go for an FTA with, will make little material difference to the deal (imo).
There is zero chance of any US UK FTA if Biden is President and/or Pelosi Speaker of the House next year if Boris goes ahead and removes the border in the Irish Sea (despite the fact the Dems seem unable to understand Boris still wants no border within Ireland)
I'm quite sure the Dems understand that Boris doesn't want a border within Ireland. What they can't get their head round, nor can anyone sensible, is why he seems to want to torpedo the agreement he ratified nine months ago which would have made it possible to avoid such a border.
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.
If there is a snap election, I'm not voting Tory.
Voting Labour is a step too far. I think I'd just wash my hair for six weeks and then draw a large aubergine on the ballot paper (not inside just one box - learnt my lesson).
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
That's not the main driver of infections though, is it? I'm talking about parties at home, which the new regs are targeting.
Isn't it? We can't meet more than 6 people from separate households outdoors even but can sit in an air-conditioned pub with 100 people circulating whatever they have in it. Isn't the reality that there have been various examples of house parties and raves going on that they want to crack down on for pour encourages reasons?
I agree that crowded pubs are an issue, but aren't we talking about restaurants here in the context of the deal?
My restaurant of choice was a pub. Its people sat indoors in large numbers at tables. Whats the difference.
The issue isn't the number of people in the room, it is whether they are socially distancing or not.
I can go to a supermarket with hundreds of other shoppers. I stay distanced from them though.
The British government simply wants No hard border in Ireland as well as no border in the Irish sea, the EU by refusing to concede on fishing rights and state aid is pushing No Deal anyway. Plus if Trump is re elected and the GOP regain Congress a US UK FTA still on
But but but why do we care what they about state aid? Aren't we sovereign and free to break the law in a very limited and specific way?
The EU are refusing to concede on fishing rights by restoring to England quotas sold by the English. Just because your boy wazzock told the fishermen that voting Brexit would restore the fishing rights they sold doesn't mean that in the real world it is true.
40% of fishing waters in the UK can be regained control of post Brexit and that with quotas can be made to land in UK ports
Eating out is utterly fine if the rules are followed- ie in the same household.
I ate out only in my household. However the table next to us wasn't my household. Or the one behind. Or any of the other tables. The "one household only" and now "rule of 6" nonsense seems to suggest the pox circulates only in the immediate vicinity.
How close next to you were they?
We had a plastic partition between our table and the one next to us. The virus definitely can't circulate over the top of it. Or around it. Or to the tables across the way behind us. If you think "covid secure" has any meaning here go ask a virologist.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
That sounds a lot more controlled than people meeting in their own houses, doesn't it?
Absolutely. My exposure to the pox would be far greater in my parent's Rochdale living room than it was in a pub with 80 people in it.
That's not the main driver of infections though, is it? I'm talking about parties at home, which the new regs are targeting.
Isn't it? We can't meet more than 6 people from separate households outdoors even but can sit in an air-conditioned pub with 100 people circulating whatever they have in it. Isn't the reality that there have been various examples of house parties and raves going on that they want to crack down on for pour encourages reasons?
I agree that crowded pubs are an issue, but aren't we talking about restaurants here in the context of the deal?
My restaurant of choice was a pub. Its people sat indoors in large numbers at tables. Whats the difference.
That it's not as risky as dozens of people in someone's house having a party? Hence the restriction targeting social gatherings rather than clamping down on dining in restaurants.
The British government simply wants No hard border in Ireland as well as no border in the Irish sea, the EU by refusing to concede on fishing rights and state aid is pushing No Deal anyway. Plus if Trump is re elected and the GOP regain Congress a US UK FTA still on
But but but why do we care what they about state aid? Aren't we sovereign and free to break the law in a very limited and specific way?
The EU are refusing to concede on fishing rights by restoring to England quotas sold by the English. Just because your boy wazzock told the fishermen that voting Brexit would restore the fishing rights they sold doesn't mean that in the real world it is true.
I'm sorry, your last paragraph is a basic misunderstanding of the concept. This has nothing to do with British fishing rights that have been sold to foreign fishing concerns. The confusion arises because both things are called 'quotas'.
To explain it to you, let's call individual fishing companies' fishing rights 'patches' instead (though it isn't the most apt word). Under the Common Fisheries Policy, all European countries have quotas governing how much they can fish. Within those quotas, individual 'patches' are awarded and some of the UK ones have been sold to foreign fishing concerns. That has nothing to do with the fact that the overall British 'quota' is significantly less than it would be if maritime law applied, and Britain was able to fish in its own territorial waters. The difference is distributed between other European fishing nations. It is THIS that will be taken back when we leave, and if you can provide any reason why it shouldn't be, I'm all ears.
Appreciate the further detail but I understand all that. Question - hothead voices on here and elsewhere have suggested we deploy the navy to stop foreign boats getting at "our fish". I appreciate that the volume we can catch will go up - we're leaving the CFP so why wouldn't it? But how can we stop people entering our waters to catch fish they have paid for the rights to catch...?
Then of course we get to the kind of fish caught in UK waters which is popular in export markets but far less so domestically. So we'll be able to catch more. And then struggle to commercially export it...
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.
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
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.
Boris may be able to concede on state aid but if he concedes to the EU on fishing too which they also want for a trade deal that would be unacceptable to most leavers and breach the 2019 Tory manifesto.
The Tories could also obviously not have conceded on free movement without losing their Red Wall and working class vote or on trade deals without losing free trade Leavers
I think FM is the one thing he cannot concede. The political price would be too high.
More go to sunny foreign holidays, mix with people from all over Europe and come back without being tested...
Unlike the idea of trying to keep British hospitality going, was totally unnecessary to allow the traditional summer holiday season.
Just madness. Utter and complete madness. We did this with the skiers in February and now we have done it again. Unbelievable.
Virtually every other country in Europe did it as well, to be fair. The tourist industry is 10% of Europe's GDP. Losing all of that, much of it permanently, would be horrendous.
I pity the governments trying to balance economic risks versus pandemic risks.
Did they all get this one wrong? Who knows.
I do know we now look set fair for a very unpleasant autumn and winter. It is going to be GRIM.
I'm conflicted on this. I don't want a trade deal with Trump's America but I do want one if he's gone. So if it were the case that we only get one with him as POTUS that's me stymied. What a world.
Trump did not invent chlorinated chicken or secret tribunals. Whether or not it's Trump's America we go for an FTA with, will make little material difference to the deal (imo).
There is zero chance of any US UK FTA if Biden is President and/or Pelosi Speaker of the House next year if Boris goes ahead and removes the border in the Irish Sea (despite the fact the Dems seem unable to understand Boris still wants no border within Ireland)
I'm quite sure the Dems understand that Boris doesn't want a border within Ireland. What they can't get their head round, nor can anyone sensible, is why he seems to want to torpedo the agreement he ratified nine months ago which would have made it possible to avoid such a border.
Would the Dems accept a hard border between New York and New Jersey?
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.
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
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)
Comments
I'll defer to the experts, but although hospitalisations seem to be increasingly fairly slightly so far, it seems to be at nothing like the rate of infections.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/2514/documents/24959/default/
If they get out of line then the rules can be changed.
Biden: 1
Trump: 1
“Bye Don” (geddit.): 1
Trump flag but upside down: 1
No bumper stickers were seen at all.
The election yard signs etc were outnumbered by Black Lives Matters signs, and those were outnumbered by “Thank you essential workers” signs.
Yes, NYS will go heavily Democratic as a whole, but I was quite surprised to see such a small amount of overt Trump support in the countryside. That said, there were very few yard signs out in 2016, compared to 2012. I guess most people feel the polarizarion of views here in the US and don’t want to expose themselves one way or another.
Unlike the idea of trying to keep British hospitality going, was totally unnecessary to allow the traditional summer holiday season.
The Tories could also obviously not have conceded on free movement without losing their Red Wall and working class vote or on trade deals without losing free trade Leavers
Does it have his face and a slogan on it?
It's something in the response provoked by what they've done, that they're hoping will provoke a counter-response. It would help if we knew what Doris actually wanted - Deal or No Deal. I would imagine it's 'Deal', and if 'Deal' - 'Good Deal'. I have no idea how this can lead to something that achieves that.
It could be that they want the Internal Market bill to fail for example, but what does that lead to? Perhaps it's even something to do with SINDY 2. Perhaps it leads the EU to show a hand that they wouldn't otherwise want to.
Are you quite sure about that?
But for me, as i keep repeating, the big one is foreign holiday, where we know it was already rising in a number of popular tourist destinations and in many resorts the kids partied hard.
This time the government basically encouraged it by this airbridge nonsense.
Eating out is NOT "utterly fine". Its a managed risk. As is packing the smalls into classrooms. Etc etc.
You and Dominic Grieve are free to work together in this life after all.
Although, just in case you missed the emphasis - IFFF.
The EU are refusing to concede on fishing rights by restoring to England quotas sold by the English. Just because your boy wazzock told the fishermen that voting Brexit would restore the fishing rights they sold doesn't mean that in the real world it is true.
I really like your contributions and you are king of the poll commentary.
But I find it difficult to respect that tbh. Are you not embarrassed?
Its hard to discuss common sense when we have the government coming out with guff like the Rule of Shit. Which they are highly likely to amend on the Ridge show on Sunday after the PM gets roasted at tonight's 1922 meeting.
Boris can take a leaf out of Hugh Grant's book from Love Actually.
To explain it to you, let's call individual fishing companies' fishing rights 'patches' instead (though it isn't the most apt word). Under the Common Fisheries Policy, all European countries have quotas governing how much they can fish. Within those quotas, individual 'patches' are awarded and some of the UK ones have been sold to foreign fishing concerns. That has nothing to do with the fact that the overall British 'quota' is significantly less than it would be if maritime law applied, and Britain was able to fish in its own territorial waters. The difference is distributed between other European fishing nations. It is THIS that will be taken back when we leave, and if you can provide any reason why it shouldn't be, I'm all ears.
The move follows two days of discussions between the government and regional health and local authority leaders after the city’s seven-day infection rate rose to 78.2 cases per 100,000 of the population.
Guidance that people cannot socialise outside of their households in the city will be made law, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, has announced. .
Plus I respect the fact Leave won and the platform it won on, however if Starmer becomes PM in 2024 and takes us back into the EEA as a democrat I would accept that too
Jonathan Sumption made the same point as Swayne on the DT podcast. I would think a large minority of the country agree. Unfortunately we are back to the bad old days of nothing between the main parties big guns on the big issue of the day
https://twitter.com/DesmondSwayne/status/1304381347658686464?s=20
Voting Labour is a step too far. I think I'd just wash my hair for six weeks and then draw a large aubergine on the ballot paper (not inside just one box - learnt my lesson).
I can go to a supermarket with hundreds of other shoppers. I stay distanced from them though.
Then of course we get to the kind of fish caught in UK waters which is popular in export markets but far less so domestically. So we'll be able to catch more. And then struggle to commercially export it...
I pity the governments trying to balance economic risks versus pandemic risks.
Did they all get this one wrong? Who knows.
I do know we now look set fair for a very unpleasant autumn and winter. It is going to be GRIM.
Scratch that, it would probably be quite popular.
If they are disproportionately youngsters, I dare say that most would probably be none the wiser were it not for that fact that they had been tested.