I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
The problem is that the options are deal or no-deal, and if Labour vote against it could see a a Tory rebellion led by the no-deal fans in the ERG. The only sensible choice they have, is to embrace the deal and move on from here.
Not necessarily so. In a vote that a government is bound to win, what matters is not so much what you are strictly voting for or against, but rather how the position you take might earn or lose you support in the future. For sure, a weakness of not voting for the government deal now is that you could be portrayed as technically having voted for no deal.
But stopping the analysis there is short sighted, since there may be considerable upside in not being tied to having supported a government deal that likely will become seen as deficient in coming months.
Our differences are that you assume the bill is safe anyway, and I think that if Labour vote against it could spark enough of a Tory rebellion to vote down the deal, which leads to a crash-out next week.
IMO there are a few times as LotO, when you have to work with the government in the national interest, and this is one of those times. They will I’m sure say they’d have done a different deal, and that elements of the deal are not right for the U.K, but in the end they realise it cannot be amended now and will reluctantly vote in favour.
To vote against would be playing base party politics, and could spectacularly backfire if Starmer walks his troops through the lobby with Bill Cash and John Redwood and the vote then falls.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
And "No Deal" is thinner.
I agree with Owen Jones, this line of argument is very weak.
Nobody seriously believes the SNP - or the Lib Dems for that matter - want a No Deal.
Then why are they voting that way?
It will get flung back at them from here to eternity - just like the SNP giving us Mrs Thatcher in 1979
You'd complain if they voted for - or not at all. SLAB certainly would.
The suggestion that the SNP voting against BJ's deal are going to have it flung back at them by the shrinking rump of Unionists from here to eternity has certainly given me pause for thought.
That thought is mainly why are the the shrinking rump of Unionists so concerned about how badly the SNP are perceived?
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
I think the original plan of abstention is still politically safest, personally.
So that's people concluding that all three possibilities are the best.
I'm no Labour fan, but easily their best choice is to vote for the deal in my view. They can do that and still be against anything bad that comes along. Abstaining is just weak, and voting against has them fighting against the tide - no matter how minor that tide might be.
I don't really care what they do, although I guess I'd have a slight preference to see them vote for it - the nation all on the same page.
All of the above aside this might be quite an important decision for Starmer. It might matter if Corbyn votes for, but Labour votes against for example. Corbyn himself of course is a busted flush, but he's still the figurehead for the truly daft.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
And "No Deal" is thinner.
I agree with Owen Jones, this line of argument is very weak.
Nobody seriously believes the SNP - or the Lib Dems for that matter - want a No Deal.
Then why are they voting that way?
It will get flung back at them from here to eternity - just like the SNP giving us Mrs Thatcher in 1979
You'd complain if they voted for - or not at all. SLAB certainly would.
The suggestion that the SNP voting against BJ's deal are going to have it flung back at them by the shrinking rump of Unionists from here to eternity has certainly given me pause for thought.
That thought is mainly why are the the shrinking rump of Unionists so concerned about how badly the SNP are perceived?
If you back the Deal as a Unionist you can vote Tory or Labour, if you oppose the Deal as a Unionist you can vote LD, if you are a fishermen who wants an even harder Brexit you can vote UKIP or for Farage in no case do you need to vote SNP
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
They must vote for the deal on the grounds it is much, much better than No Deal, to put Brexit to bed and to win back the Red Wall which is giving Labour a fair hearing (and on current polling is swinging back).
A vote for will kill the Tory electoral strategy stone-dead, as long as Labour does not walk into any more culture wars.
Oh, we've already started banging on about renaming OBEs.
Someone from the front bench will pop up in the New Year to start a debate on transgender athletes.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
And "No Deal" is thinner.
I agree with Owen Jones, this line of argument is very weak.
Nobody seriously believes the SNP - or the Lib Dems for that matter - want a No Deal.
Then why are they voting that way?
It will get flung back at them from here to eternity - just like the SNP giving us Mrs Thatcher in 1979
Nonsense will it.
The difference is that the SNP actually did help give Thatcher in 1979. Labour could point at Thatcher and say "look what the SNP gave us"
Their voting no to Boris's Deal will not cause No Deal so this will all be history as soon as the vote is over.
By this time next year no voter is going to care at all how any of the parties vote on the deal on Wednesday. It will be irrelevant trivia of interest only to political historians.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
People often criticise the Tories for voting for Iraq. It just doesn't matter because Labour bear the brunt of it.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
People often criticise the Tories for voting for Iraq. It just doesn't matter because Labour bear the brunt of it.
Not in public discourse, it's always Labour who get it.
I take your point, I think in terms of optics we're in agreement.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
People often criticise the Tories for voting for Iraq. It just doesn't matter because Labour bear the brunt of it.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
I think the original plan of abstention is still politically safest, personally.
I think a reasonable "cover all the bases" position for the LotO would be "free vote" with personal recommendation in favour - whipped abstention is almost as bad as #NoDealNicola
I thought he might do something like that - "I'm voting Yes to this Thin Deal that is still much better than No Deal, and I think we all should, but I'm not whipping it so vote your conscience if you really must."
But it might have looked a bit naff. I liked Abstention but this way is probably better.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Yes.
It becomes inevitable. There would only be 36 hours left before the transition lapses.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
People often criticise the Tories for voting for Iraq. It just doesn't matter because Labour bear the brunt of it.
I’m not sure the Tories considered that Alistair Campbell would completely fabricate the evidence, on an issue so serious as declaring war on another country.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Yes.
It becomes inevitable. There would only be 36 hours left before the transition lapses.
No pulling the wool over your eyes, although if your image is correct it's quite incredible that the biological fluff hasn't incapacitated you anyway.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
I have lost count of the number of times Labour posters on this very board claim "tories supported it too"
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Yes.
It becomes inevitable. There would only be 36 hours left before the transition lapses.
The lesson of the past month is that there’s always time to delay further.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
I think the original plan of abstention is still politically safest, personally.
I rarely disagree with you Sir but I do here.
Labour needs to show it's got over Brexit and is listening to the voters it lost.
Labour's strategy should be:
To return to a 2017 result as the baseline, that is primarily through the Red Wall. Those voters went because of Brexit and Corbyn.
To build on 2017 towards 280+ seats, they need to make gains in London and the South East. Those voters were previously scared by Corbyn, will they be scared of Starmer?
Hope for a Lib Dem revival, unlikely at the moment.
I think this IS more or less the strategy. Fine by me - but just please let's not go Union Jack underpants. They'll lose me if they do and no amount of Red Wallers coming home is going to make up for that.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
I have lost count of the number of times Labour posters on this very board claim "tories supported it too"
I meant out in the real world but to be honest I've rarely myself seen it here either, I obviously don't pay attention
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
There are a couple of problems with this analysis:
1. Congress is always unpopular relative to the President. The average gap between Congressional and Presidential approval is more than 20 points. So, if you'd asked this question in 2004, you might well have gotten "more like Bush" as your answer.
2. It's very unspecific: do they mean more like the President, stylistically, or more like the President, in terms of policy positions?
3. Trump motivates Democrats to get out and vote, and motivates moderate Republicans to stay home and watch YouTube.
They must vote for the deal on the grounds it is much, much better than No Deal, to put Brexit to bed and to win back the Red Wall which is giving Labour a fair hearing (and on current polling is swinging back).
A vote for will kill the Tory electoral strategy stone-dead, as long as Labour does not walk into any more culture wars.
Oh, we've already started banging on about renaming OBEs.
Someone from the front bench will pop up in the New Year to start a debate on transgender athletes.
Must say I missed the OBE one, Keir needs to have stronger control over the cabinet
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
I have lost count of the number of times Labour posters on this very board claim "tories supported it too"
I meant out in the real world but to be honest I've rarely myself seen it here either, I obviously don't pay attention
In reality these decisions DO matter, even if they don’t leak directly into mainstream discourse.
They tend to contribute to the subterranean perception of parties by both media and public.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
And "No Deal" is thinner.
I agree with Owen Jones, this line of argument is very weak.
Nobody seriously believes the SNP - or the Lib Dems for that matter - want a No Deal.
Then why are they voting that way?
It will get flung back at them from here to eternity - just like the SNP giving us Mrs Thatcher in 1979
It is only a Tory talking point that those voting against are voting “No Deal”, in any case Boris told us only a week ago we would “prosper mightily” in that scenario.
Yes and Yes. And re the latter point, he IS the PM and he DID say, in the lexicon of Eddie and the Hot Rods, that Aussie Rules would be great because we could do anything we wanna do.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
I have lost count of the number of times Labour posters on this very board claim "tories supported it too"
I meant out in the real world but to be honest I've rarely myself seen it here either, I obviously don't pay attention
In reality these decisions DO matter, even if they don’t leak directly into mainstream discourse.
They tend to contribute to the subterranean perception of parties by both media and public.
This is why Labour must vote FOR the deal. "Labour supports Brexit" is enough to get voters back, IMHO
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
I think the original plan of abstention is still politically safest, personally.
I rarely disagree with you Sir but I do here.
Labour needs to show it's got over Brexit and is listening to the voters it lost.
Labour's strategy should be:
To return to a 2017 result as the baseline, that is primarily through the Red Wall. Those voters went because of Brexit and Corbyn.
To build on 2017 towards 280+ seats, they need to make gains in London and the South East. Those voters were previously scared by Corbyn, will they be scared of Starmer?
Hope for a Lib Dem revival, unlikely at the moment.
I think this IS more or less the strategy. Fine by me - but just please let's not go Union Jack underpants. They'll lose me if they do and no amount of Red Wallers coming home is going to make up for that.
Why not? Labour is a proud patriotic party, we should be proud of the Union Jack.
And then we can talk about our patriotism, funding the Armed Forces and our NHS fairly and properly, having a proper justice system, running our own services not foreign governments.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
And "No Deal" is thinner.
I agree with Owen Jones, this line of argument is very weak.
Nobody seriously believes the SNP - or the Lib Dems for that matter - want a No Deal.
Then why are they voting that way?
It will get flung back at them from here to eternity - just like the SNP giving us Mrs Thatcher in 1979
It is only a Tory talking point that those voting against are voting “No Deal”, in any case Boris told us only a week ago we would “prosper mightily” in that scenario.
Yes and Yes. And re the latter point, he IS the PM and he DID say, in the lexicon of Eddie and the Hot Rods, that Aussie Rules would be great because we could do anything we wanna do.
Great song. I sometimes think I like the the pub rock/ punk crossover more than punk itself.
Fundamentally voting against is to vote against Brexit, I can imagine the hay the Tories would make with that
No it isn't: 1. Brexit happened nearly a year ago 2. The deal will pass regardless 3. If parliament did manage to vote against the deal will still go ahead, with a later second vote where MPs get the opportunity to change their minds 4. No deal would be a bloody marvellous thing so sayeth the government and their parrots as recently as a week ago. No deal cannot be used as a threat when it would have been great for Britain had Shagger done it.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
No one cares how the parties vote unless they are committed voters to their tribe already. It is irrelevant, the deal is done and will pass.
I don’t agree with this. The whole point of MPs is to vote. Unless you are interested in govt by decree.
You are vastly over-estimating the interest the average swing voter has in MPs voting records 4 years before an election. They all know its Boris' deal, he has an 80 majority and is responsible for its successes and failures.
With an 80 majority, and our constitution, govt by decree is pretty close to what we have, bar the check of Tory MPs replacing the PM which is not going to happen any time soon.
The Tories voted for Iraq, I don't see them attacked over that. The idea Labour loses ground to criticise if they vote for is ridiculous.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
I have lost count of the number of times Labour posters on this very board claim "tories supported it too"
I meant out in the real world but to be honest I've rarely myself seen it here either, I obviously don't pay attention
In reality these decisions DO matter, even if they don’t leak directly into mainstream discourse.
They tend to contribute to the subterranean perception of parties by both media and public.
This is why Labour must vote FOR the deal. "Labour supports Brexit" is enough to get voters back, IMHO
I am 50/50 on this, and perhaps leaning to your way of thinking. I would like to know Labour’s actual opinion on the DEAL, though.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
More likely that Starmer would have to resign in that situation. Boris would be cheered to the rafters by most of his own party, and he’d be able to pin the disruption next week on those who voted against the deal.
The SNP's goals here aren't the same as Labour, what do they care if England and Wales don't have a deal. The endgame for the SNP is dissolution of the union, followed by Scotland joining the EU. They have the least incentive of all to vote for the deal, along with Plaid. The deal does create divisions betwixt NI and rUK that would theoretically not be there if there was 'No deal'. So I'd fully expect DUP to vote against. There are good arguments for the SDLP to vote both for and against the deal, of course Sinn Fein will be abstaining !
Wales voted Leave though unlike Scotland so Plaid cannot ignore that
The Plaid Cymru seats did not vote Leave. Gwynedd & Ceredigion voted Remain.
CE&D voted Leave but they are represented by the wife-beater, who has lost the whip.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
More likely that Starmer would have to resign in that situation. Boris would be cheered to the rafters by most of his own party, and he’d be able to pin the disruption next week on those who voted against the deal.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
More likely that Starmer would have to resign in that situation. Boris would be cheered to the rafters by most of his own party, and he’d be able to pin the disruption next week on those who voted against the deal.
Lol.
You’re not thinking like a brexit-supporting Tory
No-deal, forced on the government by a recalcitrant Parliament, is a win-win.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
No one cares how the parties vote unless they are committed voters to their tribe already. It is irrelevant, the deal is done and will pass.
I don’t agree with this. The whole point of MPs is to vote. Unless you are interested in govt by decree.
You are vastly over-estimating the interest the average swing voter has in MPs voting records 4 years before an election. They all know its Boris' deal, he has an 80 majority and is responsible for its successes and failures.
With an 80 majority, and our constitution, govt by decree is pretty close to what we have, bar the check of Tory MPs replacing the PM which is not going to happen any time soon.
By your logic we can do away with MPs and just let Boris do whatever for 5 years until we (maybe) change our mind.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists off to the Lib Dems and Greens.
The Labour Party has too much baggage to avoid being strategically inept.
How much does Starmer whip the deal in his party if he's going 'for'. The labour leadership/shadow cabinet is enough in my opinion, perhaps just a one line whip...
It'll be almost unthinkable to vote against it amongst the sane on the Tory side, only the maddest brexiteers will consider it.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
I think the original plan of abstention is still politically safest, personally.
I rarely disagree with you Sir but I do here.
Labour needs to show it's got over Brexit and is listening to the voters it lost.
Labour's strategy should be:
To return to a 2017 result as the baseline, that is primarily through the Red Wall. Those voters went because of Brexit and Corbyn.
To build on 2017 towards 280+ seats, they need to make gains in London and the South East. Those voters were previously scared by Corbyn, will they be scared of Starmer?
Hope for a Lib Dem revival, unlikely at the moment.
I think this IS more or less the strategy. Fine by me - but just please let's not go Union Jack underpants. They'll lose me if they do and no amount of Red Wallers coming home is going to make up for that.
Why not? Labour is a proud patriotic party, we should be proud of the Union Jack.
And then we can talk about our patriotism, funding the Armed Forces and our NHS fairly and properly, having a proper justice system, running our own services not foreign governments.
The flag is to be neither ashamed of nor wrapped in. Plenty of terrain there to occupy and I'm hoping we do so. Just flagging up a warning - to Keir if he's lurking on here - about overshoot and ending up in the latter condition. That would be unfortunate. But I'm sure he won't. I have good vibes.
Has to be said, having to complete customs forms to post things abroad and having to stump up VAT, excise and handling fees before being able to collect parcels from abroad will be a significant improvement for people vs the no forms or fees mess we had before.
Kyle Walker has gone down with Covid. Given his record of compliance with the regulations, how can that be?
I thought that was some days ago with Gabriel Jesus but it appears more staff have now tested positive
Hadn’t seen that, but in his behaviour he’s certainly gone out of his way to get across the message that the regulations don’t apply to premiership footballers.
The SNP's goals here aren't the same as Labour, what do they care if England and Wales don't have a deal. The endgame for the SNP is dissolution of the union, followed by Scotland joining the EU. They have the least incentive of all to vote for the deal, along with Plaid. The deal does create divisions betwixt NI and rUK that would theoretically not be there if there was 'No deal'. So I'd fully expect DUP to vote against. There are good arguments for the SDLP to vote both for and against the deal, of course Sinn Fein will be abstaining !
Wales voted Leave though unlike Scotland so Plaid cannot ignore that
The Plaid Cymru seats did not vote Leave. Gwynedd & Ceredigion voted Remain.
CE&D voted Leave but they are represented by the wife-beater, who has lost the whip.
Well if Plaid wish to remain a minority party in Wales confined to the West coast then so be it
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
And "No Deal" is thinner.
I agree with Owen Jones, this line of argument is very weak.
Nobody seriously believes the SNP - or the Lib Dems for that matter - want a No Deal.
Then why are they voting that way?
It will get flung back at them from here to eternity - just like the SNP giving us Mrs Thatcher in 1979
It is only a Tory talking point that those voting against are voting “No Deal”, in any case Boris told us only a week ago we would “prosper mightily” in that scenario.
Yes and Yes. And re the latter point, he IS the PM and he DID say, in the lexicon of Eddie and the Hot Rods, that Aussie Rules would be great because we could do anything we wanna do.
Great song. I sometimes think I like the the pub rock/ punk crossover more than punk itself.
I definitely do! Pure authentic punk is something I don't like as much as I know I'm supposed to. I preferred it when either some trad rock or some arty fartiness crept into the mix.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists off to the Lib Dems and Greens.
The Labour Party has too much baggage to avoid being strategically inept.
It is interesting because SKS could easily have offered a free vote. MPs for Leaver seats could have voted For, but MPs for Remainer seats Against. It will after all make no absolutely difference to whether the bill passes.
The bill will always smell of Boris, just like the word Iraq smells of Tony Blair.
But SKS has whipped his Labour MPs to vote For.
SKS is clearly singing from the Tony Blair songbook. Like Tony, he wants the Labour Party to submit to the dominant will of one person.
Will it work?
I am pretty unconvinced that, after their experience with Tony, everyone in the Labour Party will submit. Especially as SKS is no way as photogenic a vote-getting machine as the 40-year old Tony.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
No one cares how the parties vote unless they are committed voters to their tribe already. It is irrelevant, the deal is done and will pass.
I don’t agree with this. The whole point of MPs is to vote. Unless you are interested in govt by decree.
You are vastly over-estimating the interest the average swing voter has in MPs voting records 4 years before an election. They all know its Boris' deal, he has an 80 majority and is responsible for its successes and failures.
With an 80 majority, and our constitution, govt by decree is pretty close to what we have, bar the check of Tory MPs replacing the PM which is not going to happen any time soon.
By your logic we can do away with MPs and just let Boris do whatever for 5 years until we (maybe) change our mind.
As a voter that is what I am resigned to, yes. All that constrains him are Tory MPs, all the opposition parties combined have a negligible chance to impact votes.
It is almost comical but Sky have interviewed Adonis, Dunt and now Heseltine today about Brexit
One indeed wonders therefore why you have taken up full time employment as PB’s Sky News correspondent.
More seriously, you have a point. It would be better probably to hear from people like Emily Thornberry, Steven Farry, or Ed Davey.
Adonis, Dunt, and Heseltine are all essentially members of a self-perpetuating “commentariat”, and we already know what they have to say.
Who's this Dunt person?
He writes for the New Statesman and is big on Remainer Twitter. He makes some good points, but more heat than light most of the time.
So Ian Dunt? He's completely escaped my attention.
Adonis I used to quite like. That seems a very long time ago. Heseltine has always been a shit.
Hezza’s great! I’ve seen him on the streets of Westminster a few times in recent years. I’ve had to resist the strong urge to go up to him and shake his hand - not sure he’d have appreciated it.
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
Yes, strategic people often find themselves forced to act in a dilemma in which either choice is to their disadvantage.
But he's also forensic and far-sighted too. That's why he's ended up whipping his own MPs to support Boris' Evil Tory Deal to completely disengage us from the EU - a Deal he thinks is awful and which he hasn't read...
Kyle Walker has gone down with Covid. Given his record of compliance with the regulations, how can that be?
I thought that was some days ago with Gabriel Jesus but it appears more staff have now tested positive
Hadn’t seen that, but in his behaviour he’s certainly gone out of his way to get across the message that the regulations don’t apply to premiership footballers.
He has been helping self-employed sole traders to get through hard economic times in the pandemic.
They must vote for the deal on the grounds it is much, much better than No Deal, to put Brexit to bed and to win back the Red Wall which is giving Labour a fair hearing (and on current polling is swinging back).
A vote for will kill the Tory electoral strategy stone-dead, as long as Labour does not walk into any more culture wars.
Oh, we've already started banging on about renaming OBEs.
Someone from the front bench will pop up in the New Year to start a debate on transgender athletes.
Must say I missed the OBE one, Keir needs to have stronger control over the cabinet
OBEs are a problem because of Wikipedia. No-one gives a damn about OBEs, it's just three letters. You could call them ABCs or DEFs and it would all be the same.
Until Wikipedia came along. Wikipedia always spells it out. Look up anyone with a gong and it won't say Fred was given an OBE, it will say Fred was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, and that prominence of the word Empire as if the Queen or Prime Minister were personally taunting the rest of the world (and many native Britons) is what makes people a bit uneasy. That is also why the proposed solution is not to abolish the awards but just change what the E stands for.
Wikipedia is what is causing this problem. Look anyone up and see.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
A key concern of mine would be that I think urban liberals may be more likely to hold it against him than Red Wallers. Labour's strong recovery this year, including, according to the polls, among Red Wallers, has been at a time when the party has still not been significantly identified with Brexit. Labour's coalition is very fragile, and if I was SKS, I would just be concerned that an urban group may start to split off to the Liberal Democrats, whereas much of the Red Wall may already have already factored in a Labour abstention or non-commitment.
If Labour was to embrace an electoral reform pact with the LD's, that all might matter a bit less, ofcourse.
DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting
The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.
What a combination
Not sure all of Labour will
And maybe not all the Tories.
Possibly but the indications are the ERG will vote for
I'll be interested to see the size of the Con vote against. I've heard 10 but I'll be surprised if it's that many. Even Farage is on board and that says a lot even if it turns out it's for a peerage or something. Johnson has pulled this off, I think, as regards the politics of it. He's da man right now. Best enjoy it because I sense the pandemic is about to get very nasty indeed.
To be honest I am not enjoying any of this either Brexit or covid
I am content that a deal has been agreed and seemingly our relationship with the EU has not been fractured as would have been the case in a no deal
The country needs to move on and improve the deal and of course the spotlight must now move to vaccinating the country as soon as possible
Yep. A sound and sensible take.
I have, though, gleaned from a few of your more animated posts of recent days that you are possibly working your way back to Boris, albeit perhaps not yet with a burning love inside?
Given Parliament is supreme and given the EU is only provisionally applying the deal pending full Parliamentary approval next month . . .
Is there anything stopping MPs from putting forwards and voting on an amendment giving provisional approval to the deal for it to provisionally come into force (like the EU have done) pending a full Parliamentary review next month?
If ~320+ MPs voted for an amendment for that then the deal could still (provisionally) come into force and then Parliament could properly scrutinise the bill next month.
Is there anything under domestic or (given the EU are doing precisely this) international law preventing Parliament giving provisional approval only?
If MPs have that option but decline to take it then MPs are responsible for voting through the deal in a day - nobody else.
It is almost comical but Sky have interviewed Adonis, Dunt and now Heseltine today about Brexit
One indeed wonders therefore why you have taken up full time employment as PB’s Sky News correspondent.
More seriously, you have a point. It would be better probably to hear from people like Emily Thornberry, Steven Farry, or Ed Davey.
Adonis, Dunt, and Heseltine are all essentially members of a self-perpetuating “commentariat”, and we already know what they have to say.
Who's this Dunt person?
He writes for the New Statesman and is big on Remainer Twitter. He makes some good points, but more heat than light most of the time.
So Ian Dunt? He's completely escaped my attention.
Adonis I used to quite like. That seems a very long time ago. Heseltine has always been a shit.
Hezza’s great! I’ve seen him on the streets of Westminster a few times in recent years. I’ve had to resist the strong urge to go up to him and shake his hand - not sure he’d have appreciated it.
I disagree clearly. I can't think of a politician that has done more to undermine the values he claims to have.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
A key concern of mine would be that I think urban liberals may be more likely to hold it against him than Red Wallers. Labour's strong recovery this year, including, according to the polls, among Red Wallers, has been at a time when the party is not significantly identified with Brexit. Labour's coalition is very fragile, and if I was SKS I would just be concerned that an urban group may split off to the Liberal Democrats, whereas much of the Red Wall may already have already factored in a Labour abstention or non-commitment.
Blair was re elected in 2005 despite losing large numbers of urban voters and several urban seats to the LDs as the Red Wall stayed Labour as did many other Midlands and Northern marginal seats
I might be changing my mind on Labour strategy here. It would perhaps be better to vote Against on the grounds that the deal is too thin.
Labour voting against could sink it, they don't have the option of luxuriating in their own self indulgence that the other opposition parties do. Abstention, or a free vote would be acceptable.
They can’t sink it. There is no sign of an ERG rebellion, for example.
So, I believe they do have the option and I wouldn’t really call taking any vote in Parliament on something of this gravity “self-indulgence”.
I'd say any vote where you know the outcome for the country would be worse if the result went your way is the definition of self indulgence. That's very clearly the case with this deal, unless you're pursuing another agenda (independence for example)
Let’s play the “What If”.
The government is defeated by a coalition of Opposition and ERG votes. Does a “No Deal” then become likely?
Not really.
Of course it becomes a likely enough reality, the EU have shown more than enough patience with our messing about. They'll kick in contingency measures that suit them and we'll have tariffs and quotas to deal with.
I don’t see that as inevitable. If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
No chance. The only reason Frost and Johnson have pulled off the deal they have is because they probably actually did mean it when they said they'd be happy to leave without a deal. If the rug was pulled out from under them by parliament we'd be straight into *ahem* 'Australia style' arrangements. I would say the EU would call our bluff, but I don't think Frost/Johnson were actually bluffing.
Yes they were. It was a bluff but it was aimed not at the EU but at the domestic commentariat (who mainly fell for it) in order to generate the desired atmosphere and optics for the close. Getting a deal was an achievement but it was not done by making the EU genuinely fear No Deal. It was done by using up the time and getting the most concessions thought possible in that time.
With the most concessions thought possible in that time being far, far more than if the time had not all been used up.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
A key concern of mine would be that I think urban liberals may be more likely to hold it against him than Red Wallers. Labour's strong recovery this year, including, according to the polls, among Red Wallers, has been at a time when the party is not significantly identified with Brexit. Labour's coalition is very fragile, and if I was SKS I would just be concerned that an urban group may split off to the Liberal Democrats, whereas much of the Red Wall may already have already factored in a Labour abstention or non-commitment.
Blair was re elected in 2005 despite losing large numbers of urban voters and several urban seats to the LDs as the Red Wall stayed Labour as did many other Midlands and Northern marginal seats
But he didn't, like Starmer, have this very tricky issue of an keystone identity cause that cuts both ways. A number of younger liberal or more educated voters, even outside cities, identify Brexit as a touchstone issue.
The Sputnik vaccine is fine. Indeed AZN is doing a combination trial with it.
If you had the choice, would you go for Sputnik or Pfizer?
Pfizer. But obviously there isn't enough to go around, and the Pfizer vaccine would be very tricky to administer in the conditions prevalent in Palestine. It just needs a regular fridge.
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
A key concern of mine would be that I think urban liberals may be more likely to hold it against him than Red Wallers. Labour's strong recovery this year, including, according to the polls, among Red Wallers, has been at a time when the party is not significantly identified with Brexit. Labour's coalition is very fragile, and if I was SKS I would just be concerned that an urban group may split off to the Liberal Democrats, whereas much of the Red Wall may already have already factored in a Labour abstention or non-commitment.
Blair was re elected in 2005 despite losing large numbers of urban voters and several urban seats to the LDs as the Red Wall stayed Labour as did many other Midlands and Northern marginal seats
But he didn't like Starmer, have this very tricky issue of an keystone identity cause that cuts both ways. A number of younger liberal voters even outside the cities identify Brexit as an touchstone issue.
Labour can win enough seats to form a government losing a few urban seats to the LDs, Labour cannot win losing Red Wall and Midlands marginal seats to the Tories
The Sputnik vaccine is fine. Indeed AZN is doing a combination trial with it.
If you had the choice, would you go for Sputnik or Pfizer?
Pfizer. But obviously there isn't enough to go around, and the Pfizer vaccine would be very tricky to administer in the conditions prevalent in Palestine. It just needs a regular fridge.
I meant for you personally (or your kids if I want to really concentrate your mind).
Starmer's been forced into a bit of a zugzwang: abstain / vote against and piss off the Red Wall; vote for and incur the wrath of the more Remoany elements who expected him to go down in flames and glory, wrapped in blue and gold.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
A key concern of mine would be that I think urban liberals may be more likely to hold it against him than Red Wallers. Labour's strong recovery this year, including, according to the polls, among Red Wallers, has been at a time when the party is not significantly identified with Brexit. Labour's coalition is very fragile, and if I was SKS I would just be concerned that an urban group may split off to the Liberal Democrats, whereas much of the Red Wall may already have already factored in a Labour abstention or non-commitment.
Blair was re elected in 2005 despite losing large numbers of urban voters and several urban seats to the LDs as the Red Wall stayed Labour as did many other Midlands and Northern marginal seats
But he didn't like Starmer, have this very tricky issue of an keystone identity cause that cuts both ways. A number of younger liberal voters even outside the cities identify Brexit as an touchstone issue.
Labour can win enough seats to form a government losing a few urban seats to the LDs, Labour cannot win losing Red Wall and Midlands marginal seats to the Tories
This goes beyond city seats, I would say ; they're simply the strongest base for that kind of identity.
DUP walking through the lobbies with SNP, strangely fitting
The DUP, the SNP and the LDs all forming an anti Deal trio while the Tories and Labour go arm in arm through the lobbies to pass the Deal.
What a combination
Not sure all of Labour will
And maybe not all the Tories.
Possibly but the indications are the ERG will vote for
I'll be interested to see the size of the Con vote against. I've heard 10 but I'll be surprised if it's that many. Even Farage is on board and that says a lot even if it turns out it's for a peerage or something. Johnson has pulled this off, I think, as regards the politics of it. He's da man right now. Best enjoy it because I sense the pandemic is about to get very nasty indeed.
To be honest I am not enjoying any of this either Brexit or covid
I am content that a deal has been agreed and seemingly our relationship with the EU has not been fractured as would have been the case in a no deal
The country needs to move on and improve the deal and of course the spotlight must now move to vaccinating the country as soon as possible
Yep. A sound and sensible take.
I have, though, gleaned from a few of your more animated posts of recent days that you are possibly working your way back to Boris, albeit perhaps not yet with a burning love inside?
I continue with my criticism of him on covid but on Brexit he is indisputably a winner
With the Oxford vaccine on the cusp of approval he does deserve great credit, even if it was a huge gamble
For Brexit and the vaccine he has earned his continuing tenure in no 10
Comments
IMO there are a few times as LotO, when you have to work with the government in the national interest, and this is one of those times. They will I’m sure say they’d have done a different deal, and that elements of the deal are not right for the U.K, but in the end they realise it cannot be amended now and will reluctantly vote in favour.
To vote against would be playing base party politics, and could spectacularly backfire if Starmer walks his troops through the lobby with Bill Cash and John Redwood and the vote then falls.
That thought is mainly why are the the shrinking rump of Unionists so concerned about how badly the SNP are perceived?
I'm no Labour fan, but easily their best choice is to vote for the deal in my view. They can do that and still be against anything bad that comes along. Abstaining is just weak, and voting against has them fighting against the tide - no matter how minor that tide might be.
I don't really care what they do, although I guess I'd have a slight preference to see them vote for it - the nation all on the same page.
All of the above aside this might be quite an important decision for Starmer. It might matter if Corbyn votes for, but Labour votes against for example. Corbyn himself of course is a busted flush, but he's still the figurehead for the truly daft.
The optics of this are vote for is voting for Brexit, abstaining is fence sitting and voting against is for No Deal and/or against Brexit.
Starmer has correctly calculated For is the best approach, if he continues with such strategy and calculation Labour stands a good chance of winning back the Red Wall
Someone from the front bench will pop up in the New Year to start a debate on transgender athletes.
The difference is that the SNP actually did help give Thatcher in 1979. Labour could point at Thatcher and say "look what the SNP gave us"
Their voting no to Boris's Deal will not cause No Deal so this will all be history as soon as the vote is over.
By this time next year no voter is going to care at all how any of the parties vote on the deal on Wednesday. It will be irrelevant trivia of interest only to political historians.
I take your point, I think in terms of optics we're in agreement.
But it might have looked a bit naff. I liked Abstention but this way is probably better.
I'm hurt that you've missed my regular attacks of the Tories and IDS over Iraq.
It becomes inevitable. There would only be 36 hours left before the transition lapses.
Labour needs to get rid of two views, that they are anti-Brexit and that they don't take positions. For does both.
The Tories are staying quiet on it because they know that For destroys much of the base.
The whole point of MPs is to vote.
Unless you are interested in govt by decree.
You see it only matters if they vote in a way Philip personally cares about
1. Congress is always unpopular relative to the President. The average gap between Congressional and Presidential approval is more than 20 points. So, if you'd asked this question in 2004, you might well have gotten "more like Bush" as your answer.
2. It's very unspecific: do they mean more like the President, stylistically, or more like the President, in terms of policy positions?
3. Trump motivates Democrats to get out and vote, and motivates moderate Republicans to stay home and watch YouTube.
If my (very far-fetched) “What If”, Boris would likely have to resign and emergency continuity measures sought by Raab.
They tend to contribute to the subterranean perception of parties by both media and public.
And then we can talk about our patriotism, funding the Armed Forces and our NHS fairly and properly, having a proper justice system, running our own services not foreign governments.
More seriously, you have a point.
It would be better probably to hear from people like Emily Thornberry, Steven Farry, or Ed Davey.
Adonis, Dunt, and Heseltine are all essentially members of a self-perpetuating “commentariat”, and we already know what they have to say.
I sometimes think I like the the pub rock/ punk crossover more than punk itself.
1. Brexit happened nearly a year ago
2. The deal will pass regardless
3. If parliament did manage to vote against the deal will still go ahead, with a later second vote where MPs get the opportunity to change their minds
4. No deal would be a bloody marvellous thing so sayeth the government and their parrots as recently as a week ago. No deal cannot be used as a threat when it would have been great for Britain had Shagger done it.
With an 80 majority, and our constitution, govt by decree is pretty close to what we have, bar the check of Tory MPs replacing the PM which is not going to happen any time soon.
Beyond superficial blah, I mean.
CE&D voted Leave but they are represented by the wife-beater, who has lost the whip.
The latter are less significant electorally, so shunning them is the correct decision. But then good luck reviving Labour in Scotland or avoiding a leak of EU purists to the Lib Dems and Greens.
No-deal, forced on the government by a recalcitrant Parliament, is a win-win.
It'll be almost unthinkable to vote against it amongst the sane on the Tory side, only the maddest brexiteers will consider it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390
Adonis I used to quite like. That seems a very long time ago. Heseltine has always been a shit.
strategic.The bill will always smell of Boris, just like the word Iraq smells of Tony Blair.
But SKS has whipped his Labour MPs to vote For.
SKS is clearly singing from the Tony Blair songbook. Like Tony, he wants the Labour Party to submit to the dominant will of one person.
Will it work?
I am pretty unconvinced that, after their experience with Tony, everyone in the Labour Party will submit. Especially as SKS is no way as photogenic a vote-getting machine as the 40-year old Tony.
Rocky times ahead for SKS in 2021, I think.
https://ppost24.com/post/965/germany-will-include-israel-in-eu-vaccine-programme-but-not-pales#.X8eDV6GgNc4.twitter
But he's also forensic and far-sighted too. That's why he's ended up whipping his own MPs to support Boris' Evil Tory Deal to completely disengage us from the EU - a Deal he thinks is awful and which he hasn't read...
MPs can vote however they choose to do.
MPs are responsible for however they vote.
The public gets to elect new MPs every four to five years typically.
Parliamentary democracy in action. I support democracy.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/palestinians-we-didnt-ask-israel-for-covid-19-vaccine-652703
In fact.. Maybe worry about Palestine
Until Wikipedia came along. Wikipedia always spells it out. Look up anyone with a gong and it won't say Fred was given an OBE, it will say Fred was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, and that prominence of the word Empire as if the Queen or Prime Minister were personally taunting the rest of the world (and many native Britons) is what makes people a bit uneasy. That is also why the proposed solution is not to abolish the awards but just change what the E stands for.
Wikipedia is what is causing this problem. Look anyone up and see.
If Labour was to embrace an electoral reform pact with the LD's, that all might matter a bit less, ofcourse.
I have, though, gleaned from a few of your more animated posts of recent days that you are possibly working your way back to Boris, albeit perhaps not yet with a burning love inside?
Is there anything stopping MPs from putting forwards and voting on an amendment giving provisional approval to the deal for it to provisionally come into force (like the EU have done) pending a full Parliamentary review next month?
If ~320+ MPs voted for an amendment for that then the deal could still (provisionally) come into force and then Parliament could properly scrutinise the bill next month.
Is there anything under domestic or (given the EU are doing precisely this) international law preventing Parliament giving provisional approval only?
If MPs have that option but decline to take it then MPs are responsible for voting through the deal in a day - nobody else.
Negotiations 101.
If anyone told him it was somehow “offensive”, he’d get quite rightly upset.
They should change “(E)mpire” to “(E)xcellence”, but only because the Empire no longer actually exists.
How about Sputnik or AZNOX?
With the Oxford vaccine on the cusp of approval he does deserve great credit, even if it was a huge gamble
For Brexit and the vaccine he has earned his continuing tenure in no 10
Couldn’t they at least go for ‘Endeavour?’