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.
Corbyn claimed to spend his life campaigning against Tory governments, appointments based on family ties and racism.
You sure Heseltine is better at undermining his own principles than that?
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.
Most Labour seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and most current Labour target seats also voted Leave, Starmer can count, without them he has zero chance of becoming PM.
No point winning a landslide in Manchester and Hampstead and Cambridge and Hackney if you lose Nuneaton, Bury, Burnley, Bolsover and Sedgefield in the process
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.
Corbyn claimed to spend his life campaigning against Tory governments, appointments based on family ties and racism.
You sure Heseltine is better at undermining his own principles than that?
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.
Most Labour seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and most current Labour target seats also voted Leave, Starmer can count, without them he has zero chance of becoming PM.
No point winning a landslide in Manchester and Hampstead and Cambridge and Hackney if you lose Nuneaton, Bury, Burnley, Bolsover and Sedgefield in the process
There are many, many seats in between these two poles.
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
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.
Most Labour seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and most current Labour target seats also voted Leave, Starmer can count, without them he has zero chance of becoming PM.
No point winning a landslide in Manchester and Hampstead and Cambridge and Hackney if you lose Nuneaton, Bury, Burnley, Bolsover and Sedgefield in the process
There are many, many seats in between these two poles.
Most of which also voted Leave, 410 constituencies voted Leave, just 240 constituencies voted Remain
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
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.
Most Labour seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and most current Labour target seats also voted Leave, Starmer can count, without them he has zero chance of becoming PM.
No point winning a landslide in Manchester and Hampstead and Cambridge and Hackney if you lose Nuneaton, Bury, Burnley, Bolsover and Sedgefield in the process
There are many, many seats in between these two poles.
Most of which also voted Leave, 410 constituencies voted Leave, just 240 constituencies voted Remain
The polls show a very different picture of what would happen now from 2016, by an average of around six points. That will probably widen again a little this year, before some pollsters stop asking.
She absolutely has been faking it. Number of videos showing her doing it and a load of articles that all seem to report similar takes on false facts and have her giving answers to questions in interviews that somebody who wasn't claiming this would have them saying why are you asking me this.
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
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.
Most Labour seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and most current Labour target seats also voted Leave, Starmer can count, without them he has zero chance of becoming PM.
No point winning a landslide in Manchester and Hampstead and Cambridge and Hackney if you lose Nuneaton, Bury, Burnley, Bolsover and Sedgefield in the process
There are many, many seats in between these two poles.
Most of which also voted Leave, 410 constituencies voted Leave, just 240 constituencies voted Remain
The polls show a very different picture of what would happen now from 2016, by an average of around six points. That will probably widen again a little this year, before some pollsters stop asking.
Now we have a Canada style trade deal with the EU not No Deal, I doubt it
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.
Labour could put that forward as an amendment. It would never pass - and in itself doesn't scupper the deal so they'd truly only have internal remainer/leaver optics to consider. Worth considering ? Possibly, possibly not.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
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.
Labour could put that forward as an amendment. It would never pass - and in itself doesn't scupper the deal so they'd truly only have internal remainer/leaver optics to consider. Worth considering ? Possibly, possibly not.
I agree that it won't happen - but that is MPs choice that it won't happen.
Is there anything to prevent MPs from doing it if they wanted to do so 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.
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
"Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ "
Seems very much to be about taking a salary though.
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Off topic
It's got nothing to do with being elevated to the HoL though
From memory. If for example you have been a particularly naughty MP and you feel you want to fall on your sword, as an MP you cannot resign. A convoluted mechanism to overcome this problem is to apply to the Chiltern Hundreds, for the reasons you (and Wikipedia) have explained. It is then deemed you are thus no longer allowed to be an MP.
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Pfizer for Foxy as he's already had 1 jab. Foxy Jr is at the back of the queue - so likely AZOX
I meant if he could choose which vaccine. He said Sputnik was perfectly fine. If Sputnik is perfectly fine, then surely he wouldn't care which one he and his family were given?
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Off topic
It's got nothing to do with being elevated to the HoL though
From memory. If for example you have been a particularly naughty MP and you feel you want to fall on your sword, as an MP you cannot resign. A convoluted mechanism to overcome this problem is to apply to the Chiltern Hundreds, for the reasons you (and Wikipedia) have explained. It is then deemed you are thus no longer allowed to be an MP.
I never said it was being elevated though, I said the principle was the same.
It isn't the same thing, just a similar principle.
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.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
"Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ "
Seems very much to be about taking a salary though.
I'll happily not take that sort of job.
Well, technically an attendance allowance isn’t a salary.
So it’s about taking the piss rather than taking a salary.
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
That sounds like s beautiful dream that by the third paragraph has turned into a nightmare.
Biden is not going to be walking hand in hand with Johnson like May and Trump, irrespective of what happens in the Georgia Runoffs.
She absolutely has been faking it. Number of videos showing her doing it and a load of articles that all seem to report similar takes on false facts and have her giving answers to questions in interviews that somebody who wasn't claiming this would have them saying why are you asking me this.
Incredible that took so long for it to come out.
I've never heard of half the people involved in these scandals. Is it too late to become a high court judge?
Pfizer for Foxy as he's already had 1 jab. Foxy Jr is at the back of the queue - so likely AZOX
I meant if he could choose which vaccine. He said Sputnik was perfectly fine. If Sputnik is perfectly fine, then surely he wouldn't care which one he and his family were given?
Thinking about the vaccines for Israel and Palestine that I linked articles to earlier, surely it's a good thing for the people of Palestine that they aren't getting their vaccine supply from Israel, and maybe part of why they never asked for it. How many Palestinians would have consented to an injection from "Nazi" Israel?
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Off topic
It's got nothing to do with being elevated to the HoL though
From memory. If for example you have been a particularly naughty MP and you feel you want to fall on your sword, as an MP you cannot resign. A convoluted mechanism to overcome this problem is to apply to the Chiltern Hundreds, for the reasons you (and Wikipedia) have explained. It is then deemed you are thus no longer allowed to be an MP.
To be exact, if you take an office of profit from the crown, you have to check with your constituents that they are happy for you to continue as their representative.
That was why until 1911 any newly appointed minister had to have a by-election. Could cause awkwardness, as when, for example, Churchill was defeated in 1908 on his elevation to President of the Board of Trade and had to do a ratrun to Dundee.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
She absolutely has been faking it. Number of videos showing her doing it and a load of articles that all seem to report similar takes on false facts and have her giving answers to questions in interviews that somebody who wasn't claiming this would have them saying why are you asking me this.
Incredible that took so long for it to come out.
I've never heard of half the people involved in these scandals. Is it too late to become a high court judge.
Me neither.
But after reading that report I have some sympathy for her, for people who have moved around especially while young accents can come and go. Especially depending upon what you are talking or thinking about or who you are talking to.
I moved around a lot as a child including overseas and my own personal accent can change subconsciously without me realising it until someone points it out, especially after a few drinks. With enough drinks I can even sound Scouse again despite not living in Merseyside for many decades.
It doesn't mean you're faking your accent. She might be, but she might not be.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
What I don't get is why they feel the need, as they will surely have done enough by now to ensure they have no fear of being seriously primaried (if it was even a risk) over lack of Trump support, and probably come from districts where they are completely safe anyway.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Off topic
It's got nothing to do with being elevated to the HoL though
From memory. If for example you have been a particularly naughty MP and you feel you want to fall on your sword, as an MP you cannot resign. A convoluted mechanism to overcome this problem is to apply to the Chiltern Hundreds, for the reasons you (and Wikipedia) have explained. It is then deemed you are thus no longer allowed to be an MP.
To be exact, if you take an office of profit from the crown, you have to check with your constituents that they are happy for you to continue as their representative.
That was why until 1911 any newly appointed minister had to have a by-election. Could cause awkwardness, as when, for example, Churchill was defeated in 1908 on his elevation to President of the Board of Trade and had to do a ratrun to Dundee.
Thanks for the historical context, it's nice to know such things.
Pfizer for Foxy as he's already had 1 jab. Foxy Jr is at the back of the queue - so likely AZOX
I meant if he could choose which vaccine. He said Sputnik was perfectly fine. If Sputnik is perfectly fine, then surely he wouldn't care which one he and his family were given?
I think the Russian vaccine might actually be one of the Western ones that they've secretly got licence to manufacture and rebrand. I reckon Putin voters would far prefer a Sputnik vaccine to one made in the West.
It probably only matters which vaccine you get if you don't get COVID first. The vaccination program was paused between 25-27th December due to the holidays, but COVID did not take a holiday and it officially infected over 40,000 people yesterday. The summer of 2020 when few people were infected seems like a long time ago now.
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
That sounds like s beautiful dream that by the third paragraph has turned into a nightmare.
Biden is not going to be walking hand in hand with Johnson like May and Trump, irrespective of what happens in the Georgia Runoffs.
No hand in hands again, but now we have an EU deal that respects the GFA expect Boris and Joe Biden to get along just fine and far better than with the idiotic Trump
The new numbers are backdated to January. Even if they were all from December there is no reason to think Sputnik has been administered widely enough to affect the figures in a meaningful way yet.
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
No charge. This one is flea.
Not more lousy punning?
It really seems to bug you, doesn’t it?
It's OK in limited doses, but I wish people wouldn't give themselves so much lice-nce.
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
You were consistent throughout when all around were no dealing
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I agree with that, that the deal could only be signed when the time ran out, whenever that was.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
As a sign of how much difficulty the industry must be in, I'm now off to see The Thing in the cinema. Be funny if I was the only one there, like the time I and one other person, in a 300 seat cinema saw Schindler's List.
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
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
The new numbers are backdated to January. Even if they were all from December there is no reason to think Sputnik has been administered widely enough to affect the figures in a meaningful way yet.
Doctor of Foxes said Sputnik was perfectly fine. It may well be. I haven't seen its approval by a non Putin controlled agency of repute. I'd love to see a link if he has one. AZN want to work with them, but does that prove that their published results are good?
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I agree with that, that the deal could only be signed when the time ran out, whenever that was.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
Sadly, it was always going to have to come down to an immovable deadline, with the deal agreed at five minutes to midnight.
As has been proven, extensions to keep talking simply expand to fill the time available.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
No charge. This one is flea.
Not more lousy punning?
It really seems to bug you, doesn’t it?
It's OK in limited doses, but I wish people wouldn't give themselves so much lice-nce.
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
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
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.
Most Labour seats in 2015 voted Leave in 2016 and most current Labour target seats also voted Leave, Starmer can count, without them he has zero chance of becoming PM.
No point winning a landslide in Manchester and Hampstead and Cambridge and Hackney if you lose Nuneaton, Bury, Burnley, Bolsover and Sedgefield in the process
There are many, many seats in between these two poles.
Most of which also voted Leave, 410 constituencies voted Leave, just 240 constituencies voted Remain
Third worst? Does that include the real figure from China?
According to the official Chinese figures, not a single person has died of Covid-19 for about 7 months, in a country with a population of 1.3 billion.
It sounds dodgy, but I will say that our Chinese branch colleagues (who I regard as reliable) report life back to normal, with the exception that when a single case is reported the entire district is immediately locked down with nobody allowed in or out. I gather that the policy is popular, partly because the first outbreak was so grim. I don't know if we're getting the turth from more obscure provinces, but the cities do seem OK at the moment.
We talk a lot about how we'd never put up with that sort of policy, but I suspect that we would, for a while.
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
I confess to being a tad skeptical that he has a resolute determination to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
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
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
The referendum is even less relevant to future elections and future issues than current polling.
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
I confess to being a tad skeptical that he has a resolute determination to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
Actually, TBF, he has always been keen on environmental matters. Whether he has the ability to *do* anything about them in office, given they require detailed strategies not amiable soundbites, is another question.
Labour could put that forward as an amendment. It would never pass - and in itself doesn't scupper the deal so they'd truly only have internal remainer/leaver optics to consider. Worth considering ? Possibly, possibly not.
I think (without much inside knowledge) Starmer's view is that Labour needs to bend to the overwhelming wish to get it over with, without further delays.
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.
Beyond superficial blah, I mean.
The deal will go through on Tory votes. If the deal as negotiated is not good enough, then Labour should say so and vote against it. If they vote for it, they make it that much harder to criticise the government when details come out of things they / voters don't like. Brexit is not Iraq. If it goes wrong, it will not go wrong in the same sort of obvious way.
If, say, the Nissan factory closes, Labour want to be in a position to say "We warned the government that their deal would make this more likely. They didn't listen to us and negotiated / conceded this in their deal because they were more concerned about X or timing or whatever than protecting your interests" etc.
The government made choices about what its priorities should be when negotiating its deal. Labour should surely be capable of saying that its priorities are not aligned with those of voters and that Labour's priorities - whatever they are - would be. It would help of course if Labour had some idea about what its priorities actually are.
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
I confess to being a tad skeptical that he has a resolute determination to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
I fear I am lost on betting odds but I fully expect he will be in place to host the climate conference in Glasgow from the 1st to the 12th November 2021
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
Fair enough. But I'll be watching carefully and hoping to see some trenchant criticism when merited. And it will be soon and often, let's face it. This is still the same Boris Johnson we're talking about. He hasn't changed.
My interest in Boris is his post covid policies and in particular his desire to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
I confess to being a tad skeptical that he has a resolute determination to lead the world in climate change, sustainable agriculture and animal welfare.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
Actually, TBF, he has always been keen on environmental matters. Whether he has the ability to *do* anything about them in office, given they require detailed strategies not amiable soundbites, is another question.
Where there's a will there's a way. He's been able to get Brexit done despite much scepticism. He does already seem to have helped lead a path to get other countries signing up to net zero by 2050 commitments - and getting other countries to follow us on a cleaner path is the most important element of all this.
The bet he stays until July is really good free money. Absolute bargain.
BTW, a councillor colleague (not Labour) says he's quite astonished by the way the hospital staff are still fighting the disease every hour of the day - his father-in-law was rushed into hospital with COVID on Christmas Eve, and they were doing the necessary tests until 3am. He has no particular stake in the old NHS/private debate but just thinks we shouldn't get blase about the staff - it's amazing what they're managing.
Local hospitals are near crisis point now, will first partients diverted.
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
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
The referendum is even less relevant to future elections and future issues than current polling.
No it is not.
When people go to future elections they expect past votes to have been honoured. They do not expect four year old opinion polls to be honoured.
My mate - black British, grew up in East London - has been told to expect an OBE in the New Years Honours.
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.
On the subject of New Year Honours (and the Blair gong-blocker story) is there a market on whether Boris will kick Theresa May upstairs?
I'd rather he gave her the Chiltern Hundreds but can't see that happening.
You can’t ‘give’ someone the Chiltern Hundreds. They have to ask for it.
Well obviously . . . I suspect you can't kick someone upstairs without their consent either?
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
Off topic
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Its taking a job that disqualifies you from being an MP, whether it be "an office of profit under the crown" like the Chiltern Hundreds or going upstairs - either way you're immediately then disqualified from being an MP which kicks you out of the Chamber.
Taking a peerage is not ‘taking a job.’ But it means you no longer have the franchise so you automatically lose eligibility to be an MP.
PedanticBetting strikes again. I bow before your nitpicking.
No charge. This one is flea.
Not more lousy punning?
It really seems to bug you, doesn’t it?
It's OK in limited doses, but I wish people wouldn't give themselves so much lice-nce.
There's so much pedantry on PB. People are always nit-picking.
What happens to the SNP policy of free uni for other EU citizens and Scots but charge the English after Brexit?
They don't charge the English: just residents in England (a crucial difference, given the nonsense whipped up on this board and elsewhere) . They just don't charge residents in Scotland and non-UK EU citizens. This is simply and precisely what was UK wide policy as followed by the four home nations, mutatis mutandis. It was the "English"/UK gmt which pulled out unilaterally, expecting other devolved nations to follow slavishly when it cut the Barnett consequentials, which Wales and NI did, but not Scotland.
Buit what happens now - we will have to see.
And I have to say I have the most utter loathing for the Tories of the last two decades, as well as their allies in the Labour and LD parties, who have pulled up the ladder of educational advancement from which those selfsame politicians benefited in the postwar settlement.
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I agree with that, that the deal could only be signed when the time ran out, whenever that was.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
The first para is more or less fine. Tick. I'll then pass on the second rather than tumble through it all again. If you wish to believe we got serious concessions because we made the EU genuinely believe we were up for No Deal, such is your prerogative. "Boris" for one will be relieved you are buying that. Because if you weren't nobody would be.
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
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
The referendum is even less relevant to future elections and future issues than current polling.
No it is not.
When people go to future elections they expect past votes to have been honoured. They do not expect four year old opinion polls to be honoured.
The previous poster had asserted that a four year old referendum was a reliable guide to current thinking. It is not. It is not reliable as a guide to how people will vote. (Though, as you say, the presence of an old referendum may affect how people vote, in that other sense.)
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I agree with that, that the deal could only be signed when the time ran out, whenever that was.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
The first para is more or less fine. Tick. I'll then pass on the second rather than tumble through it all again. If you wish to believe we got serious concessions because we made the EU genuinely believe we were up for No Deal, such is your prerogative. "Boris" for one will be relieved you are buying that. Because if you weren't nobody would be.
Everyone sane believes that.
Only you seem to think the EU have departed from their starting point so considerably for shits and giggles rather than because they were worried about the alternative.
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.
Negotiations 101.
Both sides took it to the wire. Work expands to fill the time available. That's something else 101. Whatever the deadline (within logistical reason) a deal looking more or less like this would have been struck on D minus tiny number. It's an ok result but it's silly and a trifle undignified to hyperventilate about it. Leave that to the more gullible of the population and ardent Johnsoniacs.
Absolutely it is true that work expands to fill the time available, which is why an extension was always an absurd and stupid idea.
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
No, I'm not missing anything. I don't do that. C'mon. I agree with you about an extension. It would not have led to a significantly better deal. Just as an earlier deadline would not have led to a significantly worse deal. That's exactly my view. The deal was always going to look pretty much like this and was always going to be closed just in the nick of the time. As it does, and has it has been.
I'm glad you're now recognising that this could never have been closed early and could only be closed in the nick of time.
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
Cross purposes, Philip. We probably agree on this narrow point. Specifically, I'm saying that a deal looking very like this one could and would have been done on, say, 25th Sep this year if the deadline had been 30th Sep this year. Likewise it could and would have been done on 25th March 2021 if the deadline had been 31st March 2021. An extension might have been sensible because of the pandemic - to allow for smoother implemenation - but not to get a better deal.
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
I wonder about the optics thing. That may have been someone's intention at some point, and the Christmas Eve spin operation was a sight to behold. But there's another way of looking at it all.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
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
That was years ago. The current polling is what you should be diuscussing.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
Current polling is irrelevant. The vote has happened, there is no referendum due.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
The referendum is even less relevant to future elections and future issues than current polling.
No it is not.
When people go to future elections they expect past votes to have been honoured. They do not expect four year old opinion polls to be honoured.
The previous poster had asserted that a four year old referendum was a reliable guide to current thinking. It is not. It is not reliable as a guide to how people will vote. (Though, as you say, the presence of an old referendum may affect how people vote, in that other sense.)
The previous poster is a fool who is obsessed with the idea that history will repeat itself in the way that suits his own agenda best.
If we'd been part of the EU scheme, but also bought our own supply, surely we'd again be net contributors to an EU scheme. Will the same be true for Deutschland?
The big question is: has France bought its own supply?
Third worst? Does that include the real figure from China?
According to the official Chinese figures, not a single person has died of Covid-19 for about 7 months, in a country with a population of 1.3 billion.
Given that the Chinese lock up journalists who say otherwise - and would probably also lock up anyone else reporting something different to the outside world - how reliable is such information?
Comments
You sure Heseltine is better at undermining his own principles than that?
No point winning a landslide in Manchester and Hampstead and Cambridge and Hackney if you lose Nuneaton, Bury, Burnley, Bolsover and Sedgefield in the process
The Chiltern Hundreds is the same principle constitutionally as going upstairs.
https://fullfact.org/online/referendum-results-by-constituency/
What you miss or deliberately overlook though is that had the UK moved sooner then the time available would have remained the same. Had the UK moved to its current position in June then the EU would not have reciprocated by moving to their current position. They would have said "we are still far apart, talks continue" and known that we had six more months to move further.
But I was joking anyway.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55468754
She absolutely has been faking it. Number of videos showing her doing it and a load of articles that all seem to report similar takes on false facts and have her giving answers to questions in interviews that somebody who wasn't claiming this would have them saying why are you asking me this.
Incredible that took so long for it to come out.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1343636865946181637
95% Sputnik or 70% AZNOX for you and your kids?
The Chiltern Hundreds is a mechanism for MPs to resign, as MPs cannot resign. It has nothing to do with "going upstairs".
Is there anything to prevent MPs from doing it if they wanted to do so though?
Seems very much to be about taking a salary though.
I'll happily not take that sort of job.
I support these policies and I expect he will strike up a partnership with Joe Biden to carry it in to the Glasgow climate change conference next year
He will continue to be Boris, delighting his followers and causing despair to his critics but be has an 80 seat majority and at present seems to be there for the longhaul
It's got nothing to do with being elevated to the HoL though
From memory. If for example you have been a particularly naughty MP and you feel you want to fall on your sword, as an MP you cannot resign. A convoluted mechanism to overcome this problem is to apply to the Chiltern Hundreds, for the reasons you (and Wikipedia) have explained. It is then deemed you are thus no longer allowed to be an MP.
https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1343590550960820227?s=21
Recently you were, falsely, claiming it was only closed in the nick of time because Boris was dragging it out. But the reality is that it was never possible to close it early as we had no method of compelling the Europeans to move until time ran out for them too.
Had the UK moved first early the EU would have banked that, said differences remain, then let the clock continue ticking.
It isn't the same thing, just a similar principle.
So it’s about taking the piss rather than taking a salary.
Biden is not going to be walking hand in hand with Johnson like May and Trump, irrespective of what happens in the Georgia Runoffs.
That was why until 1911 any newly appointed minister had to have a by-election. Could cause awkwardness, as when, for example, Churchill was defeated in 1908 on his elevation to President of the Board of Trade and had to do a ratrun to Dundee.
But after reading that report I have some sympathy for her, for people who have moved around especially while young accents can come and go. Especially depending upon what you are talking or thinking about or who you are talking to.
I moved around a lot as a child including overseas and my own personal accent can change subconsciously without me realising it until someone points it out, especially after a few drinks. With enough drinks I can even sound Scouse again despite not living in Merseyside for many decades.
It doesn't mean you're faking your accent. She might be, but she might not be.
You’ve missed out ‘genocidal, dishonest and corrupt.’
My main contra consensus point has never been this. It is that the No Deal hyping was just that and its main aim was to create Johnson's desired domestic atmosphere and optics for the close. Thus even when every man and his dog got swept up in it, including most of the Remain backing commentariat such as Robert Peston and Matthew Parris, and on here Alastair Meeks and David Herdson, with No Deal even going to a strong 75% favourite in the betting markets, I never really had a doubt (apart from a very brief one hour wobble) that it remained a Not Happening Event, a plan Z for the EU and not an option at all for the UK, and therefore that either a deal or a short extension to finalize a deal was inevitable by year end.
And lo.
Though the No Deal hyping was positioning for negotiations rather than for a domestic audience. It was very much a Plan B for the UK but there was always likely a room for agreement which would make Plan B unnecessary.
You'rte beginning to sound like someone who thinks that polling the Tyrannosaurus rex in the late Cretaceous is relevant to modern politics.
As has been proven, extensions to keep talking simply expand to fill the time available.
What matters is future elections and what issues will be there for the future.
We talk a lot about how we'd never put up with that sort of policy, but I suspect that we would, for a while.
But let's not quibble. I agree your main point. He's here for a while. My bet at 1.85 that he's still PM on 1st July 2021 is my current absolute favourite bet.
If, say, the Nissan factory closes, Labour want to be in a position to say "We warned the government that their deal would make this more likely. They didn't listen to us and negotiated / conceded this in their deal because they were more concerned about X or timing or whatever than protecting your interests" etc.
The government made choices about what its priorities should be when negotiating its deal. Labour should surely be capable of saying that its priorities are not aligned with those of voters and that Labour's priorities - whatever they are - would be. It would help of course if Labour had some idea about what its priorities actually are.
The bet he stays until July is really good free money. Absolute bargain.
Local hospitals are near crisis point now, will first partients diverted.
When people go to future elections they expect past votes to have been honoured. They do not expect four year old opinion polls to be honoured.
Entitlement.
Buit what happens now - we will have to see.
And I have to say I have the most utter loathing for the Tories of the last two decades, as well as their allies in the Labour and LD parties, who have pulled up the ladder of educational advancement from which those selfsame politicians benefited in the postwar settlement.
So, my understanding is Scotland and Wales have some freedom to do what they want.
For example, they can join ERASMUS -- at least as far as I understand it.
Only you seem to think the EU have departed from their starting point so considerably for shits and giggles rather than because they were worried about the alternative.
Already, the lustre is falling from the deal like needles from a Christmas tree which isn't being cared for properly. The fishermen aren't happy, the Express has started moaning, the DUP are still agin. Nigel has said that the war is over, not that it's a triumph. Loyalists here are encouraging us to move on. And the parliamentary sovereignty is manifest in a one day Zoom meeting. It's got all the glamour of a midweek 0-0 away draw against some team hundreds of miles away.
I'm picking up vibes like the time Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty.
The big question is: has France bought its own supply?
https://www.arsenal.com/news/team-news-gabriel-partey-david-luiz-willian
He also played against Man City last Wednesday.