Of the many well connected posters on pb.com, have we any who know what might happen in "moderate" Labour if Corbyn wins again?
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
From the outside looking in it would seem clear that a split is surely the only option. But I am not so sure it will happen. There are very specific reasons for this. I am mulling a piece on it. But I refer PB readers to this speech by Hugh Gaitskill:
"We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness."
The workers' flag is palest pink Since Gaitskell dipped it in the sink Now Harold's done the same as Hugh The workers' flag is brightest blue.
Of the many well connected posters on pb.com, have we any who know what might happen in "moderate" Labour if Corbyn wins again?
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
From the outside looking in it would seem clear that a split is surely the only option. But I am not so sure it will happen. There are very specific reasons for this. I am mulling a piece on it. But I refer PB readers to this speech by Hugh Gaitskill:
"We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness."
I remember that from when I was a nipper - but who on earth has his kind of stature in the current crop?
The point is that the Labour MPs care as deeply about the Labour party as Gaitskill did back then. It's a visceral thing. At times it can be a huge strength for Labour, but at other times - such as now - it can be a huge weakness. I do not expect anyone who does not "feel" Labour to understand this and I accept that it is absolutely ridiculous, but it is what it is.
When Tory MPs speak of love in their speeches they speak of love for country. When Labour politicians speak of it they are far more likely to reference Labour. Think of it this way, for a Labour MP to walk away from the Labour party is as hard as it is for a Tory MP to walk away from his/her country.
Quite - Labour could become the very opposite of what they thought it was, and most would find it too difficult to turn on it. Walk away quietly in defeat, maybe, but turn on it?
... Someone within Labour needs to sit down and do some thinking about what a social democratic/centre left party should be in the 21st century. When they've done that they can think about challenges and all the rest of it. At the moment they're arse over tip.
Quite agree. They can start by reading Roberts article from yesterday and working out how to share the proceeds of globalisation in a more equitable fashion.
Exactly. They need to drop the culture wars I.e I want to be leader because I am a woman, and start thinking about radical policies to upskill the unskilled. Oh and a real industrial strategy in Britain is badly needed, this doesn't mean picking winners and losers it means when important companies like ARM are bought we hold them to account about the promises they make.
Also intergration after they encouraged state backed multiculturalism.
To be fair to Owen Smith, his pitch at his launch was precisely about the need for specific policies to go with the vague rhetoric.
Yep - Smith pressed a lot of buttons very effectively. He differs from Corbyn in: supporting Trident; having some specific policies; calling for a referendum on the terms of Brexit; believing in collective responsibility and the primacy of Parliament; and seeking to engage with voters outside the party. In normal times, he would be considered the left wing candidate and would do very well among members. But these are not normal times. Labour has been overwhelmed by a cult.
Of the many well connected posters on pb.com, have we any who know what might happen in "moderate" Labour if Corbyn wins again?
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
From the outside looking in it would seem clear that a split is surely the only option. But I am not so sure it will happen. There are very specific reasons for this. I am mulling a piece on it. But I refer PB readers to this speech by Hugh Gaitskill:
"We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness."
The workers' flag is palest pink Since Gaitskell dipped it in the sink Now Harold's done the same as Hugh The workers' flag is brightest blue.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
Of the many well connected posters on pb.com, have we any who know what might happen in "moderate" Labour if Corbyn wins again?
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
From the outside looking in it would seem clear that a split is surely the only option. But I am not so sure it will happen. There are very specific reasons for this. I am mulling a piece on it. But I refer PB readers to this speech by Hugh Gaitskill:
"We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness."
The workers' flag is palest pink Since Gaitskell dipped it in the sink Now Harold's done the same as Hugh The workers' flag is brightest blue.
The Protocorbynista Anthem.
Four years after Gaitskill made that speech he was dead and labour was in power. Things change. That is something else Labour MPs will be telling themselves. Though this time, it's hard to see where the change is coming from.
Thank you Mr Dancer. Have been a long-time lurker and enjoy the discussions, although I fear that my views and political persuasions are so far removed from the bulk of the site membership that it would take too much time and energy to battle against the tide.
Not at all, it's very good to get different viewpoints. I thought your debut post was excellent and informative.
Mr. Sykes, if this kind of legalistic cretinism succeeds then UKIP could be the official Opposition by 2025.
It's simply unjust to hold a referendum that has a clear answer then to challenge that in the courts.
They aren't challenging the result, only whether if Parliament as a whole or the Royal Peregoative has the power to trigger article 50.
Exactly. There is a lot of confusion about this. Granted, though, that the challenge is being brought by opponents of Brexit who will view Parliamentary prior approval as a blocking tactic scuppering Brexit from actually happening. Let no one be in any doubt about that!
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
Perhaps you should take it up with the Brexit Secretary.
After all he went to the ECJ to deny the people what they wanted.
The new Brexit secretary made the application to an EU court to overrule British law. Worth repeating again & again.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
I suspect it's more in the hopes of delaying it so that the situation changes and, somehow, the people get the chance to indicate it is not what they want anymore - given how unlikely it is so many MPs, even Remainer MPs, would take a stand and vote down article 50 without a competing democratic mandate like another referendum, which is certainly not on the cards right now.
Honestly, May should be thankful - I can't see her holding out on declaring til 2017 unless there's some legal reason she cannot, plus it keeps Brexiters riled up.
The situation for an SPD 2 especially in relation to the Lib Dems is very different from the situation in the 1980s. Many Labour MPs would be standing in areas where the LDs now have some organisation, like Hull, Newcastle, Bristol and London. A different picture. I expect David Lammy to be the first.to move.
Labour would have to be really, really, really, really stupid rather than just really, really stupid as normal to split. They would lose councils, maybe Mayoralties, have 2 parties with no money and be useless in parliament. As a Tory I say, bring it on. But they really are dumb. Can they become dummer?
Labour have a dilemma and wouldn't choose to start from here, with a leader who has the backing of the membership but no confidence amongst the majority of MPs. If, as looks likely, Corbyn wins the leadership election again his supporters would be within their rights to start deselecting Labour MPs. They have the perfect cover for it in the redrawing of constituency boundaries. In other words things can old get worse (cue different version of D:Ream song).
So, the most likely outcome is: 1. Corbyn re-elected 2a. Some MPs jump ship - Tories would welcome a bigger majority if Labour MPs can stomach Mrs May's policies. LibDems may make a more congenial home for some. or 2b. SDP Mark 2. But where will the money come from? Where will the activists come from?
Another less likely alternative is 1. Corbyn re-elected 2. Corbyn and MPs come to an arrangement for peaceful co-existence with an agreed program, agreed jobs for the different factions. Most of all an agreement to bring in PR if/when they win power. 3. Under PR they could campaign for what they stand for and let the voters decide.
Even less likely outcome: 1. Corbyn defeated. 2. Back to business as usual before Corbyn era.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
It's an international treaty. I would say that's Royal Preorgative.
If it had been the full blown constitution that would not technically have been a treaty and might have come under Parliament. So the legal beavers can thank the French and Dutch if they lose this.
However Parliament will presumably have to repeal the Single European Act so they will have a vote at some point anyway, but equally not until withdrawal has been initiated.
Mr. Sykes, if this kind of legalistic cretinism succeeds then UKIP could be the official Opposition by 2025.
It's simply unjust to hold a referendum that has a clear answer then to challenge that in the courts.
They aren't challenging the result, only whether if Parliament as a whole or the Royal Peregoative has the power to trigger article 50.
Exactly. There is a lot of confusion about this. Granted, though, that the challenge is being brought by opponents of Brexit who will view Parliamentary prior approval as a blocking tactic scuppering Brexit from actually happening. Let no one be in any doubt about that!
It is a great case to find out if Parliament truly is sovereign.
But but but but the SNP doesn't like it therefore every single person in Scotland doesn't like it.
Isn't that how Scotland works?
It's certainly how the SNP works
More a reflection of first past the post tbh.
They made a big thing of saying the SNP won Argyll and Bute but failed to mention that they didn't win over 50% of the vote in that constituency (though I'm not sure what the views of the other candidates were on Trident).
SNP won with 44.3% of the vote, LDs were second with 27.9% of the vote. Alan Reid said he opposed renewal at the 2010 GE, not sure what his position was in 2015. Yesterday 7 out of 8 LDs (including Carmichael) voted against Trident, assume the 8th was elsewhere as he's not mentioned in For or Abstain lists. Make your own mind up.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
There is clearly a very important point of constitutional law at issue here. For us lawyers, particularly with an interest in politics and constitutional law, this is fascinating and important, whatever side you're on.
But but but but the SNP doesn't like it therefore every single person in Scotland doesn't like it.
Isn't that how Scotland works?
It's certainly how the SNP works
More a reflection of first past the post tbh.
They made a big thing of saying the SNP won Argyll and Bute but failed to mention that they didn't win over 50% of the vote in that constituency (though I'm not sure what the views of the other candidates were on Trident).
SNP won with 44.3% of the vote, LDs were second with 27.9% of the vote. Alan Reid said he opposed renewal at the 2010 GE, not sure what his position was in 2015. Yesterday 7 out of 8 LDs (including Carmichael) voted against Trident, assume the 8th was elsewhere as he's not mentioned in For or Abstain lists. Make your own mind up.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
There is clearly a very important point of constitutional law at issue here. For us lawyers, particularly with an interest in politics and constitutional law, this is fascinating and important, whatever side you're on.
TSE, are we going to have a thread on it? We can bear to be without the next AV thread for a week or two in light of this and Trump having a meltdown.
No, the majority of Labour MPs are saying they have no confidence in him because he is not capable of leading a political party. He does not feel bound by collective responsibility and he has made policy decisions without consulting the shadow cabinet.
The day after the EU referendum he said that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. That was an absolutely extraordinary statement. Yesterday, he stood up as Labour leader in Parliament and argued against Conference-endorsed party policy. That is literally unprecedented.
While you may have a point, I was simply pointing out how it appears from the perspective of the majority of the members of the party, particularly those who joined up in the past year or so. They are, by and large, not Trot's or entryists from the SWP, they are by and large, people who share Corbyn's values of honesty, integrity and loyalty. My guess is that most of them have not been enthused enough by politics in the past to join a political party and are probably politically naive about things like the importance of collective responsibility.
Yes, they see that he has probably made mistakes, but when the media is full of his own MP's briefing against him, almost since day one, they understand the pressures he is under and they are not all of his own making. As far as his Article 50 statement is concerned, yes I agree it was ludicrous.
As far as the Trident issue goes, I don't think any of his supporters would have been surprised that he was true to his beliefs and that he had the integrity to put his beliefs and principles ahead of Conference-endorsed party policy. If he had backed down he would have lost a lot more respect and support than he would have gained.
Mr. Sykes, if this kind of legalistic cretinism succeeds then UKIP could be the official Opposition by 2025.
It's simply unjust to hold a referendum that has a clear answer then to challenge that in the courts.
They aren't challenging the result, only whether if Parliament as a whole or the Royal Peregoative has the power to trigger article 50.
Exactly. There is a lot of confusion about this. Granted, though, that the challenge is being brought by opponents of Brexit who will view Parliamentary prior approval as a blocking tactic scuppering Brexit from actually happening. Let no one be in any doubt about that!
It is a great case to find out if Parliament truly is sovereign.
I think that's the one thing it won't tell us.
Question 1 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 falls under the Royal Prerogative; and if so, whether it was the exercise of a new power or an existing one.
Question 2 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 can be taken by the government, or the crown, under the exercise of some statutory power; and if so, which one.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
The decision to leave the EU needs to be made in parliament and not by executive action because we have a parliamentary democracy. Anything else is a shortcut to our democracy. I fully expect parliament to vote for Article 50 when the time comes, but in the unlikely event it doesn't, those MPs are answerable to the electorate. As they should be.
No, the majority of Labour MPs are saying they have no confidence in him because he is not capable of leading a political party. He does not feel bound by collective responsibility and he has made policy decisions without consulting the shadow cabinet.
The day after the EU referendum he said that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. That was an absolutely extraordinary statement. Yesterday, he stood up as Labour leader in Parliament and argued against Conference-endorsed party policy. That is literally unprecedented.
Interested to know whether that is indeed unprecedented. I suspect you are wrong on that one. I believe Labour conference has voted a number of times for renationalising railways, and I think also to renationalise Royal Mail?
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
There is clearly a very important point of constitutional law at issue here. For us lawyers, particularly with an interest in politics and constitutional law, this is fascinating and important, whatever side you're on.
TSE, are we going to have a thread on it? We can bear to be without the next AV thread for a week or two in light of this and Trump having a meltdown.
It's not an area I'm an expert in, I only know the general principles.
I have asked someone who is an expert in it to do a guest thread on it.
Mr. Sykes, if this kind of legalistic cretinism succeeds then UKIP could be the official Opposition by 2025.
It's simply unjust to hold a referendum that has a clear answer then to challenge that in the courts.
They aren't challenging the result, only whether if Parliament as a whole or the Royal Peregoative has the power to trigger article 50.
Exactly. There is a lot of confusion about this. Granted, though, that the challenge is being brought by opponents of Brexit who will view Parliamentary prior approval as a blocking tactic scuppering Brexit from actually happening. Let no one be in any doubt about that!
It is a great case to find out if Parliament truly is sovereign.
I think there will be a vote come what may - let's see what the MPs are really made of.
Of the many well connected posters on pb.com, have we any who know what might happen in "moderate" Labour if Corbyn wins again?
Are we really looking at a split, an SDP mark 2, something like that?
It's hard to see how the bulk of Labour MPs who are actually interested, er, in being in power, will just sit on their hands and accept the result. Surely something will have to give?
From the outside looking in it would seem clear that a split is surely the only option. But I am not so sure it will happen. There are very specific reasons for this. I am mulling a piece on it. But I refer PB readers to this speech by Hugh Gaitskill:
"We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness."
The workers' flag is palest pink Since Gaitskell dipped it in the sink Now Harold's done the same as Hugh The workers' flag is brightest blue.
The Protocorbynista Anthem.
*claps*
It's not my composition, just a little snippet of history. The people singing it at the time were bloody angry.
Yes, Labour got back into power under Wilson. Yes, Labour MPs were surely jolly glad of it.
But there were Labour members and activists who felt betrayed by the whole thing - as if all they'd achieved was to get the Tory-lites in power. Sure, Gaitskell "got his party back". But other folk lost their Labour party in the process.
Southam mentioned Gaitskell to point out that the "battle for a sensible Labour party" is an old one, and has been fought and won before, which should give some succour to the current combatants. Kinnock/Blair is not the first time round. I just wanted to point out the counter-narrative. From a left-wing grassroots perspective, Blairism was not the first betrayal. Nor was it the first time the battle for the soul of the party was lost.
Mr. Sykes, if this kind of legalistic cretinism succeeds then UKIP could be the official Opposition by 2025.
It's simply unjust to hold a referendum that has a clear answer then to challenge that in the courts.
They aren't challenging the result, only whether if Parliament as a whole or the Royal Peregoative has the power to trigger article 50.
Exactly. There is a lot of confusion about this. Granted, though, that the challenge is being brought by opponents of Brexit who will view Parliamentary prior approval as a blocking tactic scuppering Brexit from actually happening. Let no one be in any doubt about that!
It is a great case to find out if Parliament truly is sovereign.
I think that's the one thing it won't tell us.
Question 1 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 falls under the Royal Prerogative; and if so, whether it was the exercise of a new power or an existing one.
Question 2 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 can be taken by the government, or the crown, under the exercise of some statutory power; and if so, which one.
I meant if the judiciary rules Parliament as a whole has to vote to trigger article 50, and they decided to vote against triggering it.
Mr. Eagles, and the Government put out information saying the decision voted for would be implemented.
I also recall that there was a happy consensus it was the PM's role to invoke Article 50 when Cameron said he'd it the day after. How many said it wasn't up to him?
“During his time as a BBC radio producer, he was once asked to get a police response to an unfolding crime story. Smith telephoned 999, prompting an official complaint from the Met.”
Mr. Eagles, Parliament approved the referendum vote, did it not?
The Commons could legally vote to ignore the result. But that would be morally indefensible.
Mr. Eagles (2), I don't care if Davis has behaved like a fool. I care if the referendum result gets ignored.
Parliament approved an advisory referendum.
Quite. It's actually very important to know whether parliament itself is required to declare article 50, even if the people asking the question would like it not declared at all. If that causes a delay, well, May wants to delay for 6 months at least anyway, and has the votes to get it through even if it is decided parliament is needed. Unless someone wants to declare right away - which some do - there's really no problem with this in my view, it settles an important question.
“During his time as a BBC radio producer, he was once asked to get a police response to an unfolding crime story. Smith telephoned 999, prompting an official complaint from the Met.”
Seems like the moderates are in a no win situation really:
Keep quiet and plod along whilst Corbyn continues to make the party unelectable. Some of those rebel MP's will probably end up deselected or lose seats at the next GE.
Stand down at the next election and leave politics altogether. I could see a fair few doing this.
Form a new party or perhaps join the Lib Dems. Forming a new party will not be easy, they will need to find some financial backers (perhaps there are some ex Lab donors that are more Blairite than Corbynite and are willing to fund a new party).
Such a bad state the Labour Party is and it's entirely of their own making.
Baltimore Cop Cleared Over Freddie Gray Death Freddie Gray suffered a fatal neck injury last year while not wearing a seatbelt in the back of a police transport van
Mr. Eagles, and the Government put out information saying the decision voted for would be implemented.
I also recall that there was a happy consensus it was the PM's role to invoke Article 50 when Cameron said he'd it the day after. How many said it wasn't up to him?
Quite a few said it wasn't up to him. I even did a thread on it
They are, by and large, not Trot's or entryists from the SWP, they are by and large, people who share Corbyn's values of honesty, integrity and loyalty.
The problem is I don't think many voters see him that way:
Honesty - lies about sharing a platform with a Holocaust Denier, even when confronted with a photograph; Integrity - was told about the Islington child sex abuse scandal by Liz Davies and did nothing; Loyalty - rebelled against his party whip over 500 times.
And those are only the most obvious examples. That doesn't even include his support for Argentina in the Falklands War, or multiple cheating on his various wives, or his abuse of journalists.
He has given more hostages to fortune than Boris Johnson could ever dream of doing. If he sells himself along those lines at the next election, he will be incinerated.
He would genuinely stand a better chance of doing well if he described himself as a good old fashioned socialist who will do absolutely anything to advance a class war agenda. At least he has been consistent on that.
“During his time as a BBC radio producer, he was once asked to get a police response to an unfolding crime story. Smith telephoned 999, prompting an official complaint from the Met.”
While you may have a point, I was simply pointing out how it appears from the perspective of the majority of the members of the party, particularly those who joined up in the past year or so. They are, by and large, not Trot's or entryists from the SWP, they are by and large, people who share Corbyn's values of honesty, integrity and loyalty. My guess is that most of them have not been enthused enough by politics in the past to join a political party and are probably politically naive about things like the importance of collective responsibility.
Yes, they see that he has probably made mistakes, but when the media is full of his own MP's briefing against him, almost since day one, they understand the pressures he is under and they are not all of his own making. As far as his Article 50 statement is concerned, yes I agree it was ludicrous.
As far as the Trident issue goes, I don't think any of his supporters would have been surprised that he was true to his beliefs and that he had the integrity to put his beliefs and principles ahead of Conference-endorsed party policy. If he had backed down he would have lost a lot more respect and support than he would have gained.
Yes, I agree: it's all about Jeremy, not the Labour party and it winning power. His supporters outside the hard left - and, again, I agree that most of them are not Trots - really do believe that "Corbyn's values" are "honesty, integrity and loyalty". They will not countenance any evidence that demonstrates this is not the case. I suspect that supporting Corbyn makes them feel good. And what could be more important then that?
Probably 80-85% Conservative with a sprinkling of those of other persuasions, I would say.
Oh.. and SeanT, who is all over the place at times.
If the Conservatives here really are 80-85% then it signals the death of the LibDems, who used to have a sizeable presence here. I think the Kipper presence has reduced since the election. Labour was always under-represented, but that might be because their ideas got slaughtered on here as soon as they were put up (the Ed-Stone was causing hoots of derision here within nano-seconds of its unveiling, whilst realising it acknowledged Ed had zero credibility remaining in the election campaign took the full second...)
There are still a number of well-informed floaters here though, and their views are well worth reading.
Mr. Sykes, if this kind of legalistic cretinism succeeds then UKIP could be the official Opposition by 2025.
It's simply unjust to hold a referendum that has a clear answer then to challenge that in the courts.
They aren't challenging the result, only whether if Parliament as a whole or the Royal Peregoative has the power to trigger article 50.
Exactly. There is a lot of confusion about this. Granted, though, that the challenge is being brought by opponents of Brexit who will view Parliamentary prior approval as a blocking tactic scuppering Brexit from actually happening. Let no one be in any doubt about that!
It is a great case to find out if Parliament truly is sovereign.
I think that's the one thing it won't tell us.
Question 1 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 falls under the Royal Prerogative; and if so, whether it was the exercise of a new power or an existing one.
Question 2 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 can be taken by the government, or the crown, under the exercise of some statutory power; and if so, which one.
I meant if the judiciary rules Parliament as a whole has to vote to trigger article 50, and they decided to vote against triggering it.
Two big ifs. But if it came to pass, I wouldn't be surprised to see rioting.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
It's an international treaty. I would say that's Royal Preorgative.
If it had been the full blown constitution that would not technically have been a treaty and might have come under Parliament. So the legal beavers can thank the French and Dutch if they lose this.
However Parliament will presumably have to repeal the Single European Act so they will have a vote at some point anyway, but equally not until withdrawal has been initiated.
I think that's the point being argued: that the government can, by invoking Article 50, nullify a lot of existing legislation; an act which ought to be the preserve of parliament.
However, I'd argue against that on two points.
Firstly, A50 was introduced into the EU's constitutional law via a treaty that was itself passed by parliament. As such, the mechanism has already been approved.
And secondly, in authorising the referendum, parliament clearly acknowledged the possibility of a Leave vote. While the realisation of that outcome doesn't oblige the government to act, both the moral mandate from the people - from whom parliament takes its authority - and the prior acceptance of the process imply that no further parliamentary scrutiny is necessary.
That said, it would be a foolish government that did not go to parliament first, and an even more foolish parliament that did anything other than uphold the public will.
Mr. Eagles, fair enough. (Some of) those MPs who want us to Remain wanted to use the Commons to frustrate the will of the people following a referendum before the result was known. A consistent attitude towards contempt for the electorate, and I stand corrected.
Anyway, it's rather toasty in this room and this is merely aggravating me, so I'm going to go and think up some one-liners for the next chapter.
Thank you Mr Dancer. Have been a long-time lurker and enjoy the discussions, although I fear that my views and political persuasions are so far removed from the bulk of the site membership that it would take too much time and energy to battle against the tide.
Mr. G.,
I'll echo Mr. Dancer's welcome and I hope you will post regularly in the future. There is no need to battle against the tide. The majority of the posters on here have, when it comes to politics, minds like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set. Just say what you want to say and then those of us who come to look for an alternative, but intelligent view (which by your post below you are likely to provide) can benefit.
P.S. Where do you stand on the other important things discussed on this site? Namely but not exclusively, classical history, cricket, pirates, trains, engineering, footer, Scottish Independence, whisky/whiskey, Sunil's Mum's chances in the Redbridge in Bloom Competition.
I second this. @BudG: I was a lurker for a long time before I dared post. And at the start I felt quite isolated in this world of strange gentlemen arguing about Hannibal and trains and, occasionally, politics. And now look at me: still hanging around with ne'er do wells! But do please persist: alternative views are needed.
Mr. Sykes, if this kind of legalistic cretinism succeeds then UKIP could be the official Opposition by 2025.
It's simply unjust to hold a referendum that has a clear answer then to challenge that in the courts.
They aren't challenging the result, only whether if Parliament as a whole or the Royal Peregoative has the power to trigger article 50.
Exactly. There is a lot of confusion about this. Granted, though, that the challenge is being brought by opponents of Brexit who will view Parliamentary prior approval as a blocking tactic scuppering Brexit from actually happening. Let no one be in any doubt about that!
It is a great case to find out if Parliament truly is sovereign.
I think that's the one thing it won't tell us.
Question 1 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 falls under the Royal Prerogative; and if so, whether it was the exercise of a new power or an existing one.
Question 2 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 can be taken by the government, or the crown, under the exercise of some statutory power; and if so, which one.
If it was limited simply to the mechanics of leaving, it would be reasonable for the Article 50 move to be carried on an executive decision. However Article 50 is a one way ticket that will remove our most important treaties. The formal go-ahead should be passed to parliament so there is a debate not just on the timing but the whole context of this change. The referendum result imposes an obligation on MPs, but parliament should decide.
What worries me is not that some people have issued a legal challenge but that the Government have implied that parliament shouldn't have a decision on this.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
There is clearly a very important point of constitutional law at issue here. For us lawyers, particularly with an interest in politics and constitutional law, this is fascinating and important, whatever side you're on.
TSE, are we going to have a thread on it? We can bear to be without the next AV thread for a week or two in light of this and Trump having a meltdown.
It's not an area I'm an expert in, I only know the general principles.
I have asked someone who is an expert in it to do a guest thread on it.
Oh dear. My attempt at humour backfires on me yet again.
Mind you, I enjoy legal arguments as much of the next man. In Cannock we talk of little else!
Thank you Mr Dancer. Have been a long-time lurker and enjoy the discussions, although I fear that my views and political persuasions are so far removed from the bulk of the site membership that it would take too much time and energy to battle against the tide.
Mr. G.,
I'll echo Mr. Dancer's welcome and I hope you will post regularly in the future. There is no need to battle against the tide. The majority of the posters on here have, when it comes to politics, minds like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set. Just say what you want to say and then those of us who come to look for an alternative, but intelligent view (which by your post below you are likely to provide) can benefit.
P.S. Where do you stand on the other important things discussed on this site? Namely but not exclusively, classical history, cricket, pirates, trains, engineering, footer, Scottish Independence, whisky/whiskey, Sunil's Mum's chances in the Redbridge in Bloom Competition.
I second this. @BudG: I was a lurker for a long time before I dared post. And at the start I felt quite isolated in this world of strange gentlemen arguing about Hannibal and trains and, occasionally, politics. And now look at me: still hanging around with ne'er do wells! But do please persist: alternative views are needed.
Alternative views also occasionally get you elected leader of the Labour Party
The situation for an SPD 2 especially in relation to the Lib Dems is very different from the situation in the 1980s. Many Labour MPs would be standing in areas where the LDs now have some organisation, like Hull, Newcastle, Bristol and London. A different picture. I expect David Lammy to be the first.to move.
The Lib Dems finished fourth and lost their deposit in London this year. They were fifth with 5.8% in Bristol.
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
The decision to leave the EU needs to be made in parliament and not by executive action because we have a parliamentary democracy. Anything else is a shortcut to our democracy. I fully expect parliament to vote for Article 50 when the time comes, but in the unlikely event it doesn't, those MPs are answerable to the electorate. As they should be.
Can't help thinking our smart and canny new PM, who clearly does her homework the night before and not on the bus en route to school like her predecessor, will aided and abetted by her team around her, over the next 12 months broker a multi-party deal involving all interested parties within and outside of the EU, present it to Parliament, have it endorsed by a clear Parliamentary majority, accepted by the devolved nations, and then follow it up with a massive majority at the next GE.
One of the reasons I've abandoned the popular TG forums is that we've lost all perspective on this topic.
As far as we can tell from publicly available stats, there are ~ 15,000 people in the UK currently being treated by the various GICs (as at Oct 15), both formal and informal. We can accept that there will be more who haven't yet sought treatment, but we do need to keep that sense of proportion.
Thank you Mr Dancer. Have been a long-time lurker and enjoy the discussions, although I fear that my views and political persuasions are so far removed from the bulk of the site membership that it would take too much time and energy to battle against the tide.
Mr. G.,
I'll echo Mr. Dancer's welcome and I hope you will post regularly in the future. There is no need to battle against the tide. The majority of the posters on here have, when it comes to politics, minds like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set. Just say what you want to say and then those of us who come to look for an alternative, but intelligent view (which by your post below you are likely to provide) can benefit.
P.S. Where do you stand on the other important things discussed on this site? Namely but not exclusively, classical history, cricket, pirates, trains, engineering, footer, Scottish Independence, whisky/whiskey, Sunil's Mum's chances in the Redbridge in Bloom Competition.
I second this. @BudG: I was a lurker for a long time before I dared post. And at the start I felt quite isolated in this world of strange gentlemen arguing about Hannibal and trains and, occasionally, politics. And now look at me: still hanging around with ne'er do wells! But do please persist: alternative views are needed.
Thank you both. I enjoy the diverse mix of conversation, as someone said the other night, it is like an online Gentleman's Club (but the gentlemen are not all gentlemen and ladies such as yourself are allowed in Ms Cyclefree)
Mr. Eagles, whilst somewhat reassured by a post here yesterday, it's worth recalling how many MPs were for Remain.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
It's an international treaty. I would say that's Royal Preorgative.
If it had been the full blown constitution that would not technically have been a treaty and might have come under Parliament. So the legal beavers can thank the French and Dutch if they lose this.
However Parliament will presumably have to repeal the Single European Act so they will have a vote at some point anyway, but equally not until withdrawal has been initiated.
I think that's the point being argued: that the government can, by invoking Article 50, nullify a lot of existing legislation; an act which ought to be the preserve of parliament.
However, I'd argue against that on two points.
Firstly, A50 was introduced into the EU's constitutional law via a treaty that was itself passed by parliament. As such, the mechanism has already been approved.
And secondly, in authorising the referendum, parliament clearly acknowledged the possibility of a Leave vote. While the realisation of that outcome doesn't oblige the government to act, both the moral mandate from the people - from whom parliament takes its authority - and the prior acceptance of the process imply that no further parliamentary scrutiny is necessary.
That said, it would be a foolish government that did not go to parliament first, and an even more foolish parliament that did anything other than uphold the public will.
Mr Herdson: you move from the Prerogative to statutory authorisation which is my question (2).
Alternative views also occasionally get you elected leader of the Labour Party
I don't for a minute think Corbyn was elected as leader because of his views as much as the fact that he came across as a politician of integrity and honesty - a veritable rarity these days.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
Thank you Mr Dancer. Have been a long-time lurker and enjoy the discussions, although I fear that my views and political persuasions are so far removed from the bulk of the site membership that it would take too much time and energy to battle against the tide.
Mr. G.,
I'll echo Mr. Dancer's welcome and I hope you will post regularly in the future. There is no need to battle against the tide. The majority of the posters on here have, when it comes to politics, minds like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set. Just say what you want to say and then those of us who come to look for an alternative, but intelligent view (which by your post below you are likely to provide) can benefit.
P.S. Where do you stand on the other important things discussed on this site? Namely but not exclusively, classical history, cricket, pirates, trains, engineering, footer, Scottish Independence, whisky/whiskey, Sunil's Mum's chances in the Redbridge in Bloom Competition.
I second this. @BudG: I was a lurker for a long time before I dared post. And at the start I felt quite isolated in this world of strange gentlemen arguing about Hannibal and trains and, occasionally, politics. And now look at me: still hanging around with ne'er do wells! But do please persist: alternative views are needed.
Thank you both. I enjoy the diverse mix of conversation, as someone said the other night, it is like an online Gentleman's Club (but the gentlemen are not all gentlemen and ladies such as yourself are allowed in Ms Cyclefree)
And where the Gentlemen are certainly not always gentlemen. But fair play to the powers that be here, who keep us on the right side of legal (and the wrong side of decent!)
Riddle me this: Three years ago a maritime surveillance system was introduced in to RN service and it was described by the then Conservative Defence Secretary as “crucial” and “game-changing”. In the succeeding period it has been used, by all accounts to good effect, in the Caribbean, the Med and the Indian Ocean. It is now to be scrapped by another Conservative Defence Minister because HMG cannot afford the £20million a year necessary to keep it in service.
The chap who described the system as "Crucial" is the very same chap who now says we cannot afford it. Step forward our new Chancellor of the Exchequer, the schizophrenic, Philip Hammond.
He is a mere amateur, Mr Llama.
In 1964 the Home Secretary turned down a request to reopen a criminal case, despite an impassioned plea in 1963 by the criminal's MP, Sir Frank Soskice. The Home Secretary said it was not in the public interest to pursue it further.
Of course, there had been a change of government in the meanwhile, and Wilson was now in charge. And curiously the person whom he had appointed Home Secretary, and therefore the man who rejected Soskice's impassioned plea - was Sir Frank Soskice.
I believe the criminal in question was dead, having been executed (wrongly) for the murder of his wife and infant. The plea was for a posthumous pardon, which was eventually granted by Roy Jenkins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans
The situation for an SPD 2 especially in relation to the Lib Dems is very different from the situation in the 1980s. Many Labour MPs would be standing in areas where the LDs now have some organisation, like Hull, Newcastle, Bristol and London. A different picture. I expect David Lammy to be the first.to move.
The Lib Dems finished fourth and lost their deposit in London this year. They were fifth with 5.8% in Bristol.
You are talking about a totally bonkers voting system, Mr Herdson. What you are bringing forward to support your argument is clearly irrelevant.
Mr. Eagles, Parliament approved the referendum vote, did it not?
The Commons could legally vote to ignore the result. But that would be morally indefensible.
Mr. Eagles (2), I don't care if Davis has behaved like a fool. I care if the referendum result gets ignored.
I just don't see it happening. May is no europhile, why would she want to go down in flames over something she doesn't care about? Her party members are mostly for leave, and her voters may have been split down the middle but most of those are not europhile voters either.
Remainers challenging the result are wasting their time - we would have much more influence and chance of success if we collectively pushed for a Norway EEA option.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
Comments
Since Gaitskell dipped it in the sink
Now Harold's done the same as Hugh
The workers' flag is brightest blue.
The Protocorbynista Anthem.
And my central point remains. Dicking about through the legal system to try and delay or frustrate a democratic decision is rancid. The only reason this is being done is the hope of winning a vote to deny the people what they wanted, and what they voted for.
After all he went to the ECJ to deny the people what they wanted.
The new Brexit secretary made the application to an EU court to overrule British law. Worth repeating again & again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/19/bulk-data-collection-can-only-be-used-to-fight-serious?CMP=share_btn_tw
Honestly, May should be thankful - I can't see her holding out on declaring til 2017 unless there's some legal reason she cannot, plus it keeps Brexiters riled up.
If, as looks likely, Corbyn wins the leadership election again his supporters would be within their rights to start deselecting Labour MPs. They have the perfect cover for it in the redrawing of constituency boundaries. In other words things can old get worse (cue different version of D:Ream song).
So, the most likely outcome is:
1. Corbyn re-elected
2a. Some MPs jump ship - Tories would welcome a bigger majority if Labour MPs can stomach Mrs May's policies. LibDems may make a more congenial home for some.
or
2b. SDP Mark 2. But where will the money come from? Where will the activists come from?
Another less likely alternative is
1. Corbyn re-elected
2. Corbyn and MPs come to an arrangement for peaceful co-existence with an agreed program, agreed jobs for the different factions. Most of all an agreement to bring in PR if/when they win power.
3. Under PR they could campaign for what they stand for and let the voters decide.
Even less likely outcome:
1. Corbyn defeated.
2. Back to business as usual before Corbyn era.
If it had been the full blown constitution that would not technically have been a treaty and might have come under Parliament. So the legal beavers can thank the French and Dutch if they lose this.
However Parliament will presumably have to repeal the Single European Act so they will have a vote at some point anyway, but equally not until withdrawal has been initiated.
Yesterday 7 out of 8 LDs (including Carmichael) voted against Trident, assume the 8th was elsewhere as he's not mentioned in For or Abstain lists.
Make your own mind up.
This legal action will get nowhere and the only beneficiaries are the lawyers
http://gregmulholland.org/en/article/2016/1171941/tonight-s-vote-on-trident-renewal
The day after the EU referendum he said that Article 50 should be invoked immediately. That was an absolutely extraordinary statement. Yesterday, he stood up as Labour leader in Parliament and argued against Conference-endorsed party policy. That is literally unprecedented.
While you may have a point, I was simply pointing out how it appears from the perspective of the majority of the members of the party, particularly those who joined up in the past year or so. They are, by and large, not Trot's or entryists from the SWP, they are by and large, people who share Corbyn's values of honesty, integrity and loyalty. My guess is that most of them have not been enthused enough by politics in the past to join a political party and are probably politically naive about things like the importance of collective responsibility.
Yes, they see that he has probably made mistakes, but when the media is full of his own MP's briefing against him, almost since day one, they understand the pressures he is under and they are not all of his own making. As far as his Article 50 statement is concerned, yes I agree it was ludicrous.
As far as the Trident issue goes, I don't think any of his supporters would have been surprised that he was true to his beliefs and that he had the integrity to put his beliefs and principles ahead of Conference-endorsed party policy. If he had backed down he would have lost a lot more respect and support than he would have gained.
The Commons could legally vote to ignore the result. But that would be morally indefensible.
Mr. Eagles (2), I don't care if Davis has behaved like a fool. I care if the referendum result gets ignored.
do you both use a spell checker?
Question 1 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 falls under the Royal Prerogative; and if so, whether it was the exercise of a new power or an existing one.
Question 2 will be whether the exercise of Article 50 can be taken by the government, or the crown, under the exercise of some statutory power; and if so, which one.
I have asked someone who is an expert in it to do a guest thread on it.
Yes, Labour got back into power under Wilson. Yes, Labour MPs were surely jolly glad of it.
But there were Labour members and activists who felt betrayed by the whole thing - as if all they'd achieved was to get the Tory-lites in power. Sure, Gaitskell "got his party back". But other folk lost their Labour party in the process.
Southam mentioned Gaitskell to point out that the "battle for a sensible Labour party" is an old one, and has been fought and won before, which should give some succour to the current combatants. Kinnock/Blair is not the first time round. I just wanted to point out the counter-narrative. From a left-wing grassroots perspective, Blairism was not the first betrayal. Nor was it the first time the battle for the soul of the party was lost.
I also recall that there was a happy consensus it was the PM's role to invoke Article 50 when Cameron said he'd it the day after. How many said it wasn't up to him?
http://order-order.com/2016/07/19/owen-smiths-999-emergency/
Speaking of idiots, time to be an Englishman and go out into the midday sun. Good day.
Keep quiet and plod along whilst Corbyn continues to make the party unelectable. Some of those rebel MP's will probably end up deselected or lose seats at the next GE.
Stand down at the next election and leave politics altogether. I could see a fair few doing this.
Form a new party or perhaps join the Lib Dems. Forming a new party will not be easy, they will need to find some financial backers (perhaps there are some ex Lab donors that are more Blairite than Corbynite and are willing to fund a new party).
Such a bad state the Labour Party is and it's entirely of their own making.
Top fact about @OwenSmith_MP, man who cd be Lab leader: as young BBC producer asked to get police comment on story, he called 999 #newsnight
Baltimore Cop Cleared Over Freddie Gray Death
Freddie Gray suffered a fatal neck injury last year while not wearing a seatbelt in the back of a police transport van
http://news.sky.com/story/baltimore-cop-cleared-over-freddie-gray-death-10505657
Frit to put themselves forward I reckon.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/06/some-mps-are-set-to-remind-the-electorate-that-referendums-are-advisory-and-not-binding-on-parliament/
Honesty - lies about sharing a platform with a Holocaust Denier, even when confronted with a photograph;
Integrity - was told about the Islington child sex abuse scandal by Liz Davies and did nothing;
Loyalty - rebelled against his party whip over 500 times.
And those are only the most obvious examples. That doesn't even include his support for Argentina in the Falklands War, or multiple cheating on his various wives, or his abuse of journalists.
He has given more hostages to fortune than Boris Johnson could ever dream of doing. If he sells himself along those lines at the next election, he will be incinerated.
He would genuinely stand a better chance of doing well if he described himself as a good old fashioned socialist who will do absolutely anything to advance a class war agenda. At least he has been consistent on that.
I remember her now... :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36834293
"Three people have died in a shooting near a swimming pool in Lincolnshire, police have said."
Yes, they see that he has probably made mistakes, but when the media is full of his own MP's briefing against him, almost since day one, they understand the pressures he is under and they are not all of his own making. As far as his Article 50 statement is concerned, yes I agree it was ludicrous.
As far as the Trident issue goes, I don't think any of his supporters would have been surprised that he was true to his beliefs and that he had the integrity to put his beliefs and principles ahead of Conference-endorsed party policy. If he had backed down he would have lost a lot more respect and support than he would have gained.
Yes, I agree: it's all about Jeremy, not the Labour party and it winning power. His supporters outside the hard left - and, again, I agree that most of them are not Trots - really do believe that "Corbyn's values" are "honesty, integrity and loyalty". They will not countenance any evidence that demonstrates this is not the case. I suspect that supporting Corbyn makes them feel good. And what could be more important then that?
Some of us have holidays in Amalfi to pay for, you know........
Dominic Raab 50/1
Kwasi Kwarteng 66/1
Penny Mordaunt 100/1
Rory Stewart 125/1
Mark Harper 200/1
There are still a number of well-informed floaters here though, and their views are well worth reading.
Sadiq Khan is to introduce gender neutral toilets in London: https://t.co/geNK846qYN
However, I'd argue against that on two points.
Firstly, A50 was introduced into the EU's constitutional law via a treaty that was itself passed by parliament. As such, the mechanism has already been approved.
And secondly, in authorising the referendum, parliament clearly acknowledged the possibility of a Leave vote. While the realisation of that outcome doesn't oblige the government to act, both the moral mandate from the people - from whom parliament takes its authority - and the prior acceptance of the process imply that no further parliamentary scrutiny is necessary.
That said, it would be a foolish government that did not go to parliament first, and an even more foolish parliament that did anything other than uphold the public will.
Anyway, it's rather toasty in this room and this is merely aggravating me, so I'm going to go and think up some one-liners for the next chapter.
What worries me is not that some people have issued a legal challenge but that the Government have implied that parliament shouldn't have a decision on this.
Mind you, I enjoy legal arguments as much of the next man. In Cannock we talk of little else!
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Give or take... ;-)
As far as we can tell from publicly available stats, there are ~ 15,000 people in the UK currently being treated by the various GICs (as at Oct 15), both formal and informal. We can accept that there will be more who haven't yet sought treatment, but we do need to keep that sense of proportion.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
Always very weird.
EDIT And as for honest and truthful....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans
Remainers challenging the result are wasting their time - we would have much more influence and chance of success if we collectively pushed for a Norway EEA option.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)