Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Theresa May could turn out to be the Labour party’s ver

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited July 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Theresa May could turn out to be the Labour party’s very unlikely saviour

John McDonnell’s appearance on the Andrew Marr Show this morning was among the most extraordinary television interventions that a senior politician has made in recent years.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,312
    First, like Theresa, if I May say so?

    An excellent article.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Interesting statement from Liz Mcinnes MP re-last year's Leadership contest.
    ' The turning point in the campaign was the decision of the party to instruct MPs to abstain on the second reading of the Welfare Reform bill last July. Jeremy was the only candidate to vote against the plans, along with 47 other Labour MPs – myself included. It was the right decision to vote against the bill, and I believe that was the moment which convinced many to vote for Jeremy.'
    Totally agree with that. Harriet Harman is to blame for Corbyn's ascent to the leadership - rather than the MPs who nominated him. By her action Harman revealed her own lack of suitability for leadership.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    An interesting opening thread and an interesting comment from Mr Justin. We do indeed live ininteresting times. Almost anything could happen.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Charles said:

    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.

    Quite agree - for 18months longer? Can't see it myself until 2019.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Charles said:

    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.

    But deciding the relationship with the EU without a further democratic mandate creates ongoing uncertainty.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited July 2016
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.

    But deciding the relationship with the EU without a further democratic mandate creates ongoing uncertainty.
    Twaddle - the Tories had it in their manifesto in 2015, Parliament voted for the Referendum Bill, the public voted for it by a margin of over 1.4m in the biggest turnout for years.

    What democratic issue is there here bar Sore Loser?
  • JenSJenS Posts: 91
    McDonnell was thinking of Corbyn resigning after Labour MEPs cease to count because of Brexit. This means only 20 odd MPs will be required for a Corbyn replacement to be on the ballot and the Corbyfandom membership will do the rest.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    A vote on the new boundaries is not scheduled until Autumn 2018 so unlikely to impact on any election held before 2019.
    Whilst YouGov and ICM were more hopeful for May, today's Opinium poll does not point to a substantial increase in the Tory majority - indeed it would imply the majority declining to a waferthin 6! It also has to be likely that polls are currently flattering the Tories a bit due to May's honeymoon.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited July 2016
    Cheers Mr Observer – the PM will not call an election before 2018 or even later imho, her primary concern is UK withdrawal from the EU and negotiations for the best deal possible, all else is a sideshow.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    PlatoSaid said:

    What democratic issue is there here bar Sore Loser?

    The issue (as always) is the Tory headbangers.

    If May signs up to the 4 freedoms, they will create havoc. A GE mandate for that with a big enough majority to outvote the nutters would be a sensible thing for May to do
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    PlatoSaid said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.

    But deciding the relationship with the EU without a further democratic mandate creates ongoing uncertainty.
    Twaddle - the Tories had it in their manifesto in 2015, Parliament voted for the Referendum Bill, the public voted for it by a margin of over 1.4m in the biggest turnout for years.

    What democratic issue is there here bar Sore Loser?
    There's a huge range of options for what Brexit might look like and many of them won't satisfy the people who voted for it.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    This is excellent movie trivia :smiley:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/07/24/oliver-reed-saddam-hussein-and-the-true-story-of-the-worlds-most/
  • theakestheakes Posts: 965
    The campaign against Corbyn is beginning to verge on the childish.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    theakes said:

    The campaign against Corbyn is beginning to verge on the childish.


    He started it.

    :-)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    theakes said:

    The campaign against Corbyn is beginning to verge on the childish.

    Unlike the campaign 4 Corbyn...

    https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/757198484093210624
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    I cant remember where I read this so please correct me if I am wrong. But As I understand the labour party rules for reselections after the new boundaries are:

    If a new constituency is made up of over 40% of the electret from an old constituency that has a sitting labour MP she/he gets the nomination automatically.

    (leaving aside the point that this could mean that one new constituency could have 2 siting Labour MPs that are 'entitled' to it under sead rules.)

    This may mean that a large proportion of Labour MPs will not be automatically re-nominated anyway. When you factor in the reduction from 650 seats to 600, and the equalisation in size of seats, that will mostly affect the Labour seats that are on average smaller at the moment. It is only a guess, but I would have thought that this could affect perhaps half of the current sitting Labout MPs. Thought?
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    An excellent thread header. What clear is our EU membership was thesis, the Leave victory was antithesis and our new deal will be neither. It will be the synthesis. The question is what synthesis can May get through the Commons with a majority of 12 ? The answer is none. There are ample nutters in the Conservative parliamentary party to make the Maastricht rebellion look like a church fete. Worse still the FTP removes the PM's nuclear option of automatic dissolution which is the only thing that saved Major at the time. So my current reading is this. #1 We need a draft deal *before* A50 is invoked. #2 A50 must be invoked before the next GW. #3 Any deal needs a fresh GE to get it through the Commons as it's going to be a synthesis.

    My guess is between New Year 2017 and the referendum anniversary in June we'll see a 7 day period where May announces the draft terms, then that A50 has been invoked then tables a resolution for an early dissolution which will pass.

    As the broad sweep of the British electorate will be just wishing this all goes away by then May will win. The fact that Brexit will be 80% to 90% of the deal Cameron got will be hilarious but irrelevant. Something called Brexit will be being promised. We will no longer be a " member " of the European Union.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    YellowSubmarine said:

    An excellent thread header. What clear is our EU membership was thesis, the Leave victory was antithesis and our new deal will be neither. It will be the synthesis. The question is what synthesis can May get through the Commons with a majority of 12 ? The answer is none. There are ample nutters in the Conservative parliamentary party to make the Maastricht rebellion look like a church fete. Worse still the FTP removes the PM's nuclear option of automatic dissolution which is the only thing that saved Major at the time. So my current reading is this. #1 We need a draft deal *before* A50 is invoked. #2 A50 must be invoked before the next GW. #3 Any deal needs a fresh GE to get it through the Commons as it's going to be a synthesis.

    My guess is between New Year 2017 and the referendum anniversary in June we'll see a 7 day period where May announces the draft terms, then that A50 has been invoked then tables a resolution for an early dissolution which will pass.

    As the broad sweep of the British electorate will be just wishing this all goes away by then May will win. The fact that Brexit will be 80% to 90% of the deal Cameron got will be hilarious but irrelevant. Something called Brexit will be being promised. We will no longer be a " member " of the European Union.

    Are you saying we will get BINO?

    Brexit In Name Only :-)

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    edited July 2016
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/world/americas/hungarys-viktor-orban-says-donald-trump-is-better-for-europe.html

    The antiterrorism proposals of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump make him the better option for Europe and for Hungary, said Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, on Saturday.

    He said he had listened to Mr. Trump’s proposals to stop terrorism, and “I myself could not have drawn up better what Europe needs.”
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    The Tories increasing their majority would ruin Labour's chances for 2022, they can't afford to go backwards. Expectations have also been dragged so low by Corbyn and co that a small loss of seats could be seen as a victory by them and their supporters.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Portcullisgate?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited July 2016
    MarkHopkins said:

    theakes said:

    The campaign against Corbyn is beginning to verge on the childish.


    He started it.

    :-)
    Watching it from the outside - it's a totally asymmetric war. Those who've felt they didn't have a voice for decades/have become switched on for first time in ages/idealistic newbies have an Eff You candidate.

    Meanwhile Smithites have a Blairish Say Anything To Win Votes Pfizer Exec Normal Bloke Suit who's as appealing as Hillary to the pissed off Sanders fans.

    All the attempts by Labour Establishment/vested interests to rig votes/keep Corbyn off the ballot/BBC & Guardian rubbishing are adding to his kudos as the radical candidate.

    The Moderates who want the old-way-doing-stuff are losing and can't understand why their tactics aren't game changers. It's so Trump here. They're not learning anything here - at all.

    It's all very entertaining in an extended car crash way.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    SouthamObserver said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    An excellent thread header. What clear is our EU membership was thesis, the Leave victory was antithesis and our new deal will be neither. It will be the synthesis. The question is what synthesis can May get through the Commons with a majority of 12 ? The answer is none. There are ample nutters in the Conservative parliamentary party to make the Maastricht rebellion look like a church fete. Worse still the FTP removes the PM's nuclear option of automatic dissolution which is the only thing that saved Major at the time. So my current reading is this. #1 We need a draft deal *before* A50 is invoked. #2 A50 must be invoked before the next GW. #3 Any deal needs a fresh GE to get it through the Commons as it's going to be a synthesis.

    My guess is between New Year 2017 and the referendum anniversary in June we'll see a 7 day period where May announces the draft terms, then that A50 has been invoked then tables a resolution for an early dissolution which will pass.

    As the broad sweep of the British electorate will be just wishing this all goes away by then May will win. The fact that Brexit will be 80% to 90% of the deal Cameron got will be hilarious but irrelevant. Something called Brexit will be being promised. We will no longer be a " member " of the European Union.

    Are you saying we will get BINO?

    Brexit In Name Only :-)

    EEA + a slightly bigger Emergency Break than Cameron got. The purists will go bonkers and destroy May's government. They'll say she has no mandate and they'll be correct. She knows this so so she'll get a mandate first.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Shoutout to Morris Dancer for his safety car tip.

    It's £10 in the rainy day fund!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Going to commence writing the post-race piece promptly. Don't think it'll take very long.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.

    But deciding the relationship with the EU without a further democratic mandate creates ongoing uncertainty.
    No, it doesn't. If the deal is controversial - say it allows full FoM - then a second referendum might be a good idea (i.e. this deal or a WTO Brexit). But in any event the deal will be approved by parliament, which is a sufficient democratic mandate.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
    I left the Lib Dems in 2012. I keep the YelliwSubmarine name for continuity purposes. The new avatar is Liz Kendal but the now trounced leadership candidate is grinning and winking. Perhaps I was being too subtle.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Going to commence writing the post-race piece promptly. Don't think it'll take very long.

    The car in front round the first corner generally wins F1 grand prix.

    So it was today. Hamilton's car was in front round the first corner.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    YellowSubmarine said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    An excellent thread header. What clear is our EU membership was thesis, the Leave victory was antithesis and our new deal will be neither. It will be the synthesis. The question is what synthesis can May get through the Commons with a majority of 12 ? The answer is none. There are ample nutters in the Conservative parliamentary party to make the Maastricht rebellion look like a church fete. Worse still the FTP removes the PM's nuclear option of automatic dissolution which is the only thing that saved Major at the time. So my current reading is this. #1 We need a draft deal *before* A50 is invoked. #2 A50 must be invoked before the next GW. #3 Any deal needs a fresh GE to get it through the Commons as it's going to be a synthesis.

    My guess is between New Year 2017 and the referendum anniversary in June we'll see a 7 day period where May announces the draft terms, then that A50 has been invoked then tables a resolution for an early dissolution which will pass.

    As the broad sweep of the British electorate will be just wishing this all goes away by then May will win. The fact that Brexit will be 80% to 90% of the deal Cameron got will be hilarious but irrelevant. Something called Brexit will be being promised. We will no longer be a " member " of the European Union.

    Are you saying we will get BINO?

    Brexit In Name Only :-)

    EEA + a slightly bigger Emergency Break than Cameron got. The purists will go bonkers and destroy May's government. They'll say she has no mandate and they'll be correct. She knows this so so she'll get a mandate first.
    I don't think a time limit on FoM will work. (You're just seeing the European opening position in the papers today and responding to that).

    It needs to be something permanent.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Rabbit, cheers. Odd that it was so mispriced.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Artist said:

    The Tories increasing their majority would ruin Labour's chances for 2022, they can't afford to go backwards. Expectations have also been dragged so low by Corbyn and co that a small loss of seats could be seen as a victory by them and their supporters.

    What are you expecting in 2022?
    I don't quite follow your reasoning in suggesting that an increased Tory majority dooms Labour to a further defeat. The Tories were elected in 1951 and went on to increase their majorities in both 1955 and 1959 - but that did not prevent Labour winning in 1964. Similarly Labour went on to increase its majority very sharply in 1966 - but the Tories still managed to win in 1970.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
    No I didn't buy a vote in either election. I was going to this time but #1 The stitch up by the coup party on £25 a pop and retroactively disenfranchising new full members stinks to high heaven. It reminded me why I said out of the Labour Party in the first place. #2 Owen Smith is a ludicrous choice. I'd pay for a vote because this is a National Emergency. Choosing Smith suggests the coup party think it's just another game.
  • MontyHallMontyHall Posts: 226
    A shame to see the 'fucking useless' quote taken out of context. A bit tabloidy and partial.

    Unless I am mistaken, McDonnell was saying they were 'fucking useless' at plotting a coup, the quote in the header makes it appear as though he thinks they are 'fucking useless' as MPs. Maybe he does, but that's not what he said at the Corbyn rally mentioned.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    edited July 2016
    Thanks @Morris_Dancer

    4-Jul-16
    14:50:39 Hungary Grand Prix
    No - Safety Car
    2.25
    20.00 45.00 Won

    Kerching :D
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    YellowSubmarine said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
    I left the Lib Dems in 2012. I keep the YelliwSubmarine name for continuity purposes. The new avatar is Liz Kendal but the now trounced leadership candidate is grinning and winking. Perhaps I was being too subtle.
    The total political landscape is in flux - I'm a TINO/NOTA right now. Pissed off not having a vote in the leadership election/feel May is Ted Meets EdM. Rudd announcing bigger sentences for racism made me wince. It's more Noo Labour. What about FGM? Or loads of other more pernicious stuff?

    I gave £20 to Woolfe's leadership campaign in the hope he'd shake up Labour in the North.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Moses_ said:

    Portcullisgate?

    PortcullisHouse.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    YellowSubmarine said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
    No I didn't buy a vote in either election. I was going to this time but #1 The stitch up by the coup party on £25 a pop and retroactively disenfranchising new full members stinks to high heaven. It reminded me why I said out of the Labour Party in the first place. #2 Owen Smith is a ludicrous choice. I'd pay for a vote because this is a National Emergency. Choosing Smith suggests the coup party think it's just another game.
    Fully with you there.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Charles said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    An excellent thread header. What clear is our EU membership was thesis, the Leave victory was antithesis and our new deal will be neither. It will be the synthesis. The question is what synthesis can May get through the Commons with a majority of 12 ? The answer is none. There are ample nutters in the Conservative parliamentary party to make the Maastricht rebellion look like a church fete. Worse still the FTP removes the PM's nuclear option of automatic dissolution which is the only thing that saved Major at the time. So my current reading is this. #1 We need a draft deal *before* A50 is invoked. #2 A50 must be invoked before the next GW. #3 Any deal needs a fresh GE to get it through the Commons as it's going to be a synthesis.

    My guess is between New Year 2017 and the referendum anniversary in June we'll see a 7 day period where May announces the draft terms, then that A50 has been invoked then tables a resolution for an early dissolution which will pass.

    As the broad sweep of the British electorate will be just wishing this all goes away by then May will win. The fact that Brexit will be 80% to 90% of the deal Cameron got will be hilarious but irrelevant. Something called Brexit will be being promised. We will no longer be a " member " of the European Union.

    Are you saying we will get BINO?

    Brexit In Name Only :-)

    EEA + a slightly bigger Emergency Break than Cameron got. The purists will go bonkers and destroy May's government. They'll say she has no mandate and they'll be correct. She knows this so so she'll get a mandate first.
    I don't think a time limit on FoM will work. (You're just seeing the European opening position in the papers today and responding to that).

    It needs to be something permanent.
    You may well be right. But my analysis applies to a " hard " Brexit as well. Can May get leaving the Single Market through the Commons with a majority of 12 ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    David_Evershed said:

    get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.

    McDonnell on live TV this morning told 172 Labour MPs if they want to get rid of Corbyn they need an election
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    YellowSubmarine said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
    Labour: "You Tories are ruining the country".
    Tories: "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. Let's have a GE".
    Labour: "No, we're good, you carry on, see you in 2020."

    The optics aren't great, are they?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    YellowSubmarine said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
    The Labour party only have to abstain to block an election. Two thirds of MPs have to vote for the motion.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Pulpstar, nice to have a green race for once. Only the third time this year. [Admittedly, one of them was green to a pleasing degree, but still].
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    I'm not convinced by the scenario Joff (ugh, knowing people's real names, it's just not right) outlines, but the idea that it would be beneficial for both the Tories and, in the long term, Labour, for May to call a GE and win handsomely, is kind of funny.

    I'm not sure she'll want to though. Granted, dissent in particular on the right is inevitable if she goes for anything less than the most hard core of Brexits, but I just don't get the sense any of them want to chance a GE, nor that Labour MPs would help them call it.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
    The Labour party only have to abstain to block an election. Two thirds of MPs have to vote for the motion.
    Is that right? I thought the Tories had enough to kill themselves if it suited them.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
    I left the Lib Dems in 2012. I keep the YelliwSubmarine name for continuity purposes. The new avatar is Liz Kendal but the now trounced leadership candidate is grinning and winking. Perhaps I was being too subtle.
    The total political landscape is in flux - I'm a TINO/NOTA right now. Pissed off not having a vote in the leadership election/feel May is Ted Meets EdM. Rudd announcing bigger sentences for racism made me wince. It's more Noo Labour. What about FGM? Or loads of other more pernicious stuff?

    I gave £20 to Woolfe's leadership campaign in the hope he'd shake up Labour in the North.
    Sounds like you are a UKIP at present.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    PlatoSaid said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
    The Labour party only have to abstain to block an election. Two thirds of MPs have to vote for the motion.
    Is that right? I thought the Tories had enough to kill themselves if it suited them.
    Yep, they can carry a vote of no confidence. Would look strange, mind. I'd offer Labour the chance of an election first, and when they refuse, go for the VoNC. However, they really should just repeal the FTPA. It's only needed in coalition.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    williamglenn said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.

    But deciding the relationship with the EU without a further democratic mandate creates ongoing uncertainty.
    Twaddle - the Tories had it in their manifesto in 2015, Parliament voted for the Referendum Bill, the public voted for it by a margin of over 1.4m in the biggest turnout for years.

    What democratic issue is there here bar Sore Loser?
    There's a huge range of options for what Brexit might look like and many of them won't satisfy the people who voted for it.
    That is true, but isn't the same as lacking a democratic mandate. That there were options for what Brexit would look like was stated, even if everyone seemed to pretend otherwise (and some still pretend that it meant more on specifics than in fact it did), means that there is a democratic mandate for whatever Brexit is obtained. It is conceivable you could call a GE on the basis of what each parties Brexit plan - I'm assuming Tories would be Brexit mid-hard, UKIP hard Brexit, Lab Brexit lite and LDs noBrexit - but there's no democratic requirement since the vote to Brexit did not specify options but deliberately left it up to the government, and they may feel no need to ask us again, and if people don't like that they can punish them in 2020.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced by the scenario Joff (ugh, knowing people's real names, it's just not right) outlines, but the idea that it would be beneficial for both the Tories and, in the long term, Labour, for May to call a GE and win handsomely, is kind of funny.

    I'm not sure she'll want to though. Granted, dissent in particular on the right is inevitable if she goes for anything less than the most hard core of Brexits, but I just don't get the sense any of them want to chance a GE, nor that Labour MPs would help them call it.

    It's been a few years since I was at a PB drinks do, but the funniest bit was we all called each other by our screen names. I met 37 others - being a PR networking saddo, I made a little list on the way home on the train :smiley:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    MontyHall said:

    A shame to see the 'fucking useless' quote taken out of context. A bit tabloidy and partial.

    Unless I am mistaken, McDonnell was saying they were 'fucking useless' at plotting a coup, the quote in the header makes it appear as though he thinks they are 'fucking useless' as MPs. Maybe he does, but that's not what he said at the Corbyn rally mentioned.

    Sounds about right. And of course he was dead right about the former.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    YellowSubmarine said:

    Charles said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    An excellent thread header. What clear is our EU membership was thesis, the Leave victory was antithesis and our new deal will be neither. It will be the synthesis. The question is what synthesis can May get through the Commons with a majority of 12 ? The answer is none. There are ample nutters in the Conservative parliamentary party to make the Maastricht rebellion look like a church fete. Worse still the FTP removes the PM's nuclear option of automatic dissolution which is the only thing that saved Major at the time. So my current reading is this. #1 We need a draft deal *before* A50 is invoked. #2 A50 must be invoked before the next GW. #3 Any deal needs a fresh GE to get it through the Commons as it's going to be a synthesis.

    My guess is between New Year 2017 and the referendum anniversary in June we'll see a 7 day period where May announces the draft terms, then that A50 has been invoked then tables a resolution for an early dissolution which will pass.

    As the broad sweep of the British electorate will be just wishing this all goes away by then May will win. The fact that Brexit will be 80% to 90% of the deal Cameron got will be hilarious but irrelevant. Something called Brexit will be being promised. We will no longer be a " member " of the European Union.

    Are you saying we will get BINO?

    Brexit In Name Only :-)

    EEA + a slightly bigger Emergency Break than Cameron got. The purists will go bonkers and destroy May's government. They'll say she has no mandate and they'll be correct. She knows this so so she'll get a mandate first.
    I don't think a time limit on FoM will work. (You're just seeing the European opening position in the papers today and responding to that).

    It needs to be something permanent.
    You may well be right. But my analysis applies to a " hard " Brexit as well. Can May get leaving the Single Market through the Commons with a majority of 12 ?
    Yes - it would be better than WTO terms. If they vote it down she just times out Article 50. Or if she really wants the deal she calls an election on the grounds that Parliament is frustrating the will of the public.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited July 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
    The Labour party only have to abstain to block an election. Two thirds of MPs have to vote for the motion.
    Is that right? I thought the Tories had enough to kill themselves if it suited them.
    Wikipedia

    Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:

    1. If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

    2. If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

    Two thirds of MP must vote FOR the motion. Abstaining effectively counts as against.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    John_M said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
    Labour: "You Tories are ruining the country".
    Tories: "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. Let's have a GE".
    Labour: "No, we're good, you carry on, see you in 2020."

    The optics aren't great, are they?
    It would be easier to reject if they had not, I believe, called for a GE when May was appointed, in the standard kneejerk 'new PM needs a new mandate even though our system does not require it' calls.
    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    What an absolute load. What does it take to get a blanket ban?

    Gutless and no doubt corrupt.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    PlatoSaid said:

    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced by the scenario Joff (ugh, knowing people's real names, it's just not right) outlines, but the idea that it would be beneficial for both the Tories and, in the long term, Labour, for May to call a GE and win handsomely, is kind of funny.

    I'm not sure she'll want to though. Granted, dissent in particular on the right is inevitable if she goes for anything less than the most hard core of Brexits, but I just don't get the sense any of them want to chance a GE, nor that Labour MPs would help them call it.

    It's been a few years since I was at a PB drinks do, but the funniest bit was we all called each other by our screen names. I met 37 others - being a PR networking saddo, I made a little list on the way home on the train :smiley:
    My regret is I did not pick my usual cool username when creating a vanilla account so am stuck with this nonsense.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    David_Evershed said:

    Moses_ said:

    Portcullisgate?

    PortcullisHouse.
    Yup...

    I was suggesting a title for the movie of the latest "break in" :smile:
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.

    Yes - but that would probably not get through the Lords who are unlikely to agree to constitutional changes sought for party advantage that were not in the governing party's manifesto.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    The Russian Olympic decision is such horseshit. The report stated there was state run doping for at least 4 years for christ's sake; with that level of government led cheating, it shouldn't matter if maybe russian gymnast number 2 didn't take part in it, the country as a whole needs to be punished.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    David_Evershed said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
    I left the Lib Dems in 2012. I keep the YelliwSubmarine name for continuity purposes. The new avatar is Liz Kendal but the now trounced leadership candidate is grinning and winking. Perhaps I was being too subtle.
    The total political landscape is in flux - I'm a TINO/NOTA right now. Pissed off not having a vote in the leadership election/feel May is Ted Meets EdM. Rudd announcing bigger sentences for racism made me wince. It's more Noo Labour. What about FGM? Or loads of other more pernicious stuff?

    I gave £20 to Woolfe's leadership campaign in the hope he'd shake up Labour in the North.
    Sounds like you are a UKIP at present.
    Honestly - I'm NOTA. I'm slightly right of centre overall and have been forever - but much more in common with Gisela/Hoey/Gove policy wise. I want fiscally sensible HMG and an enlightened evidence based approach to law & order. I think Prof Nutt was spot on. I hate identity politics and fairly libertarian.

    Post Brexit - there's oodles of us who've found soulmates all across the spectrum, and can't feel at home within any Party. Hence my donation to Woolfe to kick Labour up their complacent metropolitan arse.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983


    Individual Russian competitors who attend representing Russia will be shunned as will the IOC Committee.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,667
    PlatoSaid said:

    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced by the scenario Joff (ugh, knowing people's real names, it's just not right) outlines, but the idea that it would be beneficial for both the Tories and, in the long term, Labour, for May to call a GE and win handsomely, is kind of funny.

    I'm not sure she'll want to though. Granted, dissent in particular on the right is inevitable if she goes for anything less than the most hard core of Brexits, but I just don't get the sense any of them want to chance a GE, nor that Labour MPs would help them call it.

    It's been a few years since I was at a PB drinks do, but the funniest bit was we all called each other by our screen names. I met 37 others - being a PR networking saddo, I made a little list on the way home on the train :smiley:
    How many of those screen names were yours?

    :-D
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    justin124 said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.

    Yes - but that would probably not get through the Lords who are unlikely to agree to constitutional changes sought for party advantage that were not in the governing party's manifesto.
    I volunteer to be a Conservative peer. I live to serve etc.
  • ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    At least there will be some people to boo mercilessly at the opening ceremony. Quite cowardly from the IOC, given the evidence, though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    IOC = Merkel, Putin = Erdogan?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Thrak said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    At least there will be some people to boo mercilessly at the opening ceremony. Quite cowardly from the IOC, given the evidence, though.
    Absolutely. It is a shameful moment in World Sport - the IOC have proven themselves unfit for purpose.

    The rest of the world should refuse to compete against any Russian athlete or team.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC = Merkel, Putin = Erdogan?

    IOC: Stay Puft Marshmallow man, Putin: Ghostbusters.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.


    The best way for the Conservatives to avoid a vote of confidence against themsleves is to repeal the fixed term law.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    :lol:

    Understandable...
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    justin124 said:

    A vote on the new boundaries is not scheduled until Autumn 2018 so unlikely to impact on any election held before 2019.
    Whilst YouGov and ICM were more hopeful for May, today's Opinium poll does not point to a substantial increase in the Tory majority - indeed it would imply the majority declining to a waferthin 6! It also has to be likely that polls are currently flattering the Tories a bit due to May's honeymoon.

    it also has to be likely the polls are overstating Labour like they always do when they are in opposition.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    oxfordsimon said:

    Thrak said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    At least there will be some people to boo mercilessly at the opening ceremony. Quite cowardly from the IOC, given the evidence, though.
    The rest of the world should refuse to compete against any Russian athlete or team.
    Nah, they'll be all 'These athletes are clean, shouldn't punish them for years and years and years of organised cheating by their country'.

    Bet this decision won't stop the Russians crying foul though.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Thrak said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    At least there will be some people to boo mercilessly at the opening ceremony. Quite cowardly from the IOC, given the evidence, though.
    The nicest thing I can think of to say about the IOC is that they're slightly less corrupt than FIFA.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    nunu said:

    justin124 said:

    A vote on the new boundaries is not scheduled until Autumn 2018 so unlikely to impact on any election held before 2019.
    Whilst YouGov and ICM were more hopeful for May, today's Opinium poll does not point to a substantial increase in the Tory majority - indeed it would imply the majority declining to a waferthin 6! It also has to be likely that polls are currently flattering the Tories a bit due to May's honeymoon.

    it also has to be likely the polls are overstating Labour like they always do when they are in opposition.
    At some point that will stop being the case, and the Tories will be in for a complacency shock.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,235
    edited July 2016
    John_M said:

    justin124 said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.

    Yes - but that would probably not get through the Lords who are unlikely to agree to constitutional changes sought for party advantage that were not in the governing party's manifesto.
    I volunteer to be a Conservative peer. I live to serve etc.
    Happy to join you on the red benches Mr M.

    More seriously, however, the implied threat of flooding the HoL with lots of new members (or, perhaps more cannily, threatening to reform it and remove a load of members) would see the FTPA repealed very swiftly.

    In the words of Corporal Jones....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    F1: post-race analysis is up here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/hungary-post-race-analysis-2016.html
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    It isn't just the able bodied they doped, they doped the paralympics as well.

    Disgraceful decision by authorities not to ban them all.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    kle4 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced by the scenario Joff (ugh, knowing people's real names, it's just not right) outlines, but the idea that it would be beneficial for both the Tories and, in the long term, Labour, for May to call a GE and win handsomely, is kind of funny.

    I'm not sure she'll want to though. Granted, dissent in particular on the right is inevitable if she goes for anything less than the most hard core of Brexits, but I just don't get the sense any of them want to chance a GE, nor that Labour MPs would help them call it.

    It's been a few years since I was at a PB drinks do, but the funniest bit was we all called each other by our screen names. I met 37 others - being a PR networking saddo, I made a little list on the way home on the train :smiley:
    My regret is I did not pick my usual cool username when creating a vanilla account so am stuck with this nonsense.
    I remain impressed that there are three others called kle1, kle2 and kle3 before you.

    I've been a variant of PlatoSxxx since about 2007 blogging and a bit later here/Twitter. It must be a bugger getting user names nowadays. And it's all as a result of one of my talkative kitties. He's never read any Greek philosophy - but a very pretty cream tabby Oriental.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    Btw Mark David finally got the break through in the cricket.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    YellowSubmarine said:

    David_Evershed said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.


    It's a fixed term parliament.

    The Conservatives will have to change the law on fixed term parliaments first or get the Labour party to vote with the Conservatives for an election for a general election before 2010.
    I know. I'm working on the assumption it's literally impossible for an opposition to deny the country an election. I may be wrong. But that was my unspoken assumption.
    The opposition can't, as the government has a Commons majority and hence can pass a Bill to amend s. 1(2) of the FTPA.

    The Lords could, of course, but that would be courageous.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    PlatoSaid said:

    kle4 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced by the scenario Joff (ugh, knowing people's real names, it's just not right) outlines, but the idea that it would be beneficial for both the Tories and, in the long term, Labour, for May to call a GE and win handsomely, is kind of funny.

    I'm not sure she'll want to though. Granted, dissent in particular on the right is inevitable if she goes for anything less than the most hard core of Brexits, but I just don't get the sense any of them want to chance a GE, nor that Labour MPs would help them call it.

    It's been a few years since I was at a PB drinks do, but the funniest bit was we all called each other by our screen names. I met 37 others - being a PR networking saddo, I made a little list on the way home on the train :smiley:
    My regret is I did not pick my usual cool username when creating a vanilla account so am stuck with this nonsense.
    I remain impressed that there are three others called kle1, kle2 and kle3 before you.
    I was aware of kle3 afterwards, but the amazing thing is I didn't pick kle4 because the other three were used up, it was the first one I tried in fact.

    I wanted DedicatedFenceSitter, but c'est la vie
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    edited July 2016
    Those saying well they will test them lots at the games don't understand modern doping. Only idiots get caught at the actual competitions.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,966
    edited July 2016
    justin124 said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.

    Yes - but that would probably not get through the Lords who are unlikely to agree to constitutional changes sought for party advantage that were not in the governing party's manifesto.
    For the reasons outlined in the thread header, Labour Lords have reason to want an early election, to save their party. Unless a load of crossbenchers turn up and vote against that would probably clinch it. That said, they would have to engage in some considerable mental gymnastics to come up with a justification for voting to repeal the FTPA other than 'we want to allow an early GE, lose it, and get rid of our leader for real this time'.

    What topsy-turvy political times we live in.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    MattW said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    kle4 said:

    I'm not convinced by the scenario Joff (ugh, knowing people's real names, it's just not right) outlines, but the idea that it would be beneficial for both the Tories and, in the long term, Labour, for May to call a GE and win handsomely, is kind of funny.

    I'm not sure she'll want to though. Granted, dissent in particular on the right is inevitable if she goes for anything less than the most hard core of Brexits, but I just don't get the sense any of them want to chance a GE, nor that Labour MPs would help them call it.

    It's been a few years since I was at a PB drinks do, but the funniest bit was we all called each other by our screen names. I met 37 others - being a PR networking saddo, I made a little list on the way home on the train :smiley:
    How many of those screen names were yours?

    :-D
    Identity theft isn't possible in my case :smiley:
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    justin124 said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.

    Yes - but that would probably not get through the Lords who are unlikely to agree to constitutional changes sought for party advantage that were not in the governing party's manifesto.
    I volunteer to be a Conservative peer. I live to serve etc.
    Happy to join you on the red benches Mr M.

    More seriously, however, the implied threat of flooding the HoL with lots of new members (or, perhaps more cannily, threatening to reform it and remove a load of members) would see the FTPA repealed very swiftly.

    In the words of Corporal Jones....
    I very much doubt that, and cannot imagine May operating that way. It would also reak of sharp practice and lead to accusations of political corruption etc. The political class has more than enough problems with its social standing without seeking to add to it.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    We can't escape the fact that the post Brexit relationship with the EU could be anything between 0% and 99% of what we have now. None of those 99 different options have any democratic mandate and are going to upset loads of people who will scream betrayal. May is clearly a class act but Lincoln or Gandhi wouldn't be able to pull this off with a majority of 12 newly empowered nutters. She'll need to go to the country before 2020.

    Out of curiosity - did you buy a vote for Labour? Your Kendall avatar took me my surprise - thought you were a LD.
    I left the Lib Dems in 2012. I keep the YelliwSubmarine name for continuity purposes. The new avatar is Liz Kendal but the now trounced leadership candidate is grinning and winking. Perhaps I was being too subtle.
    The total political landscape is in flux - I'm a TINO/NOTA right now. Pissed off not having a vote in the leadership election/feel May is Ted Meets EdM. Rudd announcing bigger sentences for racism made me wince. It's more Noo Labour. What about FGM? Or loads of other more pernicious stuff?

    I gave £20 to Woolfe's leadership campaign in the hope he'd shake up Labour in the North.
    I agree ! It's so liberating. Since I left the Lib Dems I've voted for Independent, Lib Dem, Green and - a life time first - a Conservative Candidate. I've donated to specific campaigns for Greens, Plaid, Yorkshire First and the Pirate Party.

    I gave far more to BSE and Better Together than I would have been able to as a party member.

    Another lifetime first was being able to work for a personal friend and exceptional council candidate. She stood and won for Labour.

    Political parties are a *good* thing and completely necessary. But after so long in one being able to take a broader view is liberating.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,199
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    She's not going to call an early election. Getting the relationship with the EU right is too important to risk the additional uncertainty.

    But deciding the relationship with the EU without a further democratic mandate creates ongoing uncertainty.
    No it doesn't.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Thrak said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    At least there will be some people to boo mercilessly at the opening ceremony. Quite cowardly from the IOC, given the evidence, though.
    Interesting bit will be the reaction if any of them win gold, or any medal for that matter. The other athletes will always wonder if this is drug aided. Given that clean athletes train for years to even take part let alone finally win a medal it's entirely understandable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    I fear my enthusiasm for the Olympics just died. A truly appalling decision. What a shower of plonkers.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    kle4 said:

    oxfordsimon said:

    Thrak said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    At least there will be some people to boo mercilessly at the opening ceremony. Quite cowardly from the IOC, given the evidence, though.
    The rest of the world should refuse to compete against any Russian athlete or team.
    Nah, they'll be all 'These athletes are clean, shouldn't punish them for years and years and years of organised cheating by their country'.

    Bet this decision won't stop the Russians crying foul though.
    I'm torn. It's unfair to penalise clean athletes who've trained overseas/been tested there for ages vs the rest.

    I'm of an appropriate vintage to recall Moscow/Los Angeles where hundreds of competitors didn't contest because of boycotts - nationality wide. It undermined the value of the medals won.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Submarine, Yorkshire First? You heathen.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,235
    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    justin124 said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Miss Plato, they can repeal the Act with a simple majority, rather than keep the act and meet the two-thirds needed for an election under its terms, as I understand it.

    Yes - but that would probably not get through the Lords who are unlikely to agree to constitutional changes sought for party advantage that were not in the governing party's manifesto.
    I volunteer to be a Conservative peer. I live to serve etc.
    Happy to join you on the red benches Mr M.

    More seriously, however, the implied threat of flooding the HoL with lots of new members (or, perhaps more cannily, threatening to reform it and remove a load of members) would see the FTPA repealed very swiftly.

    In the words of Corporal Jones....
    I very much doubt that, and cannot imagine May operating that way. It would also reak of sharp practice and lead to accusations of political corruption etc. The political class has more than enough problems with its social standing without seeking to add to it.
    How would threatening to reform the HoL be sharp practice? It needs reforming
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    John_M said:

    Thrak said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    At least there will be some people to boo mercilessly at the opening ceremony. Quite cowardly from the IOC, given the evidence, though.
    The nicest thing I can think of to say about the IOC is that they're slightly less corrupt than FIFA.
    Which Remainer was it that had that zinger during the campaign ? When asked why they wanted to remain in " the world's most corrupt organisation " they replied " I'm not campaigning to remain in FIFA ".
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    England going to have a bat....I say send in Bairstow & Stokes to give it some tonk.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    No follow on.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    PlatoSaid said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    IOC decides it doesn't want to eat any polonium:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36878983

    :lol:

    Understandable...
    *sighs*
    Whatever happened to the straightforward umbrella tip "push" in a dark underground station?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    edited July 2016
    ThreeQuidder said:

    No follow on.

    Under cookie they rarely do. I presume the idea is to rest the bowlers. Sure old Trafford happy to make sure they get 4 days of action.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025