Dadge said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

FWIW I would tell the DUP to go fuck themselves and dare them to vote down a QS and let Corbyn in.

The problem with that is that the government would be at risk of the DUP voting against them without warning on every single piece of legislation.

Yes in theory, but in practice how many DUP MPs want another election and a Labour government?

Most of them would be safe I'd have thought (Their majorities outside Belfast are quite healthy). OTOH About 60 Tories would lose their seat if an election was held today.

nielh said:

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

volcanopete said:

Bye bye, LGBT Tory voters.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/12/theresa-may-appoints-anti-lgbt-justice-secretary-in-the-middle-of-dup-negotiations/

May should have brought Gove back in as Justice Secretary. Since she has brought him back anyway in the face of inevitable (unfounded) criticism it should at least have been to a job where he was widely praised for his work by all sides of the House and importantly by the prison service itself.

Too senior a position I suspect.
Plus - Defra has to do some serious thinking and reimagining of what Brexit means.
Arguably a bigger change for them than any other department.

Michael Gove - like him or loathe him - is a dreamer and this kind of challenge gives him a chance to shine and invest his energy in the May project.

It is unbelievable that Gove was not sent back to Justice. He had the confidence of the legal profession and the prison service in what is now one of the most difficult jobs in government. Truss was a lightweight no mark, Grayling before her was a disaster. Hopefully his day will come again.

I think she broadly wants Brexit campaigners to be running offices that will be most impacted by Brexit?

nigel4england said:

Come On Dave has just won the 4-15 at Brighton.

How very apt.

Which PBers did the coming?

foxinsoxuk said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

@BarristerSecret: 2017 in a single tweet. https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874281655401426944

Are any Tory MPs vegan? Would they feel compelled to abstain on a goat-based QS?

I don't think they have to eat the speech vellum (though perhaps eat the words!)

The new fivers aren't for eating either

david_herdson said:

GIN1138 said:

david_herdson said:

1923. Thoughts?

There are parallels. But the difference is the Brexit clock which probably makes the option of putting Labour in as a minority and then watching them implode rather unlikely...

The problem is that I don't see any realistic way in which a Con (or Con-led) government doesn't implode sooner or later either. Hence, if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
it were done quickly. Better for the Tories to get out on their own terms and bring down Labour at a time of their choosing than vice versa.

On Brexit, Starmer's a capable guy and most Tories could sign up to Corbyn's view of Brexit, at least as far as a constitutional settlement goes. One'd hope it wouldn't be too hard to pick up the thread later on.

Time always offers at least a little hope. Right now they would be slaughtered.

david_herdson said:

GIN1138 said:

david_herdson said:

1923. Thoughts?

There are parallels. But the difference is the Brexit clock which probably makes the option of putting Labour in as a minority and then watching them implode rather unlikely...

The problem is that I don't see any realistic way in which a Con (or Con-led) government doesn't implode sooner or later either. Hence, if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
it were done quickly. Better for the Tories to get out on their own terms and bring down Labour at a time of their choosing than vice versa.

On Brexit, Starmer's a capable guy and most Tories could sign up to Corbyn's view of Brexit, at least as far as a constitutional settlement goes. One'd hope it wouldn't be too hard to pick up the thread later on.

wow.

not_on_fire said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/874274392892735488

Is this about goat skin parchment taking too long to dry to have Queen's Speech on Monday??

Has Theresa May got a death wish? And if so, does she also have super powers in her stare that prevent anyone in the Tory cabinet from reasoning with her?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUBlW5EWnI

david_herdson said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

rottenborough said:

nunu said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874288052159565824

Norman Smith saying could be back on for Monday.

They'd better get a bloody move on. Ascot next week and she won't miss that for anything.

Not till the afternoon though. Queen's Speech at 9am?

And she'll be done with the speaking inside fifteen minutes. Even allowing some extra time for all the walking up and down in fancy dress, she'll make it there by lunchtime.

GIN1138 said:

nunu said:

https://twitter.com/rhodri_jones/status/873862522792796160

That's

1. Not having to worry about their kids tuition fees.

2. Not letting Theresa The House Stealer steal their inheritances.

It is kind of worrying for labour as well, despite the big lead with the middle aged tories still got a 2.5% lead overall. Suggests Tories don't need to make head way with the young, just close the gap with this group first.

david_herdson said:

GIN1138 said:

david_herdson said:

1923. Thoughts?

There are parallels. But the difference is the Brexit clock which probably makes the option of putting Labour in as a minority and then watching them implode rather unlikely...

The problem is that I don't see any realistic way in which a Con (or Con-led) government doesn't implode sooner or later either. Hence, if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
it were done quickly. Better for the Tories to get out on their own terms and bring down Labour at a time of their choosing than vice versa.

On Brexit, Starmer's a capable guy and most Tories could sign up to Corbyn's view of Brexit, at least as far as a constitutional settlement goes. One'd hope it wouldn't be too hard to pick up the thread later on.

What about an Autumn election with a new Con leader?

David_Evershed said:

not_on_fire said:

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/874274392892735488

Is this about goat skin parchment taking too long to dry to have Queen's Speech on Monday??

Yep.

The_Taxman said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Every now and again it hits me just how reckless May was and the cosmic scale of her mistake. The timing of this election was negligent in the extreme.

Yes. Even more remarkable when we thought we were getting a safe pair of hands to steady the ship after the EU referendum.

If this goes badly, really badly, you could end up with a Parliamentary Conservative Party smaller than the current Parliamentary Liberal Party.

Seriously.

I think May should go in the near future. However, I think your assertion that the Tories could end up as 12 seats is a bit silly. Whoever the Tory leader might be they do have an advantage in solidifying their vote in Corbyn. He obviously motivates Labour voters but it is likely he repels Tory ones to the ballot box as well. I think the electorate has done its classic "don't know" answer at the election, just like in 1974 when asked a similar question. If the Tories were up against someone like Blair, then they should worry. I don't see Corbyn increasing his vote much further, if there was another election and the Tories lost and Labour won it, I think it would be down to Tory stay at home voters. But as I say I don't think Corbyn can grow his vote much more.

Many in the Labour party said the same on Corbyn second election to be leader of the Labour Party.On another point who were the conservatives on here who voted for Corbyn as Labour leader ?They told us at the time it was a jolly good wheeze.

Interesting

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Every now and again it hits me just how reckless May was and the cosmic scale of her mistake. The timing of this election was negligent in the extreme.

Yes. Even more remarkable when we thought we were getting a safe pair of hands to steady the ship after the EU referendum.

Mother Theresa to Lady Macbeth in the blink of an eye.

Who'd have guessed?

David_Evershed said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Every now and again it hits me just how reckless May was and the cosmic scale of her mistake. The timing of this election was negligent in the extreme.

Yes. Even more remarkable when we thought we were getting a safe pair of hands to steady the ship after the EU referendum.

If this goes badly, really badly, you could end up with a Parliamentary Conservative Party smaller than the current Parliamentary Liberal Party.

Seriously.

I think the Liberal Party still exists down in Cornwall somewhere (anti EU, pro free market competition, pro free trade) but not in parliament.

I'm sure I read they lost their last councillors in May?

Scott_P said:

@BBCNormanS: BREAKING>>>GOAT U-TURN....Damien Green says Queens Speech might be delayed after all #goatmayhem https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/874290023285350401/photo/1

I suspect HMQ will not be amused with all this messing about with her speech date.

jonny83 said:

Ruth continuing to flex her new muscles:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292223868899328

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292348393574400

Davidson not an MP of course. Diminishes her influence relative to the DUP for example.

ThreeQuidder said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think there is little alternative but for May to resign and her successor call another election. I understand all the arguments about how disruptive this would be but I don't see the planned arrangements as stable and we are simply delaying the inevitable.

Thanks,

Well, you might be right. However, the Article 50 clock is ticking, which is a complicating factor.

I'm not sure I can take another day of this. Yet alone two years.

It's embarrassing, depressing, emasculating and humiliating.

I do feel for you, honestly.

But equally honestly, I'm loving every last minute of this.

Just so as we are all clear on the facts, can anybody here tell us what would be, technically speaking and politics aside, the earliest date by which we could have another election?

I have a feeling it may just be the optimum date for the Conservatives, but it would be nice to know anyway.

I suppose it's possible that after Outlawries and the rest of it on Monday 19th, there could immediately be a "there shall be an early parliamentary general election" motion. Dissolution could follow immediately, followed by 25 working days until the election, so the first available Thursday is 27th July.

I think.

There has to be a Queen's Speech first I think.

Parliament meets tomorrow (13th). The first day or two is swearing in, oaths and Speaker stuff.

Monday (next week) is supposed to be the QS.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Every now and again it hits me just how reckless May was and the cosmic scale of her mistake. The timing of this election was negligent in the extreme.

Yes. Even more remarkable when we thought we were getting a safe pair of hands to steady the ship after the EU referendum.

Yes I would like to know when the decision was made for the snap election and the real reasoning behind that decision.I am sure someone will tell us.

David_Evershed said:

jonny83 said:

Ruth continuing to flex her new muscles:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292223868899328

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292348393574400

Davidson not an MP of course. Diminishes her influence relative to the DUP for example.

She has more MPs than the DUP.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Every now and again it hits me just how reckless May was and the cosmic scale of her mistake. The timing of this election was negligent in the extreme.

Yes. Even more remarkable when we thought we were getting a safe pair of hands to steady the ship after the EU referendum.

The fact that she thought it was reasonable to say "now is not the time" to the SNP because of A50, then call an election was, in hindsight the first sign of madness

Richard_Nabavi said:

Yes. Even more remarkable when we thought we were getting a safe pair of hands to steady the ship after the EU referendum.

You'll remember I always had doubts and was in the Andrea Leadsom camp...

rottenborough said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I think there is little alternative but for May to resign and her successor call another election. I understand all the arguments about how disruptive this would be but I don't see the planned arrangements as stable and we are simply delaying the inevitable.

Thanks,

Well, you might be right. However, the Article 50 clock is ticking, which is a complicating factor.

I'm not sure I can take another day of this. Yet alone two years.

It's embarrassing, depressing, emasculating and humiliating.

I do feel for you, honestly.

But equally honestly, I'm loving every last minute of this.

Just so as we are all clear on the facts, can anybody here tell us what would be, technically speaking and politics aside, the earliest date by which we could have another election?

I have a feeling it may just be the optimum date for the Conservatives, but it would be nice to know anyway.

Feck knows. Is the FTPA actually in operation as there is no House of Commons in session?

If it is then, Commons has to meet, and pass no confidence iirc.

Then wait 14 days.

Then start the usual GE process.

A dissolution motion would be faster, as it was this time. But even going down that route, you'd still be hitting school holidays for the GE date were the new parliament called as soon as possible, and a dissolution motion passed on day 1. The longer election timetable these days sees to that.

david_herdson said:

GIN1138 said:

david_herdson said:

1923. Thoughts?

There are parallels. But the difference is the Brexit clock which probably makes the option of putting Labour in as a minority and then watching them implode rather unlikely...

The problem is that I don't see any realistic way in which a Con (or Con-led) government doesn't implode sooner or later either. Hence, if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
it were done quickly. Better for the Tories to get out on their own terms and bring down Labour at a time of their choosing than vice versa.

On Brexit, Starmer's a capable guy and most Tories could sign up to Corbyn's view of Brexit, at least as far as a constitutional settlement goes. One'd hope it wouldn't be too hard to pick up the thread later on.

Article 50. May triggered Article 50 and then called an election. Think about it. Unless the Conservatives are willing to trash the country, it will have to deal with Article 50. There isn't time for another election which likely won't deliver a more coherent result anyway.

Pottery Barn rules, I'm afraid.

Alistair said:

jonny83 said:

Ruth continuing to flex her new muscles:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292223868899328

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292348393574400

Hmmm, I have a theory that a great deal of the SNP-to-Con switchers were due to Brexit not Independence. I think this could be a risky strategy for Ruth.

Banff and Buchan was the only Scottish seat to vote for Brexit I think. It is why I tipped it at 11-2 after the value on alot of others had dissapeared.

David_Evershed said:

jonny83 said:

Ruth continuing to flex her new muscles:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292223868899328

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/874292348393574400

Davidson not an MP of course. Diminishes her influence relative to the DUP for example.

Yeah but she's sensible, which diminishes her influence even more.

RoyalBlue said:

felix said:

nunu said:

The_Taxman said:

volcanopete said:

Bye bye, LGBT Tory voters.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/12/theresa-may-appoints-anti-lgbt-justice-secretary-in-the-middle-of-dup-negotiations/

I cannot see them repealing gay marriage or civil partnerships or increasing the age of consent for homosexual activity or any legal activity for that matter. I don't see the problem, people are getting worked into a frenzy about nothing.

Are you LGBT yourself? If not then you shouldn't presume on the behalf of others about how to feel about this deal.

I'm gay and have no problems with the deal. Indeed I'd expect if anything the liberal toryism to rub off onto the DUP. You need to calm down.

Seconded. I am sick and tired of people like TSE claiming to know how gay people feel about things like this when they have no idea whatsoever.

The only gay people upset are those on the left, who use their sexuality to go up a rung on the ladder of oppression. The rest of us are getting on with life.

Ruth Davidson is on the left, is she?

Charles said:

logical_song said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/874258390310150144

When did AT&T buy bandwidth in the UK...

Yes, that's the really important question.

FWIW I would tell the DUP to go fuck themselves and dare them to vote down a QS and let Corbyn in.

+1

RoyalBlue said:

felix said:

nunu said:

The_Taxman said:

volcanopete said:

Bye bye, LGBT Tory voters.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/12/theresa-may-appoints-anti-lgbt-justice-secretary-in-the-middle-of-dup-negotiations/

I cannot see them repealing gay marriage or civil partnerships or increasing the age of consent for homosexual activity or any legal activity for that matter. I don't see the problem, people are getting worked into a frenzy about nothing.

Are you LGBT yourself? If not then you shouldn't presume on the behalf of others about how to feel about this deal.

I'm gay and have no problems with the deal. Indeed I'd expect if anything the liberal toryism to rub off onto the DUP. You need to calm down.

Seconded. I am sick and tired of people like TSE claiming to know how gay people feel about things like this when they have no idea whatsoever.

The only gay people upset are those on the left, who use their sexuality to go up a rung on the ladder of oppression. The rest of us are getting on with life.

You're sick of people like TSE claiming to know how gay people feel, because you think that's your prerogative?

JackW said:

Charles said:

logical_song said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/874258390310150144

When did AT&T buy bandwidth in the UK...

Yes, that's the really important question.

FWIW I would tell the DUP to go fuck themselves and dare them to vote down a QS and let Corbyn in.

+1

Agreed has more principle.

Pulpstar said:

Whole thing turning into a complete shambles.

Can we not have a national government whilst the Brexit negotiations are being done, I'm serious - it is bigger than any one party.

Starmer and Davis working together...

Problem is that Davis gives every impression of winging it while Starmer is steeped in detail. Can't see how that works. You are right though: we need a cross-party approach and a strategy that is based on what Andrew Adonis laid out in the Standard today:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/there-are-two-crucial-things-we-need-to-make-this-a-sane-brexit-a3562946.html

If Corbyn will not play ball - and I agree with others that he is unlikely to - then other Labour MPs are just going to have to bite the bullet and rebel. The vast majority are not going to want to see their constituents impoverished on the back of Tory incompetence.

I still think calling the GE was the right idea.

May was always boring and unblessed with original thoughts; no change there before the calling of the GE or now after it.

Regardless of her personality failings, the GE should nevertheless have been a cake-walk. But that silly manifesto gave her natural supporters a collective black eye and in turn gave the media - who hitherto had been lamenting a ponderously boring campaign - something to get their teeth into.

That all transpired to give Corbyn some much-needed momentum just as that clever strategy by Watson and co to rally wavering voters into preventing a BIG Tory majority was starting to work.

This was one big Downing Street fuck up. Not some magic trick by Corbyn, or some reaction to Brexit, or anything else...

RoyalBlue said:

felix said:

nunu said:

The_Taxman said:

volcanopete said:

Bye bye, LGBT Tory voters.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/12/theresa-may-appoints-anti-lgbt-justice-secretary-in-the-middle-of-dup-negotiations/

I cannot see them repealing gay marriage or civil partnerships or increasing the age of consent for homosexual activity or any legal activity for that matter. I don't see the problem, people are getting worked into a frenzy about nothing.

Are you LGBT yourself? If not then you shouldn't presume on the behalf of others about how to feel about this deal.

I'm gay and have no problems with the deal. Indeed I'd expect if anything the liberal toryism to rub off onto the DUP. You need to calm down.

Seconded. I am sick and tired of people like TSE claiming to know how gay people feel about things like this when they have no idea whatsoever.

The only gay people upset are those on the left, who use their sexuality to go up a rung on the ladder of oppression. The rest of us are getting on with life.

Oh hun, oh hun.

I know a lot of gay people, I spent a lot of my adult life in The Village.

In a few weeks time, I am going to be best man at a same sex wedding, which isn't the first time I've had that honour.

Because I've spent a lot of time with gay people since the late 90s, I've seen first hand the homophobic abuse they've received and I've received because they thought I was gay too (I think it was the red shoes that did it).

Fortunately that has became rare as the country has become more tolerant.

They and I are worried all this hard work could be undone with the DUP wagging the Tory tail.

Less than 20 years ago, The Sun ran a front page asking if the country was run by a gay mafia, and a terrorist was targeting gay people in London.

So yeah, I know nothing about how the LGBTI people feel, and you can get fucked you fucking twat.

So what happens when SF decide that their stance on not taking their seats is less important than turning up to give the DUP a hefty kick in the nuts?

Anorak said:

So what happens when SF decide that their stance on not taking their seats is less important than turning up to give the DUP a hefty kick in the nads?

I think the Tories+DUP would still be enough for a majority, but it does bring back memories of the 79 confidence vote and how close that was.

Anorak said:

So what happens when SF decide that their stance on not taking their seats is less important than turning up to give the DUP a hefty kick in the nads?

The thought did cross my mind.

Anorak said:

So what happens when SF decide that their stance on not taking their seats is less important than turning up to give the DUP a hefty kick in the nads?

They are going to do the oath of allegiance? I'll believe it when I see it.

ThreeQuidder said:

atia2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

nunu said:

GIN1138 said:

nunu said:

https://twitter.com/rhodri_jones/status/873862522792796160

That's

1. Not having to worry about their kids tuition fees.

2. Not letting Theresa The House Stealer steal their inheritances.

It is kind of worrying for labour as well, despite the big lead with the middle aged tories still got a 2.5% lead overall. Suggests Tories don't need to make head way with the young, just close the gap with this group first.

The Tories need to take on board one notion: stop scaring the damned horses!

The level uncertainty --> fear amongst the core vote last week was real. People thought they would have to sell their house next week, thought the pension was being frozen. Have bold ideas that grasp the nettle of serious social problems for sure, but work out how the hell you sell it first, work out how you respond to your enemies' attack lines, show it will be worth the pain. None of that was in place.

They weren't good ideas. It's not easy to sell a turd, nor should it be the objective. The objective should be to produce something other than turd. This isn't a game.

Sorting out the social care mess that both parties have contributed to in recent years by inaction from fear of public reaction[*] is not a bad idea.

[*] Quite justified, in the end...

Sorting it out is a great idea. Random catastrophic estate taxes on families unlucky to have a demented member isn't much of a solution. In fact, it's pretty much the definition of not sorting it out: leaving everyone is exposed to their own catastrophic risks is what happens *without* government.

We have already agreed as a society not to do this for cancer. The Tory policy highlighted to unaware voters that we do it for dementia and, quite understandably, they balked.

GIN1138 said:

Theresa will be heading into the lions den around now then?

I thought she was meeting Arlene tomorrow !

atia2 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

atia2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

nunu said:

GIN1138 said:

nunu said:

https://twitter.com/rhodri_jones/status/873862522792796160

That's

1. Not having to worry about their kids tuition fees.

2. Not letting Theresa The House Stealer steal their inheritances.

It is kind of worrying for labour as well, despite the big lead with the middle aged tories still got a 2.5% lead overall. Suggests Tories don't need to make head way with the young, just close the gap with this group first.

The Tories need to take on board one notion: stop scaring the damned horses!

The level uncertainty --> fear amongst the core vote last week was real. People thought they would have to sell their house next week, thought the pension was being frozen. Have bold ideas that grasp the nettle of serious social problems for sure, but work out how the hell you sell it first, work out how you respond to your enemies' attack lines, show it will be worth the pain. None of that was in place.

They weren't good ideas. It's not easy to sell a turd, nor should it be the objective. The objective should be to produce something other than turd. This isn't a game.

Sorting out the social care mess that both parties have contributed to in recent years by inaction from fear of public reaction[*] is not a bad idea.

[*] Quite justified, in the end...

Sorting it out is a great idea. Random catastrophic estate taxes on families unlucky to have a demented member isn't much of a solution. In fact, it's pretty much the definition of not sorting it out: leaving everyone is exposed to their own catastrophic risks is what happens *without* government.

We have already agreed as a society not to do this for cancer. The Tory policy highlighted to unaware voters that we do it for dementia and, quite understandably, they balked.

I do hope that the Left are now going to be arguing just as forcefully against all forms of inheritance and death taxes. After all they are almost identical in their aim to the social care proposals except they take from everyone irrespective of dementia and give back to no one.

I also assume that if and when they get into power they will immediately scrap the current arrangement whereby people are exposed to "catastrophic estate taxes on families unlucky to have a demented member" with the added pain that they only get to keep £23K rather than £100K of the estate. A policy devised by Labour.

Or are you all just fucking hypocrites?