Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Jezza should beware of Nicola bearing gifts

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Jezza should beware of Nicola bearing gifts

Election Polling

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    1st, Now Tommorow like the government whip.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,529
    Second, like....who knows anymore.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    siempre mañana
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    There willl be no running commentary.

    Oh wait ...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    I thought that there was a poll yesterday which had both Labour and the Tories at 26%?

    The scary thing for Labour is that both Nicola and Ruth are formidable campaigners whilst Leonard has so far had absolutely no impact whatsoever and the magic grandpa act seems to have very little traction in Scotland. The risks of Labour going backwards in Scotland in any election are indeed real.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    I've given up making predictions about Scotland, which over the last two elections has totally given the lie to the concept of the "safe seat".
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Its also worth saying following the embarrassing shambles of yesterday that both parties are somewhat fortunate that Nicola restricts her ambitions to Scotland. An SNP equivalent, left of centre but broadly sane and rational (independence apart of course) tempered by the discipline of government and with a competent leader could wreak havoc in England at the moment, and not just in Labour seats either. There has to be a serious question as to whether any of our national parties are currently fit for purpose or sufficiently unified to provide a government.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    The front pages. Ouch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/11/what-fresh-brexit-hell-is-this-what-the-papers-say-about-mays-cancelled-vote
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    It would be good if the next UK GE result in Scotland was identical to that in 2015.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    YellowSubmarine said:

    The front pages. Ouch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/11/what-fresh-brexit-hell-is-this-what-the-papers-say-about-mays-cancelled-vote

    Tomorrows fish and chip paper
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,091
    YellowSubmarine said:

    The front pages. Ouch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/11/what-fresh-brexit-hell-is-this-what-the-papers-say-about-mays-cancelled-vote

    Top marks to the Scotsman. “Mayday, Mayday, Mayday”

    I think Graham Brady’s postman is going to have a busy morning...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    There is a lot of party motivation driving this, which is why it should go to a vote. Parliament can’t deliver this.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    daodao said:

    It would be good if the next UK GE result in Scotland was identical to that in 2015.

    Such a result again would almost certainly lead to independence for Scotland leaving Labour trying to win a majority in England and Wales. Not impossible but not common either.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,091
    edited December 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    YellowSubmarine said:

    The front pages. Ouch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/11/what-fresh-brexit-hell-is-this-what-the-papers-say-about-mays-cancelled-vote

    Quite like the Scotsman (for once): "Mayday, Mayday, abandon vote".
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    If Labour had a less horrifying leader we wouldn't be here, because they would have got some scrutiny in the election leading to them either winning or losing decisively.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Jonathan said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    There is a lot of party motivation driving this, which is why it should go to a vote. Parliament can’t deliver this.
    It's gone to a vote twice. 85% the second time. The only obstacle to the deal passing the Commons is Corbyn's manoeuvring for personal power. A different kind of politics, you see.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    Jonathan said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    There is a lot of party motivation driving this, which is why it should go to a vote. Parliament can’t deliver this.
    Another Suez similarity is that there was a noisy group, both in the country and Parliament which harked back to a time when, faced with a situation like this, Britian's military force would have been enough on it's own. Now we have a similar noisy group harking back to a time when Britain was self-sufficient in food and natuaral resources. 'An island of coal surrounded by a sea full of fish'. Or something.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The bill needs further passage than the meaningful vote to become law. One must conclude Corbyn wishes to see the Tories humiliated rather than a GE.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Donny43 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    If Labour had a less horrifying leader we wouldn't be here, because they would have got some scrutiny in the election leading to them either winning or losing decisively.
    What election? If Labour had had an apparently competent leader 2017 would not have happened. Whether that would have got May any closer to a majority for her plan is a lot less certain.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Donny43 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    If Labour had a less horrifying leader we wouldn't be here, because they would have got some scrutiny in the election leading to them either winning or losing decisively.
    Tories always say the current Labour leader is the most horrifying ever. If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Donny43 said:

    Jonathan said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    There is a lot of party motivation driving this, which is why it should go to a vote. Parliament can’t deliver this.
    It's gone to a vote twice. 85% the second time. The only obstacle to the deal passing the Commons is Corbyn's manoeuvring for personal power. A different kind of politics, you see.
    That really is bullshit. If May had the support of her own party Labour would be irrelevant. Her weakness brings Labour into play.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,091
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The bill needs further passage than the meaningful vote to become law. One must conclude Corbyn wishes to see the Tories humiliated rather than a GE.
    Indeed. But Tories still in power, albeit by the skin of their teeth.

    FPT:
    It’s quite possible that we now enter a period of utter stalemate with a ticking clock. Someone is going to have to do something to break the logjam, remembering that No Deal is the default result and the Executive control the Parliamentary timetable.

    Even if the “meaningful” vote were to have passed, there’s still a lot of legislation resulting which needs to pass to avoid no-deal, and as much as some remainers like to think that a single vote in Parliament will be sufficient to revoke A50, it’s likely to require primary legislation which practically can only be proposed by the government.

    I think the Conservatives are more likely to go with a replacement PM for a harder renegotiation than a softer one (say a Gove or Davis rather than a Hammond or Rudd), but I think the PCP as a whole will support whoever is there, rather than vote against the government in a vote of confidence and force an election where Corbyn might get in.

    The FTPA is a massive complication in all this, and will prolong the stalemate so long as no Conservatives actually cross the floor. If I were Uncle Vince I’d be having a good long chat with Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen, to really throw the cat among the pigeons.

    Oh, and I just noticed that the pound dropped two cents on the dollar yesterday, so today’s a good day to buy the Christmas holiday pounds. Not all is bad in the world!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,349
    DavidL said:

    I thought that there was a poll yesterday which had both Labour and the Tories at 26%?

    The scary thing for Labour is that both Nicola and Ruth are formidable campaigners whilst Leonard has so far had absolutely no impact whatsoever and the magic grandpa act seems to have very little traction in Scotland. The risks of Labour going backwards in Scotland in any election are indeed real.

    On the other hand, there are a fair number of Scottish seats that could go Labour with fairly small swings.

    Sturgeon is competent, but tainted by the patina of government, Davidson otherwise busy at present, and it is very likely that May's deal is even less popular in Scotland than south of the border.

    Any GE would be wide open and unpredictable. Unlike a #peoplesvote it would not focus on Brexit.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    DavidL said:

    Donny43 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    If Labour had a less horrifying leader we wouldn't be here, because they would have got some scrutiny in the election leading to them either winning or losing decisively.
    What election? If Labour had had an apparently competent leader 2017 would not have happened. Whether that would have got May any closer to a majority for her plan is a lot less certain.
    I'm not so sure. The desire to push the next election beyond the end of the Transition period would surely have been there anyway.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,091
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    True, it does appear that the two largest parties are currently un-whippable.

    I hope MPs haven’t made plans for Christmas.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that there was a poll yesterday which had both Labour and the Tories at 26%?

    The scary thing for Labour is that both Nicola and Ruth are formidable campaigners whilst Leonard has so far had absolutely no impact whatsoever and the magic grandpa act seems to have very little traction in Scotland. The risks of Labour going backwards in Scotland in any election are indeed real.

    On the other hand, there are a fair number of Scottish seats that could go Labour with fairly small swings.

    Sturgeon is competent, but tainted by the patina of government, Davidson otherwise busy at present, and it is very likely that May's deal is even less popular in Scotland than south of the border.

    Any GE would be wide open and unpredictable. Unlike a #peoplesvote it would not focus on Brexit.
    Pretty much all of Glasgow for a start. But they are not well placed at the moment and Leonard is looking like a mistake.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,445
    Jonathan said:

    Donny43 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    If Labour had a less horrifying leader we wouldn't be here, because they would have got some scrutiny in the election leading to them either winning or losing decisively.
    Tories always say the current Labour leader is the most horrifying ever. If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place.
    That’s true about the Tories. They do go on monotonously and almost exclusively about how awful the current Labour leader is, no matter who that leader is. That said, it doesn’t mean it’s not true because in Corbyn’s case, partly because of who Corbyn is and partly because of McDonnell,I think it is true. Anyone reading Labour’s last manifesto would realise that Labour would destroy the economy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    True, it does appear that the two largest parties are currently un-whippable.

    I hope MPs haven’t made plans for Christmas.
    They deserve it. They have completely failed to find a workable solution for the UK that can come close to majority support. May has to take primary responsibility of course but none of them are blameless.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    If you've not read the full CJEU judgement it's here. It's very accessible to the lay person and you can even just scroll down to the ruling which us basically a single paragraph. It's fairly emphatic.


    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1252807
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,781
    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    Corbyn looks like he's throwing away the opportunity of a lifetime. At a tiime when the country is looking for leadership he offers nothing other than saying he is going to look at universal credit.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,850
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The bill needs further passage than the meaningful vote to become law. One must conclude Corbyn wishes to see the Tories humiliated rather than a GE.
    Indeed. She needs to win the vote more than once.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The bill needs further passage than the meaningful vote to become law. One must conclude Corbyn wishes to see the Tories humiliated rather than a GE.
    Indeed. But Tories still in power, albeit by the skin of their teeth.

    FPT:
    It’s quite possible that we now enter a period of utter stalemate with a ticking clock. Someone is going to have to do something to break the logjam, remembering that No Deal is the default result and the Executive control the Parliamentary timetable.

    Even if the “meaningful” vote were to have passed, there’s still a lot of legislation resulting which needs to pass to avoid no-deal, and as much as some remainers like to think that a single vote in Parliament will be sufficient to revoke A50, it’s likely to require primary legislation which practically can only be proposed by the government.

    I think the Conservatives are more likely to go with a replacement PM for a harder renegotiation than a softer one (say a Gove or Davis rather than a Hammond or Rudd), but I think the PCP as a whole will support whoever is there, rather than vote against the government in a vote of confidence and force an election where Corbyn might get in.

    The FTPA is a massive complication in all this, and will prolong the stalemate so long as no Conservatives actually cross the floor. If I were Uncle Vince I’d be having a good long chat with Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen, to really throw the cat among the pigeons.

    Oh, and I just noticed that the pound dropped two cents on the dollar yesterday, so today’s a good day to buy the Christmas holiday pounds. Not all is bad in the world!
    Your pleasure in our collapsing currency isn't welcome.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    Donny43 said:

    I've given up making predictions about Scotland, which over the last two elections has totally given the lie to the concept of the "safe seat".

    We could do with some of that south of the border.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,349
    AmpfieldAndy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Donny43 said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    If Labour had a less horrifying leader we wouldn't be here, because they would have got some scrutiny in the election leading to them either winning or losing decisively.
    Tories always say the current Labour leader is the most horrifying ever. If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place.
    That’s true about the Tories. They do go on monotonously and almost exclusively about how awful the current Labour leader is, no matter who that leader is. That said, it doesn’t mean it’s not true because in Corbyn’s case, partly because of who Corbyn is and partly because of McDonnell,I think it is true. Anyone reading Labour’s last manifesto would realise that Labour would destroy the economy.
    Mrs Foxy isn't consumed by Brexit, she is more a Strictly and Apprentice fan, but she was saying very approving things about McDonnell the other night. She finds him rather charming. She is no Corbyn fan, blaming his lame and half-hearted Brexit campaigning for the mess we are in now.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,091
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The bill needs further passage than the meaningful vote to become law. One must conclude Corbyn wishes to see the Tories humiliated rather than a GE.
    Indeed. But Tories still in power, albeit by the skin of their teeth.

    FPT:
    It’s quite possible that we now enter a period of utter stalemate with a ticking clock. Someone is going to have to do something to break the logjam, remembering that No Deal is the default result and the Executive control the Parliamentary timetable.

    Even if the “meaningful” vote were to have passed, there’s still a lot of legislation resulting which needs to pass to avoid no-deal, and as much as some remainers like to think that a single vote in Parliament will be sufficient to revoke A50, it’s likely to require primary legislation which practically can only be proposed by the government.

    I think the Conservatives are more likely to go with a replacement PM for a harder renegotiation than a softer one (say a Gove or Davis rather than a Hammond or Rudd), but I think the PCP as a whole will support whoever is there, rather than vote against the government in a vote of confidence and force an election where Corbyn might get in.

    The FTPA is a massive complication in all this, and will prolong the stalemate so long as no Conservatives actually cross the floor. If I were Uncle Vince I’d be having a good long chat with Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen, to really throw the cat among the pigeons.

    Oh, and I just noticed that the pound dropped two cents on the dollar yesterday, so today’s a good day to buy the Christmas holiday pounds. Not all is bad in the world!
    Your pleasure in our collapsing currency isn't welcome.
    It’s very welcome if you get paid in USD and are visiting the UK next week!
    It’s also good news for exporters, although less so for consumers of Chinese tat.

    Oh, and 2 cents vs the dollar is hardly “collapsing”, it’s 1.5%.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The bill needs further passage than the meaningful vote to become law. One must conclude Corbyn wishes to see the Tories humiliated rather than a GE.
    Hence today Corbyn has insisted on having a Meaningless Vote.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,386
    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,349
    Roger said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    Corbyn looks like he's throwing away the opportunity of a lifetime. At a tiime when the country is looking for leadership he offers nothing other than saying he is going to look at universal credit.
    Corbyn simply is not that bothered by Brexit either way. If parliament was debating Palestinian seccession rather than UK he would be much more interested.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,529
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    A slice of Labour MPs fear their electorates if they let Brexit happen at all.

    The rest fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    A slice of Tory MPs fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    The rest fear their electorates if they let Hard Brexit happen.

    A general election would allow each candidate to get a mandate for their subsequent actions on Brexit. If the voters agreed with that proposed mandate. And many might not.

    And would probably add no clarity as to What Happens Next?

    Nobody can agree on the wording of any second referendum, the offering of which is the ultimate admission of their own uselessness.

    The current political situation really is the most exquisite and intricate device of torture. Hand-crafted by both design and fuck-up, any movement at all seems to result in pain.

    And all the while, the No Deal clock counts down.

    Tick, tock.......tick, tock......

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @Anazina FPT

    Re:violence

    Where we differ is conflation

    I see a nutter on a Brexit March threatening violence and think it’s a nutter

    You see a nutter on a Brexit March threatening violence and think it represents the position of a meaningful proportion of Brexiteers
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    'Speak for England'. Arthur Greenwood could, although he was only acting as Labour that day!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,349
    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    A slice of Labour MPs fear their electorates if they let Brexit happen at all.

    The rest fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    A slice of Tory MPs fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    The rest fear their electorates if they let Hard Brexit happen.

    A general election would allow each candidate to get a mandate for their subsequent actions on Brexit. If the voters agreed with that proposed mandate. And many might not.

    And would probably add no clarity as to What Happens Next?

    Nobody can agree on the wording of any second referendum, the offering of which is the ultimate admission of their own uselessness.

    The current political situation really is the most exquisite and intricate device of torture. Hand-crafted by both design and fuck-up, any movement at all seems to result in pain.

    And all the while, the No Deal clock counts down.

    Tick, tock.......tick, tock......

    A #peoplesvote with 3 options by AV is the only way to answer the Brexit question. Soon enough the government will realise it. Perhaps they can discuss it over Christmas.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Donny43 said:

    I've given up making predictions about Scotland, which over the last two elections has totally given the lie to the concept of the "safe seat".

    Scotland has been incredibly profitable these last 2 UK general elections. Trivially easy to predict.

    A GE in the next few months I would be clueless and probably wouldn't bet.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    edited December 2018
    Charles said:

    @Anazina FPT

    Re:violence

    Where we differ is conflation

    I see a nutter on a Brexit March threatening violence and think it’s a nutter

    You see a nutter on a Brexit March threatening violence and think it represents the position of a meaningful proportion of Brexiteers

    A meaningful proportion of those we see in the media aren't violent but are certainly nutty.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Foxy said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    A slice of Labour MPs fear their electorates if they let Brexit happen at all.

    The rest fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    A slice of Tory MPs fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    The rest fear their electorates if they let Hard Brexit happen.

    A general election would allow each candidate to get a mandate for their subsequent actions on Brexit. If the voters agreed with that proposed mandate. And many might not.

    And would probably add no clarity as to What Happens Next?

    Nobody can agree on the wording of any second referendum, the offering of which is the ultimate admission of their own uselessness.

    The current political situation really is the most exquisite and intricate device of torture. Hand-crafted by both design and fuck-up, any movement at all seems to result in pain.

    And all the while, the No Deal clock counts down.

    Tick, tock.......tick, tock......

    A #peoplesvote with 3 options by AV is the only way to answer the Brexit question. Soon enough the government will realise it. Perhaps they can discuss it over Christmas.
    Quite. Just get on with it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    This social mobility commission doesn't seem to be working if it's chair always has to be a Milburn?
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    After the collapse of Moorside Wylfa might be in trouble. It's amazing how many if these economic stories that would normally get traction are just drowned out at the moment. Interserve is another example.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/10/uk-nuclear-plant-hitachi-wylfa-anglesey
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,386
    Do you ever feel sorry for Mrs May? She's not up to the job, but she's doing her poor best. And the sight of her being attacked by a pack of hyenas is unedifying. Being a sexist, I do feel a little sympathetic. Had it been Philip, I wold have joined in the kicking. Had it been Cameron, I'd have been first in line with the hobnail boots.

    Even worse, she's heading for another kicking from the EU. Calm down, dear, they're not worth it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    A slice of Labour MPs fear their electorates if they let Brexit happen at all.

    The rest fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    A slice of Tory MPs fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    The rest fear their electorates if they let Hard Brexit happen.

    A general election would allow each candidate to get a mandate for their subsequent actions on Brexit. If the voters agreed with that proposed mandate. And many might not.

    And would probably add no clarity as to What Happens Next?

    Nobody can agree on the wording of any second referendum, the offering of which is the ultimate admission of their own uselessness.

    The current political situation really is the most exquisite and intricate device of torture. Hand-crafted by both design and fuck-up, any movement at all seems to result in pain.

    And all the while, the No Deal clock counts down.

    Tick, tock.......tick, tock......

    A #peoplesvote with 3 options by AV is the only way to answer the Brexit question. Soon enough the government will realise it. Perhaps they can discuss it over Christmas.
    Quite. Just get on with it.
    Think about it for a bit, then do it. 2
    Just get on with it. 1
    Wait to be pushed into it. 3
    Don't bother. 4
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.

    He is trying to do anything to avoid taking action that might prevent a Tory Brexit and, ideally, a no deal one.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    CD13 said:

    Do you ever feel sorry for Mrs May? She's not up to the job, but she's doing her poor best. And the sight of her being attacked by a pack of hyenas is unedifying. Being a sexist, I do feel a little sympathetic. Had it been Philip, I wold have joined in the kicking. Had it been Cameron, I'd have been first in line with the hobnail boots.

    Even worse, she's heading for another kicking from the EU. Calm down, dear, they're not worth it.

    I think a lot of people do, hence her poll ratings are actually holding up pretty well. It's those of us who examine in more detail who see that she that set out to solve a problem that would always require an element of cross-party consensus in the worst possible way.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    She wants the same thing, but with the added bonus of blaming Corbyn for it too. It's how she wins.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,091
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    True, it does appear that the two largest parties are currently un-whippable.

    I hope MPs haven’t made plans for Christmas.
    They deserve it. They have completely failed to find a workable solution for the UK that can come close to majority support. May has to take primary responsibility of course but none of them are blameless.
    Matt, as always, sums up that a picture is worth a thousand words.
    https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1072193478417891329/photo/1
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    YellowSubmarine said:

    If you've not read the full CJEU judgement it's here. It's very accessible to the lay person and you can even just scroll down to the ruling which us basically a single paragraph. It's fairly emphatic.


    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1252807

    Even by the standards of the CJEU the decision is the most awful tosh.

    On the admissibility point they completely ignore the fact that however Joanna Cherry MP and others vote in the MV that can never result in the revocation of the Article 50 notice which would require separate primary legislation which the government does not intend to introduce.

    On the substance point they insist that the EU is a new and different form of legal system to be interpreted by its own rules and then apply the Vienna Convention which is designed for an entirely different scenario, namely negotiations between States who are not bound by such an overarching legal system.

    As they in part acknowledge one can only reach such a conclusion by recognising that. "citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States" which should not be taken away from them if at all possible so the Court is willing to bend their interpretation of the provisions to the conclusion that gives the best prospect of that not happening. The question of why it could ever have been intended that a MS had a unilateral right to withdraw a notice but needed the unanimous consent of the other parties to extend the notice period is just ignored.

    It is a political decision by a political court which has overriding objectives independent of the issues raised by the parties actually before it. Its a very different sort of law. Not inherently inferior but different. It is also a good demonstration of how the Court has been a driving force towards ever closer union and would have remained so whether Cameron's opt out of that was in force or not.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,529
    Foxy said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    A slice of Labour MPs fear their electorates if they let Brexit happen at all.

    The rest fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    A slice of Tory MPs fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    The rest fear their electorates if they let Hard Brexit happen.

    A general election would allow each candidate to get a mandate for their subsequent actions on Brexit. If the voters agreed with that proposed mandate. And many might not.

    And would probably add no clarity as to What Happens Next?

    Nobody can agree on the wording of any second referendum, the offering of which is the ultimate admission of their own uselessness.

    The current political situation really is the most exquisite and intricate device of torture. Hand-crafted by both design and fuck-up, any movement at all seems to result in pain.

    And all the while, the No Deal clock counts down.

    Tick, tock.......tick, tock......

    A #peoplesvote with 3 options by AV is the only way to answer the Brexit question. Soon enough the government will realise it. Perhaps they can discuss it over Christmas.
    Too many will fear it will be seen by the 52% as a naked attempt to override their first "peoples" vote.

    And they'd be right. Welcome to Unimaginable World of Pain.

    The only hope is a new PM, new negotiators, new negotiation with EU that comes up with a new settlement of the Irish border. That the MPs can rush through with a collective "phew!!"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    Very true. Most recently wolf was cried at Ed Miliband. Now Corbyn is at the door....
  • tottenhamWCtottenhamWC Posts: 352
    Wonder if any of the following scenarios are possible:
    - TM is VONC'd by her own party (or by Corbyn) and can only win that vote by promising a specific date for the meaningful vote
    - TM loses a VONC by the Tories and an interim PM (subject to the election of a new Tory leader) puts her vote to the HoC; or (if this doesn't happen) A50 is extended given above
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    They're a lot more vicious about Corbyn that about some other Labour leaders as I recall. Wilson was disliked, but to some extent that was a class thing; Wilson had a Northern accent. Callaghan didn't get the same treatment, nor, of course did Smith. Foot got similar treatment to Corbyn, but was feared in the House as a debater. Kinnock was mocked as a windbag, but he wasn't hated. Blair didn't get the 'hate' treatment,apart from 'demon eyes' until after he'd left office. Mandelson was treated like Kinniock.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    Very true. Most recently wolf was cried at Ed Miliband. Now Corbyn is at the door....
    https://ponyonthetories.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-cry-wolf-election.html?m=1
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,529
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    Very true. Most recently wolf was cried at Ed Miliband. Now Corbyn is at the door....
    Whilst somehow ignoring that the crappiest party leader, doing the most damage to the UK, is actually their own......
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,850
    SouthamObserver said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.

    He is trying to do anything to avoid taking action that might prevent a Tory Brexit and, ideally, a no deal one.

    Correct.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    tottenhamWC said:

    Wonder if any of the following scenarios are possible:
    - TM is VONC'd by her own party (or by Corbyn) and can only win that vote by promising a specific date for the meaningful vote
    - TM loses a VONC by the Tories and an interim PM (subject to the election of a new Tory leader) puts her vote to the HoC; or (if this doesn't happen) A50 is extended given above

    i Won't happen, the government has the DUP propping it up, a party particularly uninterested in functional government - but hard as nails on red lines.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    They're a lot more vicious about Corbyn that about some other Labour leaders as I recall. Wilson was disliked, but to some extent that was a class thing; Wilson had a Northern accent. Callaghan didn't get the same treatment, nor, of course did Smith. Foot got similar treatment to Corbyn, but was feared in the House as a debater. Kinnock was mocked as a windbag, but he wasn't hated. Blair didn't get the 'hate' treatment,apart from 'demon eyes' until after he'd left office. Mandelson was treated like Kinniock.
    I think the leader after Blair was technically Brown but I can see where you are coming from.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,850
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    Very true. Most recently wolf was cried at Ed Miliband. Now Corbyn is at the door....
    Corbyn is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,529
    SouthamObserver said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.

    He is trying to do anything to avoid taking action that might prevent a Tory Brexit and, ideally, a no deal one.

    Astonishingly, his Remainy Party are letting him do it.

    Jeremy Corbyn - (No Deal) Brexit's Bessy Mate.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    asjohnstone said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    She wants the same thing, but with the added bonus of blaming Corbyn for it too. It's how she wins.

    Yep. Both Corbyn and Sturgeon would be happy for the UK to break-up. They’re working well together.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good morning, everyone.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    Oooh... you mean we can blame Labour?

    😖
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    DavidL said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    They're a lot more vicious about Corbyn that about some other Labour leaders as I recall. Wilson was disliked, but to some extent that was a class thing; Wilson had a Northern accent. Callaghan didn't get the same treatment, nor, of course did Smith. Foot got similar treatment to Corbyn, but was feared in the House as a debater. Kinnock was mocked as a windbag, but he wasn't hated. Blair didn't get the 'hate' treatment,apart from 'demon eyes' until after he'd left office. Mandelson was treated like Kinniock.
    I think the leader after Blair was technically Brown but I can see where you are coming from.
    Yup, don't think Brown was 'hated' either. There was considerable personal dislike as a result of his attitude. In many ways Brown was similar to Cameron; thought they'd be good as PM but once iin post couldn't hack it.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,742
    MarqueeMark said:

    Foxy said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Corbyn and his advisers want a No Deal Brexit delivered by the Tories. They’ll do nothing to prevent it happening. I suspect Sturgeon understands this and will deploy it effectively come the next elections.

    I’m not sure that’s true. Corbyn is trying to force a GE.
    Not very hard, he simply needs to whip an abstention on the Meaningful vote.
    Am I the only one surprised that didn’t happen yesterday? The vote just about passing, with the Tories split in half and the DUP threatening a VoNC, would surely have been just what Corbyn wants.
    The flaw in that analysis is that much of the Parliamentary Labour party take very little notice of a whip from Corbyn, especially on something like this.
    A slice of Labour MPs fear their electorates if they let Brexit happen at all.

    The rest fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    A slice of Tory MPs fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    The rest fear their electorates if they let Hard Brexit happen.

    A general election would allow each candidate to get a mandate for their subsequent actions on Brexit. If the voters agreed with that proposed mandate. And many might not.

    And would probably add no clarity as to What Happens Next?

    Nobody can agree on the wording of any second referendum, the offering of which is the ultimate admission of their own uselessness.

    The current political situation really is the most exquisite and intricate device of torture. Hand-crafted by both design and fuck-up, any movement at all seems to result in pain.

    And all the while, the No Deal clock counts down.

    Tick, tock.......tick, tock......

    A #peoplesvote with 3 options by AV is the only way to answer the Brexit question. Soon enough the government will realise it. Perhaps they can discuss it over Christmas.
    Too many will fear it will be seen by the 52% as a naked attempt to override their first "peoples" vote.

    And they'd be right. Welcome to Unimaginable World of Pain.

    The only hope is a new PM, new negotiators, new negotiation with EU that comes up with a new settlement of the Irish border. That the MPs can rush through with a collective "phew!!"
    Still think the hope will be when it comes to the crunch MPs back this deal rather than no deal. Because the nearer we get to March, the far more likely it becomes. All the wheezes about new referenda go from being impractical to nigh on impossible if we get into say late Jan.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    DavidL said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    If you've not read the full CJEU judgement it's here. It's very accessible to the lay person and you can even just scroll down to the ruling which us basically a single paragraph. It's fairly emphatic.


    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1252807

    Even by the standards of the CJEU the decision is the most awful tosh.

    On the admissibility point they completely ignore the fact that however Joanna Cherry MP and others vote in the MV that can never result in the revocation of the Article 50 notice which would require separate primary legislation which the government does not intend to introduce.

    On the substance point they insist that the EU is a new and different form of legal system to be interpreted by its own rules and then apply the Vienna Convention which is designed for an entirely different scenario, namely negotiations between States who are not bound by such an overarching legal system.

    As they in part acknowledge one can only reach such a conclusion by recognising that. "citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States" which should not be taken away from them if at all possible so the Court is willing to bend their interpretation of the provisions to the conclusion that gives the best prospect of that not happening. The question of why it could ever have been intended that a MS had a unilateral right to withdraw a notice but needed the unanimous consent of the other parties to extend the notice period is just ignored.

    It is a political decision by a political court which has overriding objectives independent of the issues raised by the parties actually before it. Its a very different sort of law. Not inherently inferior but different. It is also a good demonstration of how the Court has been a driving force towards ever closer union and would have remained so whether Cameron's opt out of that was in force or not.

    Hmmm.

    The current government is not irremoveable. Your first point might have more substance if the Tories had a large majority, but even then it would be flakey. Political events happen. Leaders change, as do government policies and aims. This time yesterday we were 100% certain to be having a vote on the WA today, remember.

  • mr-claypolemr-claypole Posts: 218
    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    That one had a drug addled PM to add to the mix. Suez is very similar to Brexit though in that it taught the British political class in stark term the limits of UK power. A lesson that was in the long term useful as the next generation of Politicians engaged with the world but avoided overstepping for example Vietnam.

    Interesting that Gove was disappointed the vote is not going ahead- almost as if even he just wants it to be over now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    Charles said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    Oooh... you mean we can blame Labour?

    😖
    Well, I'm sure that with a Smith or even a pre-Iraq Blair in charge Labour would be making a lot more headway.
    Dare I say it, but with a Jeremy Thorpe o a Kennedy leading the third party as well the Tories would have completely collapsed by now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    mr-claypole said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Thinking about it, and remembering the last almost similar crisis, Suez, the big difference seems to be me that, as I recall, Hugh Gaitskell, then Labour leader, wasn't the hate figure among the Tories that Corbyn seems to be. Aneurin Bevan was, almost, but he wan't Leader. In other words, IF Labour had a Leader with a less 'horrifying' to the Tories, back story, we'd have a better chance of getting out of the mess.

    That one had a drug addled PM to add to the mix. Suez is very similar to Brexit though in that it taught the British political class in stark term the limits of UK power. A lesson that was in the long term useful as the next generation of Politicians engaged with the world but avoided overstepping for example Vietnam.

    Interesting that Gove was disappointed the vote is not going ahead- almost as if even he just wants it to be over now.
    As opposed to just an addled PM!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Very hard to argue against this:
    https://twitter.com/polprofsteve/status/1072400219579523078?s=21
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Useful for betting purposes:

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1072395069712490496
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    OldKingCole said:

    DavidL said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    They're a lot more vicious about Corbyn that about some other Labour leaders as I recall. Wilson was disliked, but to some extent that was a class thing; Wilson had a Northern accent. Callaghan didn't get the same treatment, nor, of course did Smith. Foot got similar treatment to Corbyn, but was feared in the House as a debater. Kinnock was mocked as a windbag, but he wasn't hated. Blair didn't get the 'hate' treatment,apart from 'demon eyes' until after he'd left office. Mandelson was treated like Kinniock.
    I think the leader after Blair was technically Brown but I can see where you are coming from.
    Yup, don't think Brown was 'hated' either. There was considerable personal dislike as a result of his attitude. In many ways Brown was similar to Cameron; thought they'd be good as PM but once iin post couldn't hack it.
    For me Wilson was clever and capable, eminently suitable for being PM. Foot was clever but incapable, not suitable for PM. Kinnock was not clever or capable but fundamentally decent, not suitable for PM. Blair was clever but fundamentally dishonest, a disappointment but capable of being PM. Brown was clever but borderline mad, incapable of being PM. Miliband was clever but incapable (see his time in Environment) and would probably not have been a good PM. Corbyn is stupid and incapable. By far the worst option in my lifetime.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,529
    numbertwelve said:

    Still think the hope will be when it comes to the crunch MPs back this deal rather than no deal. Because the nearer we get to March, the far more likely it becomes. All the wheezes about new referenda go from being impractical to nigh on impossible if we get into say late Jan.

    Reckon it would have to be rebadged by a new PM as "Yes, it's shit. But it really IS the only shit on offer...."

    Nobody wants to offer round the same old shit sandwiches though. Hence the letters haven't gone in before. But seeing Theresa May and Olly Robbins going back to the EU for "clarifications" and "assurances"....sheeesh. They both need to be made to Step. Away. From. Brexit......
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,520
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Useful for betting purposes:

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1072395069712490496

    Lay them all?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Useful for betting purposes:

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1072395069712490496

    In order to lay them all ?

    I thought Mordaunt was their pick? I'm picking she refused to resign when she was told too.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Useful for betting purposes:

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1072395069712490496

    Any of them would be a gift to Labour.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Meeks, not sure about that.

    Boris is near certain to run, but he's very divisive. Davis may sit it out (he's knocking on a bit). McVey is likely to run, not sure about Raab.

    There's also the likes of Hunt, Javid, Mordaunt to consider.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    SouthamObserver said:

    DavidL said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    If you've not read the full CJEU judgement it's here. It's very accessible to the lay person and you can even just scroll down to the ruling which us basically a single paragraph. It's fairly emphatic.


    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1252807

    Even by the standards of the CJEU the decision is the most awful tosh.

    On the admissibility point they completely ignore the fact that however Joanna Cherry MP and others vote in the MV that can never result in the revocation of the Article 50 notice which would require separate primary legislation which the government does not intend to introduce.

    On the substance point they insist that the EU is a new and different form of legal system to be interpreted by its own rules and then apply the Vienna Convention which is designed for an entirely different scenario, namely negotiations between States who are not bound by such an overarching legal system.

    As they in part acknowledge one can only reach such a conclusion by recognising that. "citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States" which should not be taken away from them if at all possible so the Court is willing to bend their interpretation of the provisions to the conclusion that gives the best prospect of that not happening. The question of why it could ever have been intended that a MS had a unilateral right to withdraw a notice but needed the unanimous consent of the other parties to extend the notice period is just ignored.

    It is a political decision by a political court which has overriding objectives independent of the issues raised by the parties actually before it. Its a very different sort of law. Not inherently inferior but different. It is also a good demonstration of how the Court has been a driving force towards ever closer union and would have remained so whether Cameron's opt out of that was in force or not.

    Hmmm.

    The current government is not irremoveable. Your first point might have more substance if the Tories had a large majority, but even then it would be flakey. Political events happen. Leaders change, as do government policies and aims. This time yesterday we were 100% certain to be having a vote on the WA today, remember.

    I agree this government is very far from immovable, indeed one wonders if it will see out the week. But trying to conceive how we get to a government willing to introduce a bill designed to revoke the Art 50 notice is at the outer reaches of hypothetical. I don't think it will be possible, short of another election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,091
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Useful for betting purposes:

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1072395069712490496

    Davis of those four? Definitely lay the other three.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    asjohnstone said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Useful for betting purposes:

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1072395069712490496

    In order to lay them all ?

    I thought Mordaunt was their pick? I'm picking she refused to resign when she was told too.
    That's their best choices.. jeeez
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,386
    Mr L,

    "For me Wilson was clever and capable, eminently suitable for being PM. Foot was clever but incapable, not suitable for PM. Kinnock was not clever or capable but fundamentally decent, not suitable for PM. Blair was clever but fundamentally dishonest, a disappointment but capable of being PM. Brown was clever but borderline mad, incapable of being PM. Miliband was clever but incapable (see his time in Environment) and would probably not have been a good PM. Corbyn is stupid and incapable. By far the worst option in my lifetime."

    Bravo. You might be totally wrong, but so am I then. That's exactly my opinion. I voted for all of them but Brown, By the late nineties, I'd defected to Charlie K. Brown was certainly made barmy by the promotion. Kinnock stood up to Militant, Foot - well meaning, and Harold too clever for his own good possibly.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    MarqueeMark said:

    A slice of Labour MPs fear their electorates if they let Brexit happen at all.

    The rest fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    A slice of Tory MPs fear their electorates if they block Brexit.

    The rest fear their electorates if they let Hard Brexit happen.

    A general election would allow each candidate to get a mandate for their subsequent actions on Brexit. If the voters agreed with that proposed mandate. And many might not.

    500+ MPs were elected on promises to deliver the referendum result. Have they even realised?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,784
    DavidL said:

    OldKingCole said:

    DavidL said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    They're a lot more vicious about Corbyn that about some other Labour leaders as I recall. Wilson was disliked, but to some extent that was a class thing; Wilson had a Northern accent. Callaghan didn't get the same treatment, nor, of course did Smith. Foot got similar treatment to Corbyn, but was feared in the House as a debater. Kinnock was mocked as a windbag, but he wasn't hated. Blair didn't get the 'hate' treatment,apart from 'demon eyes' until after he'd left office. Mandelson was treated like Kinniock.
    I think the leader after Blair was technically Brown but I can see where you are coming from.
    Yup, don't think Brown was 'hated' either. There was considerable personal dislike as a result of his attitude. In many ways Brown was similar to Cameron; thought they'd be good as PM but once iin post couldn't hack it.
    For me Wilson was clever and capable, eminently suitable for being PM. Foot was clever but incapable, not suitable for PM. Kinnock was not clever or capable but fundamentally decent, not suitable for PM. Blair was clever but fundamentally dishonest, a disappointment but capable of being PM. Brown was clever but borderline mad, incapable of being PM. Miliband was clever but incapable (see his time in Environment) and would probably not have been a good PM. Corbyn is stupid and incapable. By far the worst option in my lifetime.
    You missed out John Smith, who would have been the best PM of the lot.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,665
    Sandpit said:

    /1072395069712490496

    Davis of those four?

    What's appeal of Davis?
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    Leadsom just lays into Bercow on R4..this is only going to get worse
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Meeks, not sure about that.

    Boris is near certain to run, but he's very divisive. Davis may sit it out (he's knocking on a bit). McVey is likely to run, not sure about Raab.

    There's also the likes of Hunt, Javid, Mordaunt to consider.

    I didn't say one of them would win. But knowing that they've got a bloc of 12 very noisy MPs supporting them gives them a small head start that's worth knowing about for betting purposes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Wulfrun_Phil said:

    DavidL said:

    OldKingCole said:

    DavidL said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Jonathan said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Jonathan,

    "If Labour had a different leader we would be in exactly the same place."

    I'm not a Tory, but most Labour contenders would be better than 'oL bonehead. Liz Kendall for starters.

    My point is that Tories always say and think this regardless of who is Labour leader.
    They're a lot more vicious about Corbyn that about some other Labour leaders as I recall. Wilson was disliked, but to some extent that was a class thing; Wilson had a Northern accent. Callaghan didn't get the same treatment, nor, of course did Smith. Foot got similar treatment to Corbyn, but was feared in the House as a debater. Kinnock was mocked as a windbag, but he wasn't hated. Blair didn't get the 'hate' treatment,apart from 'demon eyes' until after he'd left office. Mandelson was treated like Kinniock.
    I think the leader after Blair was technically Brown but I can see where you are coming from.
    Yup, don't think Brown was 'hated' either. There was considerable personal dislike as a result of his attitude. In many ways Brown was similar to Cameron; thought they'd be good as PM but once iin post couldn't hack it.
    For me Wilson was clever and capable, eminently suitable for being PM. Foot was clever but incapable, not suitable for PM. Kinnock was not clever or capable but fundamentally decent, not suitable for PM. Blair was clever but fundamentally dishonest, a disappointment but capable of being PM. Brown was clever but borderline mad, incapable of being PM. Miliband was clever but incapable (see his time in Environment) and would probably not have been a good PM. Corbyn is stupid and incapable. By far the worst option in my lifetime.
    You missed out John Smith, who would have been the best PM of the lot.
    Clever and fundamentally decent. Had he lived he would probably have been a good PM. Still talked of fondly by the oldest members of the Faculty to this day.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    DavidL said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    If you've not read the full CJEU judgement it's here. It's very accessible to the lay person and you can even just scroll down to the ruling which us basically a single paragraph. It's fairly emphatic.


    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1252807

    Even by the standards of the CJEU the decision is the most awful tosh.

    On the admissibility point they completely ignore the fact that however Joanna Cherry MP and others vote in the MV that can never result in the revocation of the Article 50 notice which would require separate primary legislation which the government does not intend to introduce.

    On the substance point they insist that the EU is a new and different form of legal system to be interpreted by its own rules and then apply the Vienna Convention which is designed for an entirely different scenario, namely negotiations between States who are not bound by such an overarching legal system.

    As they in partever have been intended that a MS had a unilateral right to withdraw a notice but needed the unanimous consent of the other parties to extend the notice period is just ignored.

    It is a political decision by a political court which has overriding objectives independent of the issues raised by the parties actually before it. Its a very different sort of law. Not inherently inferior but different. It is also a good demonstration of how the Court has been a driving force towards ever closer union and would have remained so whether Cameron's opt out of that was in force or not.

    Hmmm.

    The current government is not irremoveable. Your first point might have more substance if the Tories had a large majority, but even then it would be flakey. Political events happen. Leaders change, as do government policies and aims. This time yesterday we were 100% certain to be having a vote on the WA today, remember.

    I agree this government is very far from immovable, indeed one wonders if it will see out the week. But trying to conceive how we get to a government willing to introduce a bill designed to revoke the Art 50 notice is at the outer reaches of hypothetical. I don't think it will be possible, short of another election.

    Sure, but the CJEU’s job was not to look at that it was to decide whether the issue was hypothetical. Clearly, it isn’t.

This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025