politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Layla Moran now becomes favourite to become next LD leader

Her shaming of Andrew Bridgen was very impressive and confirmed that Bridgen is a bell end.

Fourth. Yes, punters are on the money. It looks likely that Swinson doesn't want the job anyway.

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1082993703436861440

I quite like her, although I have little idea how good a leader she'd be.

But her question to May at today's PMQ's was nasty and unnecessary IMO.

I'm rather impressed with her but wonder why this attractive young woman dresses like a much older (and less attractive) woman.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1082993703436861440

Bring back Betty.

So let me see if I have this right.

The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

Is that where we are?

The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

Slackbladder said:

What is clear is that bercow has played a fast one, overridden parlimentary norms, but he's just going to do it, and get away with it.

But again, it's evidence of what will happen and the damage this is doing to our politics.. The neutrality politically of the Office of the Speaker is now damaged.

Fatally

DavidL said:

So let me see if I have this right.

The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

Is that where we are?

The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

This is almost certainly the revenge being served cold for the government's highly discourteous behaviour to Parliament before Christmas. As you say, the government is abusing its power and John Bercow is seeking to stop that.

Totally O/T....looking for a cold brew coffee setup. Any suggestions that don't cost the national deficit of Venezuela? Thinking about an Asobu Coldbrew Portable.

Slackbladder said:

What is clear is that bercow has played a fast one, overridden parlimentary norms, but he's just going to do it, and get away with it.

But again, it's evidence of what will happen and the damage this is doing to our politics.. The neutrality politically of the Office of the Speaker is now damaged.

May started down this path by delaying the vote.

Concanvasser said:

I'm rather impressed with her but wonder why this attractive young woman dresses like a much older (and less attractive) woman.

I think she dresses well, albeit in a rather geeky style.

Mores to the point her refreshing political style is quite a contrast to the typical party hack. I think she would be nearly as good as Norman Lamb as next leader.

It's not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader for the government, but it's also not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader against the government.

That is where Bercow now is.

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1082994618097111040

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1082993575586082816

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1082994341021474816

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1082989746094329858

IanB2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

Very thoughtful and capable chap.

Dull and worthy doesn't make for a good leader, particularly for a small party struggling to be noticed. cf. Vince Cable.

What about Vera Hobhouse?

david_herdson said:

A woman? Leading the Liberals? It'll be the fall of the Reform Club!

Seriously, yes, she's a fair possibility though a 42% shot (or 11/8 if you prefer), seems pretty short to me when there's no vacancy yet and we don't know who'll stand or under what circumstances.

...or even whether there'll be another general election before Vince gets a chance to waddle off into the sunset......

This thread of mine has aged fairly well:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/06/24/speaker-cornered-time-for-john-bercow-to-stand-down-as-speaker/

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1082994341021474816

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1082989746094329858

Coming from a Comprehensive I entirely agree with that.

The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

El_Capitano said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

Very thoughtful and capable chap.

He is, but the Lib Dems aren't going to replace a grey, Coalition-tainted, health-scare, anti-Brexit MP with a grey, Coalition-tainted, health-scare, not-anti-Brexit MP.

Norman Lamb does support a #peoplesvote, but his approach to Brexit is a bit more nuanced than the full on anti-brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/CJLittlemore/status/1067156787097493505?s=19

Peter_the_Punter said:

The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

Pretty sure a former Aussie Prime Minister and others did too.

But sure, lets just stick with the nutters and ignore everyone else *rolleyes*

MTimT said:

Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.

If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.

Putin wants to sow disharmony in the West. He's supported Brexit and Trump and it will be interesting to see what Robert Mueller adds to our knowledge in these matters.
Of course it's valid to point out when our leaders are taking actions which are against the county's interests (and those of the now electorate) but are in the interests of our enemies.

Crispin Blunt kicking Bercow big time

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Her shaming of Andrew Bridgen was very impressive and confirmed that Bridgen is a bell end.

This thread is going to be the least contentious and divisive of all times if we are going to be discussing Andrew Bridgen's bellendosity.

True, though there was a more general murmuring of discontent at her elision of commemorating Paddy with his/her views on Brexit.

FWIW I don't think Paddy's views on the matter were in much doubt.

grabcocque said:

Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!

DavidL said:

So let me see if I have this right.

The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

Is that where we are?

The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

Consistency and therefore procedure matters. Nevertheless Dominic Grieve's amendment is an important one with apparently wide support in parliament. AFAIUI, he has no other way of tabling it. So if you are opposed to the amendment on procedural grounds you are also opposed to parliament being allowed to debate a matter of substance.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1082998287320473601

logical_song said:

MTimT said:

Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.

If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.

Putin wants to sow disharmony in the West. He's supported Brexit and Trump and it will be interesting to see what Robert Mueller adds to our knowledge in these matters.
Of course it's valid to point out when our leaders are taking actions which are against the county's interests (and those of the now electorate) but are in the interests of our enemies.

And as I said on the previous thread, people calling for the result of the referendum to be ignored and for us to remain in - especially without another referendum - want a result Putin would be very happy with, and one that is not in the country's interests. For it would not end the chaos.

We really are in a sh*t position. Thanks, Brexiteers, you bunch of stinking winnets.

Brom said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

Japan and then Australia and quite a number of commonwealth countries have been supportive before and after the vote.

In Japan they want good relations and some spirited person somehow managed to bring in an angle about sending military kit to keep China in its box but politicians and media generally treat it as vaguely worrying overseas populist stupid, a kind of low-scale version of Trump.

grabcocque said:

Brom said:

grabcocque said:

Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!

The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.

He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

I do have to wonder what George Osborne was smoking when he made Lord Adonis head of the national infrastructure commission?

George Osborne was, first and foremost, a Conservative partisan, so the opportunity to discomfort the then Labour frontbench by appointing a former Blair adviser to such a post was too good to miss.

Adam Holloway - showbiz bonkers.

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

So let me see if I have this right.

The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

Is that where we are?

The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

Consistency and therefore procedure matters. Nevertheless Dominic Grieve's amendment is an important one with apparently wide support in parliament. AFAIUI, he has no other way of tabling it. So if you are opposed to the amendment on procedural grounds you are also opposed to parliament being allowed to debate a matter of substance.

I work in the Court of Session. We have detailed rules of Court but Judges don't let them get in the way of achieving substantial justice even if it sometimes appears that way. They regard them, in large part, as guidance which should assist them in reaching the right decision rather than a bar to it. I really cannot see why the HoC should be different.

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?

My understanding, FWIW, is that the government has 21 days in which to get the MV passed, failing which it has to make a statement about what it intends to do next. S13(4) of the EU Withdrawal Act states:
A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.

I thought the contentious Grieve amendment selected today changes the 21 day window to a mere 3 day window which gives no time at all to make any meaningful consideration or changes.

You think the government hasn't thought through its possible responses already? If not, what has it been doing with the last month? It's not as though it's been doing anything else.

You know someone is in the wrong when their supporters justify the action by citing "revenge."

And showbiz response.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

I do have to wonder what George Osborne was smoking when he made Lord Adonis head of the national infrastructure commission?

Hahaha. We used to hear so much about what a triumph it was for us to have lured this 'moderate' across from Labour. He can't have believed his luck, being feted by the Blairites and then us. Interesting to see you say that as I thought you would have been be a fan.

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

So let me see if I have this right.

The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

Is that where we are?

The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

Consistency and therefore procedure matters. Nevertheless Dominic Grieve's amendment is an important one with apparently wide support in parliament. AFAIUI, he has no other way of tabling it. So if you are opposed to the amendment on procedural grounds you are also opposed to parliament being allowed to debate a matter of substance.

I work in the Court of Session. We have detailed rules of Court but Judges don't let them get in the way of achieving substantial justice even if it sometimes appears that way. They regard them, in large part, as guidance which should assist them in reaching the right decision rather than a bar to it. I really cannot see why the HoC should be different.

“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."

Yorkcity said:

Brom said:

grabcocque said:

Brom said:

grabcocque said:

Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!

The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.

He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!

Berrcow destroyed the MP accusing him of a sticker in his car.
Explained it was his wife's car and he does not control her views.

Spot on.

Why is she parking her car in his work place car park spot?

January 9th, and my one Brexit prediction has come true already - that at some point in the process John Bercow would make a total and utter arse of himself.

grabcocque said:

kle4 said:

Having only been able to glance at this Bercow matter it seems pretty obvious that whatever the rights or wrongs of his decision it's not helped because everyone knows his motivationfor the decision is guided by much more than the high principles he pretends, but that the government's motivations are likewise wider in motivation against him personally.

And since it's narrow politics dressed up as principle, the whole affair will go nowhere other than yet more bitterness, entrenching the sides, with the speaker an outright opponent of the government.

Quite. Impotent fulmination from the ERG bench will change nothing. If you want the Speaker to change, then you have to change the Speaker. Mrs Leadsom?

I don't even like Bercow, or his reasoning sometimes, but it is what it is and yelling about it won't add anything to things now.

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?

My understanding, FWIW, is that the government has 21 days in which to get the MV passed, failing which it has to make a statement about what it intends to do next. S13(4) of the EU Withdrawal Act states:
A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.

I thought the contentious Grieve amendment selected today changes the 21 day window to a mere 3 day window which gives no time at all to make any meaningful consideration or changes.

You think the government hasn't thought through its possible responses already? If not, what has it been doing with the last month? It's not as though it's been doing anything else.

I'm sure it has but if there is to be any meaningful change or negotiation in Europe then 3 weeks is more appropriate than 3 days and it has to happen after not before the vote.

Its standard modus operandi in Europe once a deal is agreed to say it is final and can't be changed, but if it gets rejected domestically to tweak it in order to satisfy domestic concerns. Happened with Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon from memory.

Now you may argue it can't happen here and this will go against history but without trying we'll never know.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Bercows car sticker raised

That just showed how stupid some Tories are. What was the point of bringing that up? It was obviously his wife's car.

They should've left the point of order with Leadsom.

RoyalBlue said:

Our system of government is broken beyond repair. Conventions are worthless when the principals have no principles.

TM its on its off presumably!!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Bercows car sticker raised

And it's his wife's. That just about puts you on the same level as Holloway, Big G, and that's not a great place to be.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Yorkcity said:

Brom said:

grabcocque said:

Brom said:

grabcocque said:

Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!

The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.

He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!

Berrcow destroyed the MP accusing him of a sticker in his car.
Explained it was his wife's car and he does not control her views.

Spot on.

Why is she parking her car in his work place car park spot?

They live in the Palace of Westminster, it is her home.