politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Independents’ day. The implications for Jeremy Corbyn
Options
Comments
-
Well it's 11 oclock0
-
By defecating/defecting the Europhile ex-Tory Tiggers have taken the heat off Jezza on antisemitism.JonathanD said:
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .Tissue_Price said:I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
0 -
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...Fysics_Teacher said:0 -
South Cambs was pretty much the Tories' worst result in last year's locals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_South_Cambridgeshire_District_Council_electionSean_F said:
I think much would turn on the size of the Labour vote. I couldn't see a Conservative polling much under 40%.IanB2 said:
Brexit gain in South Cambs - err, right.YBarddCwsc said:
In a Brexit election, maybe.IanB2 said:
With respect I think there's a huge difference between predicting LibDem gains (which I never did, regarding this seat) and predicting that a very popular Tory MP in one of the most Remain seats in the country would sail home if also backed by the local LDsanother_richard said:
Wasn't Cambridgeshire South one of the constituencies we were told was going to be an easy gain for the LibDems in 2010 ?IanB2 said:
Look at the historic results, and the local election votes.Sean_F said:
The Lib Dems only won 17% there. The villages of that constituency would seem rock-ribbed Conservative to me, although she'd poll well in the Cambridge suburbsIanB2 said:
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy holdTheWhiteRabbit said:
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.rottenborough said:
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
You have to accept that very, very few of the predictions of LibDem 'easy hold' have been correct in recent years.
But, if the next GE is not dominated by Brexit -- which is likely if it is not held shortly -- then no.
The Tories will take that seat from her.0 -
Well indeed.DonTsInferno_ said:
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?TOPPING said:
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.Sodium said:
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.eek said:Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
Then I saw
https://twitter.com/gordonguthrie/status/1098135780495642624
and it doesn't seem such a great idea...
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.0 -
Get on the phone to Tom Watson and Greg Hands.edmundintokyo said:Paul Mason piece in the New Statesman:
I'm sold, what do we have to do to make this happen?Paul Mason said:Suppose, instead of another eight or ten MPs from the Labour and Conservative parties, half of all MPs in parliament joined Chuka Umunna’s group. They would become the government without an election. Suppose they then said to the public, as Umunna and co. have: “send us your ideas for what policies we should pursue,” adding “but don’t rush”.
You would then have the ideal form of neoliberal governance in the UK – and not far off what you have in the French National Assembly under Emmanuel Macron... Their task would be – as Macron’s is – to delay as long as possible the open fight between the two rising forces: radical leftism and authoritarian racism.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/save-his-project-jeremy-corbyn-must-bring-labour-s-old-guard-side0 -
On the HourSlackbladder said:Well it's 11 oclock
0 -
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.Fysics_Teacher said:
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.
0 -
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats._Anazina_ said:
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?YBarddCwsc said:
“Liberals”?_Anazina_ said:
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.IanB2 said:
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy holdTheWhiteRabbit said:
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.rottenborough said:
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
0 -
I hope you defriended then from Facebook for that....have they also bought you boxed wine and the best of Radiohead live as presents?_Anazina_ said:
Someone bought me his biog of Gordon Brown one Christmas. It is a truly awful book.Roger said:
Tom Bower is a piece of work. If anyone has read any of his 'biographies' they'll know what I mean. I read one on Maxwell and even with that open goal it was unresearched 'fact' mixed with garbled opinion written badly. Calling someone a 'self hating Jew' sums up his intellectual rigour rather well.bigjohnowls said:This is real AS from Dangerous hero author.
Dont expect LFI to condemn it though
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/10978887104928972800 -
We are a Common Law nation. No reason the courts can't apply common sense.Chris said:
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...Fysics_Teacher said:
Even if it did it wouldn't change the outcome in this case. Pretty sure treason and joining a proscribed terrorist group would be on the specific conditions list.0 -
Quite true. But this case has highlighted the difficulties with the current law - which effectively gives the Home Secretary the power of exile in a particular set of cases. And for a particular class of UK born citizens.Philip_Thompson said:
Well indeed.DonTsInferno_ said:
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?TOPPING said:
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.Sodium said:
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.eek said:Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
Then I saw
https://twitter.com/gordonguthrie/status/1098135780495642624
and it doesn't seem such a great idea...
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.
0 -
Yes but what does it even mean? Breaking the mould is a slogan, not a policy, and still less a philosophy. It only seems profound in comparison with Brexit means Brexit or Education education education.rottenborough said:
Chukka was very clear. The aim is to break the mould of our politics.Dadge said:
The EU ship is about to sail, so no I don't think the IG is just the Remain Party. Brexit has been the catalyst though, as it has for many non-politicians. The group will build up a lot of goodwill and momentum in the next six weeks, so the timing is quite good. But it's hard to say how things will pan out after 29 March.Sodium said:Is this new party one that is set up as a centre left party who are fed up with Jeremy Corbyn or is it one that has the purpose of remaining in the EU?
If it is the latter then it's going to have a very limited appeal.
This is bigger than Brexit, even if it fails.0 -
I think "appears to be" is the stress here. It is judicially reviewable.Nigelb said:
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.Fysics_Teacher said:
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.0 -
BBC News 24?edmundintokyo said:This all sounds entertainingly theatrical, what would be a good live stream?
0 -
On the other hand, if they really want to catch the mood and create something new, the quicker they get away from Gapes's "we are the Labour Party they left behind" stuff, the better.JonathanD said:
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .Tissue_Price said:I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
0 -
John Woodcock should defect to the Tiggers at 8:15 in the morning
0 -
Why ?TGOHF said:
By defecating/defecting the Europhile ex-Tory Tiggers have taken the heat off Jezza on antisemitism.JonathanD said:
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .Tissue_Price said:I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
0 -
But on what grounds ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I think "appears to be" is the stress here. It is judicially reviewable.Nigelb said:
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.Fysics_Teacher said:
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.
0 -
In theory they exist in reality they don't.YBarddCwsc said:
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats._Anazina_ said:
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?YBarddCwsc said:
“Liberals”?_Anazina_ said:
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.IanB2 said:
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy holdTheWhiteRabbit said:
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.rottenborough said:
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
Liberals is an appropriate short hand for Liberal Democrats in the same way Tories are for The Conservative and Unionist Party.0 -
It's quite hard to get rid of American citizenship, as you'd expect from a country that taxes your worldwide income even if you never go there.Chris said:
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...Fysics_Teacher said:0 -
As expected. TIG in double figures now.0
-
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.0 -
-
BBC very behind the curveScott_P said:0 -
All Jews have an entitlement to Israeli citizenship - it's not a stretch to see how this could be used against them:Nigelb said:
Quite true. But this case has highlighted the difficulties with the current law - which effectively gives the Home Secretary the power of exile in a particular set of cases. And for a particular class of UK born citizens.Philip_Thompson said:
Well indeed.DonTsInferno_ said:
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?TOPPING said:
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.Sodium said:
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.eek said:Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
Then I saw
https://twitter.com/gordonguthrie/status/1098135780495642624
and it doesn't seem such a great idea...
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/shamima-begum-should-not-be-stripped-of-her-citizenship-1.480316
For all that, @Philip_Thompson is right, Javid is acting reasonably and doing the right thing by this country under the law as it stands. It's not exactly fair on Bangladesh, though, is it? A change to the law should be considered.0 -
She is a Brit. And in Britain we have laws to deal with illegal activity. So one of the laws seems to be that the HS can strip someone of their citizenship subject to various conditions (as described by @Chris ).DonTsInferno_ said:
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?TOPPING said:
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.Sodium said:
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.eek said:Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
Then I saw
https://twitter.com/gordonguthrie/status/1098135780495642624
and it doesn't seem such a great idea...
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
My point is that as a judgement, not legal call, I disagree with it.0 -
There should have been a modern treason law with very narrow definition of treason based on aiding a nation or group that British armed forces are currently fighting. That would catch the ISIS supporters but not the pro Kurd people (for instance). The problem we face is that convicting the Jihadi brides in the UK will be difficult. Monitoring them will cost an enormous sum and there is a good chance of a terrorist incident that will cause a hell of a reaction. Difficult situation made worse by lack determination by politicians to take controversial decisions in advance. I don't like the revocation of citizenship approach in this case.0
-
I mean, a decision which is politically motivated could be:Nigelb said:
But on what grounds ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I think "appears to be" is the stress here. It is judicially reviewable.Nigelb said:
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.Fysics_Teacher said:
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.
- Irrational
- Disproportionate (whether at common law or HRA)
- Without due process
etc. etc.
The Home Secretary's ability to make it up as they go along is much smaller than it might appear.
0 -
I expect that Soubry, Wollaston and Allen will be equally scathing about Corbyn. Brexit and dislike for Corbyn is their common denominatorNigelb said:
Why ?TGOHF said:
By defecating/defecting the Europhile ex-Tory Tiggers have taken the heat off Jezza on antisemitism.JonathanD said:
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .Tissue_Price said:I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
Allen Soubry and Wollaston all join TIG0 -
Drip drip approach it is then. #defectionwatch
Wollaston's statement mentions right wing takeover/pandering to DUP and ERG. Positioning as the new Centrists?0 -
In very extreme cases and subject to judicial review.Nigelb said:
Quite true. But this case has highlighted the difficulties with the current law - which effectively gives the Home Secretary the power of exile in a particular set of cases. And for a particular class of UK born citizens.Philip_Thompson said:
Well indeed.DonTsInferno_ said:
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?TOPPING said:
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.Sodium said:
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.eek said:Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
Then I saw
https://twitter.com/gordonguthrie/status/1098135780495642624
and it doesn't seem such a great idea...
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.0 -
-
She is to the left of several people in the Labour Party!Casino_Royale said:
I don't know why Heidi Allen joined the Conservatives in the first place.Sean_F said:
I think much would turn on the size of the Labour vote. I couldn't see a Conservative polling much under 40%.IanB2 said:
Brexit gain in South Cambs - err, right.YBarddCwsc said:
In a Brexit election, maybe.IanB2 said:
With respect I think there's a huge difference between predicting LibDem gains (which I never did, regarding this seat) and predicting that a very popular Tory MP in one of the most Remain seats in the country would sail home if also backed by the local LDsanother_richard said:
Wasn't Cambridgeshire South one of the constituencies we were told was going to be an easy gain for the LibDems in 2010 ?IanB2 said:
Look at the historic results, and the local election votes.Sean_F said:
The Lib Dems only won 17% there. The villages of that constituency would seem rock-ribbed Conservative to me, although she'd poll well in the Cambridge suburbsIanB2 said:
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy holdTheWhiteRabbit said:
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.rottenborough said:
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
You have to accept that very, very few of the predictions of LibDem 'easy hold' have been correct in recent years.
But, if the next GE is not dominated by Brexit -- which is likely if it is not held shortly -- then no.
The Tories will take that seat from her.
She was well to the Left of Cameron/Osborne even in 2014-2015.0 -
0
-
The LibDems is the shorthand.Philip_Thompson said:
In theory they exist in reality they don't.YBarddCwsc said:
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats._Anazina_ said:
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?YBarddCwsc said:
“Liberals”?_Anazina_ said:
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.IanB2 said:
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy holdTheWhiteRabbit said:
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.rottenborough said:
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
Liberals is an appropriate short hand for Liberal Democrats in the same way Tories are for The Conservative and Unionist Party.
But, I don’t really care -- let us ask the abundant members of the party on this board.
Certainly, when Gordon Brown in his charmless way referred to them endlessly as the Liberals, they objected.0 -
-
Can you get entitlement with a conversion to Judaism ?Tissue_Price said:
All Jews have an entitlement to Israeli citizenship0 -
They've gone.0
-
Here we go!0
-
FrancisUrquhart said:
Sarah Wollaston would be quite useful...she can claim with justification that the Tory party she joined under Cameron isn’t there anymore, has lurched to the right etc etc etc.Tissue_Price said:I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
I think Dr W would be the best leader for the Tiggers. Trust the good doctor!0 -
YES!!!!
Good riddance.0 -
Not anymore she is not.TOPPING said:
She is a Brit. And in Britain we have laws to deal with illegal activity. So one of the laws seems to be that the HS can strip someone of their citizenship subject to various conditions (as described by @Chris ).DonTsInferno_ said:
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?TOPPING said:
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.Sodium said:
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.eek said:Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
Then I saw
https://twitter.com/gordonguthrie/status/1098135780495642624
and it doesn't seem such a great idea...
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
My point is that as a judgement, not legal call, I disagree with it.
You disagree with it. I don't. She sacrificed her British citizenship when she went to fight for ISIS. I see no reason to bring her back. Her choice, her actions, she can live with the consequences.0 -
-
From his website: "I want a Labour government that will fully renationalise the NHS, railways and utilities, and postal service. I want to see all funding restored to the emergency services."Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
I agree that we should remove the wasteful marketised competition in the NHS. Rail franchises should be allowed to expire so that our government can run the trains as opposed to the French, German, Dutch and Italian governments. Fine with the post office.
But utilities? "Fully Renationalise" Thames Water and the others? Are you mad? The policy in the manifesto was to set up state owned regional companies to out-compete the private monopolies, not to buy them. How many billions would that cost? And thats before their respective share prices soar knowing the government has committed to buy.
That of course is the policy. Not to purchase United Utilities. But to steal it. Too many of these cretins think we can just take these firms without compensation and everything will be fine.
THIS is why I am staying in the party. To save it from utter wazzocks like our candidate for the Mayor of North Tyneside0 -
So who is next then.....0
-
TIG has good gender balance._Anazina_ said:FrancisUrquhart said:
Sarah Wollaston would be quite useful...she can claim with justification that the Tory party she joined under Cameron isn’t there anymore, has lurched to the right etc etc etc.Tissue_Price said:I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
I think Dr W would be the best leader for the Tiggers. Trust the good doctor!0 -
Can anyone explain how this 'Independent Group' are going to come up with domestic policies that appeal to Labour voters, when one of their members has spent the last 9 years being one of the main cheerleaders for austerity (Soubry)?0
-
All your MPs are belong to TIG.0
-
No objection hereYBarddCwsc said:
The LibDems is the shorthand.Philip_Thompson said:
In theory they exist in reality they don't.YBarddCwsc said:
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats._Anazina_ said:
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?YBarddCwsc said:
“Liberals”?_Anazina_ said:
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.IanB2 said:
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy holdTheWhiteRabbit said:
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.rottenborough said:
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
Liberals is an appropriate short hand for Liberal Democrats in the same way Tories are for The Conservative and Unionist Party.
But, I don’t really care -- let us ask the abundant members of the party on this board.
Certainly, when Gordon Brown in his charmless way referred to them endlessly as the Liberals, they objected.0 -
Seven on Monday, one on Tuesday, three today.
Conservative and Labour MPs will be looking around and thinking "who's next?". This thing could rapidly take on some momentum. (Small m.)0 -
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.TOPPING said:
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.asjohnstone said:
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.TOPPING said:
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?CarlottaVance said:Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').0 -
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council._Anazina_ said:
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside, and Sunderland Councils rejected it due to fears that Newcastle would be the only place to gain from it. Northumberland was only added to try to keep the scheme going.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...0 -
So glad to see the back of Wollaston, the prospects of me voting Tory have increased significently0
-
Change is coming and you are rattledGallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.0 -
Statement says the three will vote with the government on policies they agree with0
-
Ian Austin, I'd guess.FrancisUrquhart said:So who is next then.....
0 -
Phillip LeeFrancisUrquhart said:So who is next then.....
0 -
I am fully in favour of the having of cake and also the eating of it.Big_G_NorthWales said:Statement says the three will vote with the government on policies they agree with
0 -
Looking forward to the dramatic "crossing the floor" moment at PMQs. 0
-
Sky News seem to think that 8+3=10.0
-
You're surely not being serious about "common law" meaning the courts reach decisions based on "common sense" rather than law, are you? I never know when people are posting silly stuff just for amusement here.Philip_Thompson said:
We are a Common Law nation. No reason the courts can't apply common sense.Chris said:
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...Fysics_Teacher said:
Even if it did it wouldn't change the outcome in this case. Pretty sure treason and joining a proscribed terrorist group would be on the specific conditions list.
Fortunately whether people have committed treason isn't decided by online comments (at least not yet). I hope this case will be properly examined at appeal, and it will be interesting to see the conclusion.0 -
-
.0
-
Like when she lied during the referendum more than any other MP? Wouldn't trust her to run a bath let alone a political party._Anazina_ said:FrancisUrquhart said:
Sarah Wollaston would be quite useful...she can claim with justification that the Tory party she joined under Cameron isn’t there anymore, has lurched to the right etc etc etc.Tissue_Price said:I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
I think Dr W would be the best leader for the Tiggers. Trust the good doctor!0 -
The Independent Group is now 7-4 Female majority. That's quite distinctive.0
-
Yeah I agree with all of these points. Sensible point would be to have the HQ in Gateshead to placate the ‘I don’t want to be ruled by Newcastle’ brigade.eek said:
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council without the Wear bit._Anazina_ said:
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
Gateshead and South Tyneside rejected it due to fears of being always outvoted so what's left is the only thing Newcastle could create.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...
Oh well. Greater Northumberland it is.0 -
GONE in 60 seconds.
Tory Party splits in the Commons.
LOL.0 -
The missing piece to that puzzle being that she was a child when she left. And is only just now not a child (the UN definition being anyone under 18). If you think the best way to help humanity is to abandon children who have been abused, then that is a view I don't share.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.TOPPING said:
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.asjohnstone said:
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.TOPPING said:
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?CarlottaVance said:Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').0 -
-
On PL live now, saying if he left the party would become "UKIP lite". Rather late to be worrying about that, I'd have thought.Pulpstar said:
Phillip LeeFrancisUrquhart said:So who is next then.....
0 -
The effect is to halve the Government's majority - even with DUP support.0
-
Their letter says 'sitting alongside' TIG.AndyJS said:Sky News seem to think that 8+3=10.
0 -
I’m afraid it will be negative change.bigjohnowls said:
Change is coming and you are rattledGallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.0 -
For sure. And I would say that Galloway is (or rather was, he's past it now) the more dangerous because he was extremely talented as a communicator whereas Bone is just quite talented.Nigelb said:Both preening ideologues.
A smattering of preening ideologues (if they are good at it) can IMO be healthy for our politics but only so long as they don't gain power. A fine line to tread, I guess, since if they are VERY good at it they might well gain power.
One to watch - Nick Ferrari.0 -
Gateshead is not part of Newcastle. It is part of County Durham. A Mayor covering the area between Tyne and Tees would be my choice. Well, either a mayor or a Prince Bishop._Anazina_ said:
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.0 -
So now the main line of attack in PMQ's is "we've got fewer splitters than you"?0
-
They don't need to come up with anything like that. They simply watch as The Brexit sweeps away all the established political norms.Danny565 said:Can anyone explain how this 'Independent Group' are going to come up with domestic policies that appeal to Labour voters, when one of their members has spent the last 9 years being one of the main cheerleaders for austerity (Soubry)?
How many TIGgers can we look forward to? 20? 50? 100?0 -
try to make that sound a little less threatening, will you?bigjohnowls said:
Change is coming and you are rattledGallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.0 -
Mr. Topping, she's an adult who said she didn't regret going to join ISIS, a group noted for its industrial scale sexual slavery, attempting religious genocide against the Yazidis, burning prisoners alive, and crucifying children.
Severed heads in a bin? Not fazed.
She didn't leave ISIS. ISIS was defeated.0 -
It's not a party, so I think the difference is mootrottenborough said:
Their letter says 'sitting alongside' TIG.AndyJS said:Sky News seem to think that 8+3=10.
0 -
Yes, that's a sensible argument. I'm not actually defending Javid's action (I think it's arguable either way), just trying to distinguish between valid arguments and invalid ones.TOPPING said:
The missing piece to that puzzle being that she was a child when she left. And is only just now not a child (the UN definition being anyone under 18). If you think the best way to help humanity is to abandon children who have been abused, then that is a view I don't share.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.TOPPING said:
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.asjohnstone said:
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.TOPPING said:
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?CarlottaVance said:Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').0 -
Indeed. Given that Gateshead IS Newcastle to anyone visiting from outside they are making an entirely false distinction.eek said:
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council._Anazina_ said:
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside, and Sunderland Councils rejected it due to fears that Newcastle would be the only place to gain from it. Northumberland was only added to try to keep the scheme going.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...0 -
Are there council elections this year beyond the Mayoral election?Gallowgate said:
Yeah I agree with all of these points. Sensible point would be to have the HQ in Gateshead to placate the ‘I don’t want to be ruled by Newcastle’ brigade.eek said:
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council without the Wear bit._Anazina_ said:
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
Gateshead and South Tyneside rejected it due to fears of being always outvoted so what's left is the only thing Newcastle could create.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...
Oh well. Greater Northumberland it is.0 -
Their description of the ERG is correct. However, their voting records show that they are not prepared to tolerate any form of Brexit, despite their manifesto commitments.eek said:0 -
The three conservative mps defecting to TIG have said they will vote with the government on occassions and certainly they will not support a voncjustin124 said:The effect is to halve the Government's majority - even with DUP support.
0 -
It is incredible to hear labour MPs like Mcdonagh on sky now...opening talking about labour becoming a racist stalinist party.0
-
I mean it isn’t part of County Durham. Hasn’t been for a long time.SandyRentool said:
Gateshead is not part of Newcastle. It is part of County Durham. A Mayor covering the area between Tyne and Tees would be my choice. Well, either a mayor or a Prince Bishop._Anazina_ said:
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.Gallowgate said:https://twitter.com/seddonnews/status/1098165445834801153?s=21
Grim. He certainly wont be getting my vote.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.0 -
Understand - I have accepted that it seems to be perfectly legal for Javid to have taken the action he did. Another fault line in the UK, I suppose.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, that's a sensible argument. I'm not actually defending Javid's action (I think it's arguable either way), just trying to distinguish between valid arguments and invalid ones.TOPPING said:
The missing piece to that puzzle being that she was a child when she left. And is only just now not a child (the UN definition being anyone under 18). If you think the best way to help humanity is to abandon children who have been abused, then that is a view I don't share.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.TOPPING said:
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.asjohnstone said:
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.TOPPING said:
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?CarlottaVance said:Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').0 -
I'd say it's still 50/50 whether this remains a temporary parliamentary thing or morphs into a new party or movement. A lot will depend on the public and polling response and whether they get backers, members and councillors.0
-
It makes Jeremy Hunt's argument to the EU look a bit silly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/brexit-labour-jeremy-hunt-eu
Jeremy Hunt has seized on Labour’s split, claiming to European foreign ministers it proved that only concessions to win round Conservative rightwingers will get the Brexit deal through the Commons.0 -
That was pretty frank. I'd expect more defections.FrancisUrquhart said:It is incredible to hear labour MPs like Mcdonagh on sky now...opening talking about labour becoming a racist stalinist party.
0 -
Actually to some extent he is correct. We do still have the situation where a jury can decide not to follow the law if it feels it is wrong. The judge is supposed to neutrally advise on the letter of the law but the jury does not have to follow his guidance if they choose not to.Chris said:
You're surely not being serious about "common law" meaning the courts reach decisions based on "common sense" rather than law, are you? I never know when people are posting silly stuff just for amusement here.Philip_Thompson said:
We are a Common Law nation. No reason the courts can't apply common sense.Chris said:
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.Cyclefree said:
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...Fysics_Teacher said:
Even if it did it wouldn't change the outcome in this case. Pretty sure treason and joining a proscribed terrorist group would be on the specific conditions list.
Fortunately whether people have committed treason isn't decided by online comments (at least not yet). I hope this case will be properly examined at appeal, and it will be interesting to see the conclusion.0
This discussion has been closed.