Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The prospects for The Independent Group

124678

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,080
    IanB2 said:

    It's drifted out to 12, now. But at 20 it was indeed the great trading bet I recommended, and not the screaming lay that another PB'er suggested.
    You persuaded me to remove my lay I'm glad to say :)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,133
    slade said:

    Two local by-elections today; a Lab defence in Cardiff and a Con defence in Oundle. Both should be safe holds.

    Plaid might be able to give Labour a run in Cardiff, given all their troubles. Word is it's being quite hard fought.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859

    And that is always after the MPs have been allowed to take their seats, thus fulfilling the remit of the election. What you want is to stop them being able to take their seats in the first place and just set aside the result of the election completely.
    Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,782
    Charles said:

    (Not) Railing Grayling?
    Jailing Grayling would be almost justifiable at this point...
  • Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
    The question wasn't should we invoke Article 50 or not, the question was should we Remain or Leave. We haven't Left yet - as Remainers keep telling us in response to any good economic news.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    I have been consistent in wanting TM deal but no deal is economic armageddon not only threatening all of us but a real risk to our Union which I support 100%

    I will do anything to prevent no deal including remaining
    And are you settled on that or should we ask again tomorrow?
  • Site notice

    I've started writing a thread on AV.

    Did we discover how one can delete ones entire history on PB and disappear without trace so as to avoid ever encountering said threatened thread?

    Asking for a friend.
  • Nigelb said:

    No, but we hold an election if Parliament votes for it.
    Similarly with a referendum.
    Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.

    What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,922

    Yeah but someone on here googled Bangladeshi nationality law.

    We're tired of experts etc etc.
    To be fair, we're not quite as clueless as the journalists. Earlier today I came across a learned discussion of the legal issues under a Sky News banner, based largely on parts of the British Nationality Act 1981 that were removed in 2006.
  • Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
    Yes it is exactly analogous.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,133

    Article 50 has been invoked and we've got a withdrawal agreement. It's hardly analogous to MPs not taking their seats.
    Tyndall's never going to give it up. We could be standing round watching his coffin being lowered into the ground and we'll hear a muffled voice bitching about some earlier decision that hadn't been enacted.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,782

    Flailing Grayling is the person depicted on the House Boulton sigil....
    And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,746

    But of course that is a dumb metaphor because the electorate are not a jury and the referendum was not a trial. Nor is there any compelling fresh evidence.
    That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.

    As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
  • DavidL said:

    Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.
    No it is not.

    Someone in response replied [agreeing it seems with that idea] that this is the biggest change since Mrs T. But that rather belies the point.

    If defense of the status quo was the job of the Conservative Party then when the status quo included secondary picketing, nationalised companies, union beer and sandwiches etc then under your logic the job of the Conservative Party would have been to defend secondary picketing, nationalised industry, union beer and sandwiches etc

    When the status quo goes against Conservative principles there is nothing unConservative about wishing to change the status quo.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited February 2019
    IanB2 said:

    R4 says basically the same deal is coming back for MV3 next Wednesday

    I've gotten confused. What was MV2? The amendment vote about the backstop? That cannot be it if MV3 is just MV1 again, as it would mean MV2 was not M.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052

    And hopefully you would have not been leader for very long and someone who actually supports democracy would have taken over.
    There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
  • DougSeal said:

    As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.

    We haven't left yet.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,482

    Did we discover how one can delete ones entire history on PB and disappear without trace so as to avoid ever encountering said threatened thread?

    Asking for a friend.
    I'm sure TSE has a long list of new thoughts to offer. Glittering asides, wise gems, and insightful predictions. It'd be a very dark day for AV thread headers if that wasn't the case.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    No more rebel scum yet? I’m getting cravings.

    I know, right?! Disgraceful delay. When they run out of newbies completely by next week I will be very sad.
  • Dadge said:

    There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
    In all honesty that is the logic of the dictator.
  • DougSeal said:


    That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.

    As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.

    Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,782

    Parliament is only able to vote for it after the result of the previous election has been enacted. Otherwise there would be no Parliament to vote on anything.

    What you are suggesting is that the previous set of MPs refuse to accept the results of the GE and try to stay in place. I am pretty sure most sensible people would agree that is not democracy.
    No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572
    Nigelb said:

    And Wailing Grayling the one responding to his press coverage.
    Bailing Grayling is trying to keep his ferry from sinking.

    Oh. There is no ferry, it seems.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572
    Omnium said:

    Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).

    +1
  • Nigelb said:

    No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
    Name one of the current set of MPs who voted Leave in the referendum, who has "realised" that triggering A50 might have been a mistake?

    What we have is a hardcore set of extreme Remainer MPs who haven't reconciled themselves to the original decision. They've not changed their mind and that's the problem. They thought leaving was wrong, they fought against it, lost and haven't given up.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572
    Hailing Grayling.

    When the only future employment he can get is as a cabbie....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,133
    edited February 2019
    .
    Nigelb said:

    No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
    It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615
    blueblue said:

    So how popular do you think his stance is in the Labour heartlands, let alone marginals and Tory seats? I hope Jezza trumpets this particular policy from the rooftops, especially at election time.
    Only a small minority of voters view her as a big security threat. The vast majority of voters positively hate her, especially after justifying the arena bombing. That’s the truth behind polls “strip her of her citizenship, she’s a threat”. Its an age old term and age old trap politicians mustn’t fall into called ‘trial by media’

    the simple fact is Javid is pushing his laissez fair security policy on the basis its strongest security. The reality is, jewellery heist in London, Alice, bubbly sales assistant shot dead, and the blood is on Javids hands. Because if the thousands of foreign fighters aren’t deradicalized by their countries they will be used by the international criminal underworld.

    Javids policy makes us less safe. It’s facade security policy. It’s the wrong policy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,520
    IanB2 said:

    .

    It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
    It is both a means and an end.
  • Charles said:

    Naturally you are referring to my comment rather than @dougseal
    Of course Charles !!!
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Dadge said:

    There is a conflict of principles: democracy versus reason. I'm happier with my choice than I am with May's. She believes that Brexit is bad for the UK but is pursuing it nonetheless because she believes she has a duty to do so. She has no such duty.
    And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    So by your logic we can ignore manifestos.
    They already can, as you no doubt know.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    Nigelb said:

    I can think of a simple fix for that - stop failing.
  • And are you settled on that or should we ask again tomorrow?
    If you follow my posts that has been my position for months
  • Omnium said:

    I'm sure TSE has a long list of new thoughts to offer. Glittering asides, wise gems, and insightful predictions. It'd be a very dark day for AV thread headers if that wasn't the case.
    The same AV rejected by referendum in 2011 by 68% to 32%?

    That AV?

    :innocent:
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,746

    Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
    Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.
  • Nigelb said:



    No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.

    It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
  • is that about the battleship?
    Sunk by aerial torpedoes and bombs at Leyte Gulf in Oct 1944.
  • IanB2 said:

    .

    It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
    Democracy is an end in itself. If you decide it can be ignored or overturned once then it can be done again and again in ways you will not like.
  • If Jezza fell under the omnibus, who would replace him?

    The betting fav is on Thornberry. But I am looking at Raynor. The former isn't seen as sincere in her lefty views surely?
  • DougSeal said:

    Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.
    Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.
  • IanB2 said:

    .

    It seems never to have occurred to him that democracy is actually a means to an end.
    No it's both.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,698

    Bailing Grayling is trying to keep his ferry from sinking.

    Oh. There is no ferry, it seems.
    No Sailing Grayling
  • dots said:

    Only a small minority of voters view her as a big security threat. The vast majority of voters positively hate her, especially after justifying the arena bombing. That’s the truth behind polls “strip her of her citizenship, she’s a threat”. Its an age old term and age old trap politicians mustn’t fall into called ‘trial by media’

    the simple fact is Javid is pushing his laissez fair security policy on the basis its strongest security. The reality is, jewellery heist in London, Alice, bubbly sales assistant shot dead, and the blood is on Javids hands. Because if the thousands of foreign fighters aren’t deradicalized by their countries they will be used by the international criminal underworld.

    Javids policy makes us less safe. It’s facade security policy. It’s the wrong policy.
    The right policy that makes us safe is a drone strike taking her out, like Jihadi John, but that's no longer an option now that she's no longer an enemy combatant.

    Not letting her return to this country, subject to judicial review, is perfectly legal. If you want the law to be changed seek it to be changed. I have no problems with the law of the land being implemented here as intended though.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Democracy is an end in itself. If you decide it can be ignored or overturned once then it can be done again and again in ways you will not like.
    I disagree that it's an end in itself, but Ian and Dadge are totally ignoring that part of what democracy is for is resolving conflicts of interest between different groups and resolving questions which are value judgements. Reason can't fulfill either of those functions
  • AnotherEngineerAnotherEngineer Posts: 64
    edited February 2019

    The same AV rejected by referendum in 2011 by 68% to 32%?

    That AV? :innocent:
    I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a people's vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.

  • StonchStonch Posts: 43

    Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.
    The idea of you as a shark is ridiculous. I must say your parroting of your bizarre view on what democracy is - not having a *democratic* opportunity to review or revise any decision until it’s fully enacted - is really tiresome now. Work out your issues elsewhere and stop being so bloody boring!

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,421
    Chris said:

    The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.


    Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
    “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
    Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

    Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

    It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

    As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,203
    So.
    It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
  • You don’t get to decide when people can change their minds, otherwise it’s tyranny.
    So when the people have voted to leave what (following your definition) is a tyranny, it's tyrannical not to accede to the demands of supporters of said tyranny to have a second vote to allow the people to choose continued tyranny? Thanks for clearing that up.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859
    edited February 2019

    I'm surprised the Lib Dems aren't campaigning for a peoples vote on AV. After all, we didn't know we were voting for chaos under FPTP.

    The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    Maybe we should look to local government for an understanding. Certainly in Wales independent councillors are to be found everywhere.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited February 2019
    rcs1000 said:

    Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

    Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
    .
    It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).

    It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,133
    Jeremy Corbyn is inching closer to backing a second referendum, with the Labour leader under intense pressure from senior figures including Keir Starmer to prevent more restive MPs from leaving the party and spike the guns of the splitters.

    At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, MPs would support the prime minister’s deal in exchange for it being put to a public vote.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Maybe we should look to local government for an understanding. Certainly in Wales independent councillors are to be found everywhere.

    Many areas have a great many. It gets a bit silly when you can have multiple independent groups on the same council. I know down in Cornwall they usually have a very high number of independents, even up to a third or more.

    It can work, but there is a reason political parties, imperfect as they are, are a good idea to provide a general direction on things.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    IanB2 said:

    Jeremy Corbyn is inching closer to backing a second referendum, with the Labour leader under intense pressure from senior figures including Keir Starmer to prevent more restive MPs from leaving the party and spike the guns of the splitters.

    At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, MPs would support the prime minister’s deal in exchange for it being put to a public vote.

    If he'd listened to me he could have done this bloody ages ago and avoided so much hassle.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651
    Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.

    Javid has made a mistake. Authorities in the area today said they would be willing to investigate and prosecute members of IS, provided they got legal and other help from us. That is what we should be doing - helping them bring justice for the victims of IS. Then - and only then - do we consider what we do if (and when) IS members return to Britain.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,818
    Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052

    So.
    It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
    May's deal won't pass.

    What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    Third party breakaway have a habit of reshaping a main party ultimately e.g. the Peelites turning the Whigs into the Liberals, the Liberal Unionists influencing the Tories and the SDP setting the way for New Labour. The TIG will hope to do the same
  • StonchStonch Posts: 43
    edited February 2019

    It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
    No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.

    In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.

    * there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Cyclefree said:

    Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.
    Did that link make sense in your head?
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456

    That is just silly. Democracy does not include economic armageddon
    TM said that no deal was better than a bad deal
  • TIG will not have achieved much unless they bring about change in many aspects of our system of government. Radical, radical radical....They want a referendum. Why one? Why not ten a year to keep the politicians in line with what the people want? It's better than waiting 40 years for one that kicks the establishment where it hurts. Why not introduce non-binding in-school elections at 14, non-binding national elections concerning all schools for 16 year olds, a write to vote in general elactions at 18 and compulsory voting at 21. Our democracy needs to be kicked into the 21st century.

    TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...

    'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”





  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,782
    edited February 2019
    Omnium said:

    Personally I'd just sign May's agreement. We can break every last clause of that agreement as we see fit in the future. At least it gives us a foundation for our future irresponsibility (which I encourage in that it's not a great deal).

    It’s a mark of how thick the ERG are, that they even now they don’t grasp this point.

    As someone remarked below, if Brexit fails to happen, they will bear a significant part of the responsibility; if we No Deal, then much of it.

  • Hailing Grayling.

    When the only future employment he can get is as a cabbie....

    If Failing Grayling annoys him so much I’m going to use it more often.
  • kinabalu said:

    Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

    Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?

    If Labour wins the next election... stop there , they won't, not if Corbyn is leader.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    rcs1000 said:

    Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

    Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

    It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

    As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
    I agree with all of that. Also, there is a wider question. Why should we be trying to dump this villainess on another country? Regardless of the legal details, she has never even visited Bangladesh. We made her, we should bloody deal with her.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    kinabalu said:

    Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

    A stopped clock...
    Cyclefree said:

    Corbyn willing to speak about a British citizen who’s joined an organisation keen on killing Jews but unable or unwilling, apparently, to talk since 2017 to one of his own Jewish MPs who has been under attack, including death threats.

    Such is the positioning of the New Left. They're enemies of the West (the US, UK, Israel, and the global Jewish-Capitalist-Zionist conspiracy that persists in their fevered imaginations,) and the enemies of their enemies are their friends.

    Fruitcakes, loonies and not-really-closet-anymore racists: that's the Labour Party now.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    TIG will not have achieved much unless they bring about change in many aspects of our system of government. Radical, radical radical....They want a referendum. Why one? Why not ten a year to keep the politicians in line with what the people want? It's better than waiting 40 years for one that kicks the establishment where it hurts. Why not introduce non-binding in-school elections at 14, non-binding national elections concerning all schools for 16 year olds, a write to vote in general elactions at 18 and compulsory voting at 21. Our democracy needs to be kicked into the 21st century.

    TIG should concentrate on breaking the mould. PR, an independent candidate chosen by lottery and a subsequent primary in every constituency. It's not long since we picked 12 good men and true at random (women, LGBTU) and asked them to decide on the life or death of someone on trial for murder. Somehow this process is not good enough for parliament. Dreaming? fanciful? In the words of George Bernard Shaw...

    'You see things; you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?”





    Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what's going through Chuka's head
  • Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
    I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,203
    edited February 2019
    Dadge said:

    May's deal won't pass.

    What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
    If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.

    There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    The AV referendum is a good example for another reason. The Tories had a commitment to FPTP in their 2010 manifesto, but still traded away a referendum on AV within days of the election.
    Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.

    I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.

    If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    edited February 2019

    And if Labour wins the next election and May's reason tells her that we'd be better off under a Conservative government?
    Touché!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,922
    rcs1000 said:

    Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

    Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

    It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

    As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
    Yes, I agree with all that. Just because I think it looks as though Javid has satisfied the part of the procedure relating to citizenship, please don't conclude from that that I think he's necessarily satisfied the other requirements, or that his action is right or wise, or that the existing rules are good ones.

    I think politicians should be given as little power as possible to meddle directly in such matters, and there should be strong safeguards against the misuse of what power they are given.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022
    kinabalu said:

    Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

    I don't think the cognoscenti like Corbyn very much. They do hate the tabloids particularly the Mail and the Sun. I don't have any real objection to what he has said on this matter - the bits I've seen anyway - not like when he brought up his reservations with 'shoot to kill' in the immediate aftermath of terror incidents.

    I suspect the Home Office panicked. I wouldn't like to be in Javid's position right now. The idea that we can expect her to go to Bangladesh is just ridiculous. He knows the outrage her return will cause - Ronnie Biggs hardly compares. What choice do we have? Unless she is put on trial where she is.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,859
    Endillion said:

    Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.

    I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.

    If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
    May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    Endillion said:

    Because they didn't win a majority so had to sacrifice some of their manifesto? Which is the argument against proportional systems; you never know what you're actually voting for.

    I assume this about Brexit (again) in which case it's a false comparison because Leave won a majority.

    If it isn't, then, er, I apologise.
    In all fairness, you rarely have the foggiest idea nowadays what you are voting for under FPP.
  • AnotherEngineerAnotherEngineer Posts: 64
    edited February 2019
    kjohnw said:


    TM said that no deal was better than a bad deal

    "No deal is better than a bad deal."

    You could read that to mean that all deals are bad. She certainly behaves as if that's the way she meant it.
  • May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
    You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.

    So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.

    I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    "No deal is better than a bad deal."

    You could read that to mean that all deals are bad. She certainly behaves as if that's the way she meant it.
    May's deal is better than nothing. Nothing is worse than May's deal.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,520
    Stonch said:

    No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.

    In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.

    * there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
    An orderly Brexit is on offer. But, most MP's don't want an orderly Brexit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2019
    rcs1000 said:

    Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

    Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

    It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

    As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
    There is a legal process though.

    EDIT: And it seems that the fact we are debating her citizenship says more about us than the legal process which has already determined that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems that until that matter was settled the decision wasn't taken.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810

    I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
    Well, she’s an obnoxious airhead. But, we knew that.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,922
    kle4 said:

    It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).

    It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
    I don't think you can regard whatever's happened behind closed doors in the Home Office as due process. Who knows what basis the decision was made on?

    The due process would start with an appeal. But it's a problem that - if I understand correctly (I have to say that in case any solicitors are reading this) - the order would remain in force for however long the appeal took. It's been suggested it might take years in this case.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,133

    You keep saying this, although as I keep replying to you and you keep studiously ignoring the Tories won a majority with that pledge in Great Britain, while the DUP won a majority pledging the same thing in Northern Ireland.

    So a majority of the UK was won with that commitment, it was just split across one party representing Britain winning a majority in Britain and a party representing Northern Ireland winning a majority in Northern Ireland. Overall the two with the same pledges won a majority in the UK.

    I'd be curious to see you reply to this point rather than ignore it again.
    It doesn't really matter. What matters is what those MPs who were elected then will vote for now.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    The ERG would be mad to agree to any deal until 5 minutes to midnight.

    As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.

    May held an election and lost her majority. Therefore whatever was in it about the single market and customs union carries as much weight as the 2010 commitment on FPTP.
    Oh, I see. Except that the DUP had similar commitments, so leaving both SM and CU did actually win a majority (kind of).
  • TGOHF said:

    The ERG would be mad to agree to any deal until 5 minutes to midnight.

    As for a government policy of no deal - good chance we will leave with no deal with that never being policy...

    It is time ERG were put back in their box
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,113
    Dadge said:

    May's deal won't pass.

    What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
    It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.

    In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456

    If her Deal is voted down next week, then I believe she will move to the referendum option, blaming Parliament.

    There is a decent majority, if the government vote is included, for passing the Deal as it stands, subject to approval by the voters.
    On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    _Anazina_ said:

    Well, she’s an obnoxious airhead. But, we knew that.
    I'm deeply amused by the thought of your device autocorrecting "warhead" to "airhead".
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Hey, remeber the NC#9 election fraud that meant the result wasn't certified?

    Exciting new twist. The candidates son testified against him! Just look at that picture.

    https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1098556067976564736?s=19
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,421
    kle4 said:

    It troubles me that you keep pretending there is no legal process where there is one. The question is indeed whether there should be the power at all (I'd prefer a minister not have the power), whether the process was correctly followed in this case or not (It seems to me the government may be on shaky ground, but if it was followed correctly I won't protest the outcome), and whether the legal process that exists is adequate (it does seem rather broad to me).

    It is not, as you keep asserting, that it can be done without any legal process. There is one, which can also be appealed.
    I am making a distinction between a legal process, where a judge/jury make a decision after a show of evidence, and a process that is legal, such as the current one.

    I should have been clearer.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    rcs1000 said:

    Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

    Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

    It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

    As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
    The reason is quite simple: Civilisation is breaking down. The rule of law is in serious trouble. We are reverting to a brutal, tribal state of affairs. We just don't realise it or see it, or we otherwise pretend it isn't happening, because it doesn't seem to affect us.

    For the last century or so, the idea that banishment without due process is an acceptable form of punishment would be unthinkable. It is the undoing of enlightenment idea of citizenship. But it has all suddenly become okay.

  • It is time ERG were put back in their box
    The ERG represent a significant chunk of the 52%.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,133
    edited February 2019
    kjohnw said:

    On what grounds do you believe she will move to second referendum since she has catergorically ruled that out knowing it would destroy her party
    Labour (and/or TIG) offering to support the deal if she does - thereby delivering the majority - and the only other option being to become forever the PM who trashed the country. Or be forced into a long and unpredictable extension or revocation.

    When it's sorted she is going, anyway.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651
    rcs1000 said:

    Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.

    Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?

    It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."

    As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
    kinabalu said:

    Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.

    Bringing her back before she has faced justice in the country in which she chose to live is enabling her to evade justice. Do you think that is right?
This discussion has been closed.