politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So TIG becomes Change UK in time for the possible Euro Electio

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country?
There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.

I have to say, despite Yang having to right bonkers ideas, he is actually thinking about how to solve the actual future coming down the tracks in a way that actually fits into the world we live in now.

We aren't seeing much of that elsewhere in the US or the UK.

You can easily imagine what a Labour manifesto would look like. You might not like its contents but they'll be talking about problems that the public come across on a daily basis.

Meanwhile the Conservatives are arguing about the nuances of transubstantiation.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Danny565 said:

Sean_F said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.

If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.

If the EU genuinely does refuse a proper extension, do you not think it's quite likely that a majority of the Commons WILL vote to revoke A50?

I think it would be very close.

Close-ish, but I'd be surprised if there would be many Labour rebels in that circumstance - I'm not even sure Caroline Flint would rebel.

So it would basically come down to whether a Tory rebellion could be kept down to less than 20....seems unlikely to me, but who knows.

I think there would be a lot of abstentions.

It’d fail something like 230 to 220 votes, I think, with the rest abstentions as you say.

Given the quantities of fudge that have been devised and rejected by MPs so far in the indicative votes, I think it would be a big ask to seek a majority vote for straight Revoke (or No Deal). Which is why I'd imagine Default No Deal By Accident still has legs in such a scenario.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1113080936533557250
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1113080573025751041

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

There will soon come a point when PR is in every party's political interests.

Ah yes, PR because it will benefit my party. A very principled position.

Of course.

Since the metropolitan types like it so much, how about PR for the cities, and FPTP for the shires?

AlastairMeeks said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What stirring prospectus would the Conservatives offer the country?
There's not going to be an early general election if the Conservatives can help it. Turkeys don't accelerate towards Christmas.

I have to say, despite Yang having to right bonkers ideas, he is actually thinking about how to solve the actual future coming down the tracks in a way that actually fits into the world we live in now.

We aren't seeing much of that elsewhere in the US or the UK.

You can easily imagine what a Labour manifesto would look like. You might not like its contents but they'll be talking about problems that the public come across on a daily basis.

Meanwhile the Conservatives are arguing about the nuances of transubstantiation.

Well yes Labour are talking about the problems, but the solutions are stuck in the past. renationalize everything, ban self-driving trains, protect jobs in old industries, etc etc etc.

The Tories, not a f##king clue about anything.

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

The Tories will fracture, they won't break-up. They are in the process of becoming a hard right English nationalist party - the party of Rees Mogg, Bridgen, Farage and Francois - and there will be a sizeable constituency for that in England. But the days of the Tories being pragmatic, pro-business and outward looking are over, whatever happens from here.

No, I don't think that is right. There is a huge split, with the pragmatic, pro-business wing of the party still dominant at the MP level. Just look at the Cabinet: Hammond, Rudd, Gauke, Clark etc are absolutely nothing like Rees Mogg and Francois, nor for that matter are Javid, Gove, or Hunt. Not even is Theresa May, although she's buffeted by forces outside her control.

If we crash out in no-deal chaos, them I think the split will become explicit, especially if it is the deliberate result of Theresa May's (or a replacement PM's) policy. I'd expect a major ministerial and cabinet walk-out, and possibly a formal split of the party's MPs. I can't for example see MPs like Richard Harrington (loyal though he is) wanting to be associated with a party implementing crash-out.

Javid and Hunt will support No Deal because they know it is the only way they get to replace May. Gove will, too, because to do otherwise would be to admit he was wrong in the first place.

TGOHF said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Macron and Varadkar press conference. Varadkar looking very worried

Perhaps he should be a bit more flexible - wouldn't have found himself in this mess.

Maybe he can dust of his predecessor’s plans?

TGOHF said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Macron and Varadkar press conference. Varadkar looking very worried

Perhaps he should be a bit more flexible - wouldn't have found himself in this mess.

He noticeably swallowed hard when he said no deal could happen on the 12th April

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Seems like YouTube might as well as banned Tommy Robinson.

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1112930588342841344

I can’t see how this can possibly go wrong.

That risks making a martyr of him.

They have just confirmed what he bangs on about, that the establishment are trying to silence him etc etc etc.

Far better to let him publish, and let the internet pick up any horseshit he spouts (which if the internet is good at one thing, it is jumping on that bandwagon when somebody gets caught out).

The problem with that is the Internet becomes bubbles. The sane Internet might pick up on what he spouts, but the people who follow his sh*t might not pick up on that because they don't follow the right places (and the same goes for others as well).

I think there's a reasonable rule of thumb: if you'd get arrested for standing in the street and shouting something into a megaphone, you shouldn't expect a right to say it on open forums on the Internet. Though there are difficulties with that concept as well wrt territories.

But I don't think on his YouTube channel he has. I believe it is actually very toned down (compared to his EDL days), and YouTube state hasn't broken any rules.

As I say, I think it is a dangerous precedent.

We may have to be careful what we say, but wasn't one of his recent legal difficulties due to his live-streaming from outside a court case?

That was on Facebook.

Yes, but YouTube will be well aware of that, and the reputational risks he carries for them.

brokenwheel said:

Casino_Royale said:

Slackbladder said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.

On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.

Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.

If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.

The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.

It's almost like it was a terrible idea to let metropolitans take over a party of conservative voters.

It's a shame we never got to see IDS v Tony Blair :-D

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Macron and Varadkar press conference. Varadkar looking very worried

How's that EU-wide recession looking, guys?

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Slackbladder said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.

On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.

Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.

If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.

The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.

Tony thinks Boris would beat Jezza!

In a normal world a turnip should be able to beat Mr Thicky. Not a normal world unfortunately.

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.

If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.

It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.

I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.

Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.

She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.

Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?

No party leader would ever do that.

Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.

I think a politician who has become PM should put the interests of the country first if it comes to it. Perhaps I am being naive in expecting that. So be it.

Clearly, no competent politician should allow themselves to be put in such a position. But it is like having a conflict of interest in any other work situation: if there is a conflict of interest between your personal interests or your employer's interests and that of the client you always put the client first. The same here: if there is a conflict between the interests of the country of which she is PM and the interests of the party then she should always put the interests of the country first.

Many decisions can be cited as examples of a PM putting the national interest before party interests. Cameron on gay marriage, Brown on bailing out the banks, Blair on Iraq and tuition fees, Major on Maastricht, Wilson on devaluation etc etc etc. In all these cases the PM of the day thought (not always correctly but that's bye the bye) that what they were doing was in the national interest even though they knew their party would be damaged by it.

A politician who cannot separate national and party interests is not fit to be a minister, let alone PM.

rural_voter said:

OllyT said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Seems like YouTube might as well as banned Tommy Robinson.

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1112930588342841344

I can’t see how this can possibly go wrong.

As an ardent retainer I'm all for giving Yaxley-Lennon as much public exposure as possible, ditto Francois

I agree. Normally don't ban them, lampoon them.

There is also currently this case with the Jewish Australian guy. He sounds like he is a bit of an Australian Tommy Robinson who has said various dodgy stuff about Muslims in the past.

However, he was stitched up by Jim Jefferies, in which an interview was misleadingly editted and released the video of the actual interview including Jefferies saying some really dodgy stuff, and he is the one that is getting the ban hammer.

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

GIN1138 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Slackbladder said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.

On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.

Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.

If (and its a huge if), we'll need a GE sooner rather than later. Parliment can't go on like this.

The Tories will be slaughtered in any new GE.

Tony thinks Boris would beat Jezza!

In a normal world a turnip should be able to beat Mr Thicky. Not a normal world unfortunately.

Not clear which one you are referring to.

Sorry, I meant Corbyn. He is interchangeable with either turnip or Mr. Thicky. Boris, of course, would probably shag the turnip if it stayed still long enough.

rural_voter said:

OllyT said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Seems like YouTube might as well as banned Tommy Robinson.

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1112930588342841344

I can’t see how this can possibly go wrong.

As an ardent retainer I'm all for giving Yaxley-Lennon as much public exposure as possible, ditto Francois

I agree. Normally don't ban them, lampoon them.

That is the proper way to deal with all extremist loonies. Unfortunately it doesnt always work. Corbyn being a case in point

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.

If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.

It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.

I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.

Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.

She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.

Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?

No party leader would ever do that.

Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.

I do not expect May to do anything other than put her party first. I accept she has absolutely no interest in governing for anyone who is not an actual or potential Conservative voter.

I would not expect any political leader to do otherwise.

Yes, we may fantasise about political leaders who break with parties we oppose and support parties we support, but that happens about once a century.

On this "the EU will refuse an extension" thing, I always find Katya Adler is the most reliable journalist...


‏@BBCkatyaadler
12m12 minutes ago
EU emergency #brexit summit 10 April will start 6pm in Brussels. The PM will be invited to ‘engage’ with the 27 EU leaders +inform them of her plans/requests. She’ll then like last time be asked to leave the room while the 27 try to come to unified position required by EU law /1

Leaders are divided. No one likes idea of long #brexit delay - if PM asks for it - and it only takes one country (France in frontline) to say no - as EU decision must be unanimous BUT /2

If the UK does as EU had requested and agrees to holding European parliamentary elections as a condition for being granted a longer #Brexit delay then it’s hard to imagine EU saying no. Even if the PM only presents a vague plan of what intends to do during longer extension /3

This is because if EU leaders say no under those conditions, they will be blamed for no deal by the European businesses and citizens that suffer the consequences /4

Also we are in lead-up to European Parliamentary elections where populist nationalist eurosceptics are expected to perform strongly. AfD, Salvini, Le Pen would have political field day if UK shut out just before vote even though it agreed to EU conditions for longer extension /5

Also the date of 8th April for the PM to inform EU of what she will asks leaders at summit on 10th is not set in stone. It’s the ideal date but .. remember how long and how last minute they waited for her letter before last summit asking for short extension? /6

This is NOT to say that EU leaders are feeling really flexible and open to whatever UK asks for/does. In order to avoid no deal. Far from it. Even the ‘softer’ leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel have toughened their position /7

Dura_Ace said:

isam said:

Not guilty

https://twitter.com/bbcessex/status/1113060047041355776?s=21

I am getting a Yugoslavia in the summer of '91 vibe.

Thread.

https://twitter.com/ivanka/status/1090519840903884800

anothernick said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nope, the final choice is the PM’s. She is the only one who can revoke. It’s her decision alone.

If parliament were to vote with a clear majority in favour of revocation, you'd have a point. Without such a vote, the legal position is unclear and it's not realistic politically.

It's another example of the unreality of the situation, that there are people who seem to think it feasible that May will break totally with her party and lead about 30 of her MPs into alliance with Labour, in order to revoke Brexit or hold a second referendum.

I don't think it's feasible. That's my entire point. May will always choose the position that keeps most Tories inside the Tory party.

Agreed. She clearly doesnt want no deal, but it's what most of her MPs want if the deal fails, which it will.

She would rather her legacy be No Deal and all its consequences for the UK rather than the complete break-up of the Conservative party.

Why would you expect the Conservative Party leader to take an action that leads to the complete break up of their party?

No party leader would ever do that.

Sure, you’ll be cross but you were never going to vote Conservative anyway and those that do by & large disagree with you.

.

Many decisions can be cited as examples of a PM putting the national interest before party interests. Cameron on gay marriage, Brown on bailing out the banks, Blair on Iraq and tuition fees, Major on Maastricht, Wilson on devaluation etc etc etc. In all these cases the PM of the day thought (not always correctly but that's bye the bye) that what they were doing was in the national interest even though they knew their party would be damaged by it.

A politician who cannot separate national and party interests is not fit to be a minister, let alone PM.

There's a difference between adopting a policy that some in your party dislike, and a policy that 90% of your party loathe.

People who expect May to revoke A50 or whip for a second referendum are expecting her to break with the vast majority of her colleagues. That happens once a century.

williamglenn said:

Dura_Ace said:

isam said:

Not guilty

https://twitter.com/bbcessex/status/1113060047041355776?s=21

I am getting a Yugoslavia in the summer of '91 vibe.

Thread.

https://twitter.com/ivanka/status/1090519840903884800

Horseshit...for years and year and years all the ethnic tensions were bubbling away.They were ruled by Tito, who to say was an authoritarian is an understatement, in order to keep things in check.

Jo Maugham QC is distinctly unimpressed by Yvette Cooper's bill (and I must say he does seem to be right on this):

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1113047756355010565/photo/1

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jo Maugham QC is distinctly unimpressed by Yvette Cooper's bill (and I must say he does seem to be right on this):

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1113047756355010565/photo/1

Seems like they're being way too clever by half. Much better just to table a motion demanding the UK govt requests an extension until whenever (even if that motion is technically 'non-binding'), and dare the government to ignore it if it gets a majority.

rural_voter said:

OllyT said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Seems like YouTube might as well as banned Tommy Robinson.

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1112930588342841344

I can’t see how this can possibly go wrong.

As an ardent retainer I'm all for giving Yaxley-Lennon as much public exposure as possible, ditto Francois

I agree. Normally don't ban them, lampoon them.

Although it is deeply regrettable that Francois now has a higher profile, enabling him to spout fluent excrement on a daily basis, taking the piss out of him is seeing us all through this current unpleasantness.

https://twitter.com/henrynewman/status/1113084183373582336?s=21

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

GIN1138 said:

Is Cabinet still meeting?

It is.

And, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Paul Brand from ITV News is reporting rumours of a PM statement later.

#Activatethelectern

I believe the draft statement goes something along the lines of ..

Nothing has changed....MPs you are a bunch of wankers...sit down and shut up...the public demand you pass my shit deal....

Nigel_Foremain said:

GIN1138 said:

williamglenn said:

Dura_Ace said:

isam said:

Not guilty

https://twitter.com/bbcessex/status/1113060047041355776?s=21

I am getting a Yugoslavia in the summer of '91 vibe.

Thread.

https://twitter.com/ivanka/status/1090519840903884800

And the most OTT tweet of the day award goes to...

I hope it is daft. But then last week, we had a member of parliament saying that Theresa May's deal was akin to the fall of Singapore ffs. (Crispin Blunt in case you didn't guess. What a plonker)

I can see some sort of low level civil disobedience at some point in the next few weeks (think the 2000 fuel protests or at worst the poll tax riots) but the idea that we'll have a civil war is for the birds.

kle4 said:

I must say that I am quite surprised the Letwin plan is to just ignore that the Commons did not agree anything to justify an extension and just introduce legislation anyway.

Everyone really thought something would pass, didn't they? And they're trying to carry on as though something did.

Does this Bill actually mean anything?

nielh said:

dixiedean said:

Cyclefree said:

dixiedean said:

This Pelosi defence of Biden ought to be no surprise. We, in a global sense, need to move on from this generation and their bizarre attitudes to entitlement.

It was pretty much the same argument used by the defenders of Clinton. But it is not a generational thing. There is plenty of evidence around that younger men have a similar sense of entitlement when it comes to women. And as much evidence of politicians taking a "my party: right or wrong" approach to misbehaviour of any kind.

Yes, I agree there are young men with a similar sense. The evidence is all around. The difference is that those who aspire to lead from younger generations generally don't treat it as a peccadillo to be indulged.
This is the point that needs to change. The outright enabling from those in power needs to stop.

Someone I know very nearly lost his job due to 'inappropriate body contact'. He doesn't deny that it happened but maintains that it was unintentional. Furthermore, I understand that the 'victim' wasn't aware of it, it was reported by a third party. He was suspended from work for a month or so. Eventually, he was given a final warning and moved to another team.

The reality is that there is now a terror associated with any claim of sexual harrassment. Unlike sexual assault, it can never be disproven.

Inappropriate body contact that the victim wasn’t aware of? Explain how that happens unless she was asleep?

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/henrynewman/status/1113084183373582336?s=21

Well quite - why don't they ask for a few billion in return for backstop flexibility ?

The Uk would happily pay up to move on..

but for what?

Danny565 said:

On this "the EU will refuse an extension" thing, I always find Katya Adler is the most reliable journalist...


‏@BBCkatyaadler
12m12 minutes ago
EU emergency #brexit summit 10 April will start 6pm in Brussels. The PM will be invited to ‘engage’ with the 27 EU leaders +inform them of her plans/requests. She’ll then like last time be asked to leave the room while the 27 try to come to unified position required by EU law /1

Leaders are divided. No one likes idea of long #brexit delay - if PM asks for it - and it only takes one country (France in frontline) to say no - as EU decision must be unanimous BUT /2

If the UK does as EU had requested and agrees to holding European parliamentary elections as a condition for being granted a longer #Brexit delay then it’s hard to imagine EU saying no. Even if the PM only presents a vague plan of what intends to do during longer extension /3

This is because if EU leaders say no under those conditions, they will be blamed for no deal by the European businesses and citizens that suffer the consequences /4

Also we are in lead-up to European Parliamentary elections where populist nationalist eurosceptics are expected to perform strongly. AfD, Salvini, Le Pen would have political field day if UK shut out just before vote even though it agreed to EU conditions for longer extension /5

Also the date of 8th April for the PM to inform EU of what she will asks leaders at summit on 10th is not set in stone. It’s the ideal date but .. remember how long and how last minute they waited for her letter before last summit asking for short extension? /6

This is NOT to say that EU leaders are feeling really flexible and open to whatever UK asks for/does. In order to avoid no deal. Far from it. Even the ‘softer’ leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel have toughened their position /7

Katya is one of the best European journalists

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky reporting that Varadkar needs to come up with answers on the border to Macron in the event of no deal as the EU will have to put in place border checks. Sky confirms considerably worry in the EU over this as they face the issue that they thought the backstop provided cover for

Apparently it is so serious Merkel is due to meet with them both in the next few days

Important not to take the EU confirmation they are ready for no deal, they are not and wait till the EU tell Varadker the EU border will have to be the French coast

That was floated (ouch!) a few weeks ago, iirc. It's been discussed as a worse-case-scenario for longer than that.

And the worst case scenario is now just 10 days away.

Casino_Royale said:

I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.

On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.

Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.

Agreed. It's why I can't see the government getting to 2022 anymore.
They slipped to 313 last night. Yes, many independents aren't going to support a VoNC, but few will be seen to back the government either.

If somehow the Deal passes, and then the DUP withdraw support an immediate VoNC might fail, but the government is never going to manage another two and a half years with only 307 MPs (or whatever they are left with when Grieve & Co flounce out). They either find a partner (who? Only Labour themselves or the SNP could offer enough MPs to make it worthwhile) or survive the summer before dying in the fires of a September VoNC over some trivial (or not so trivial) argument over a second stage negotiating point of Brexit.

I can't see how we avoid a General Election now; and I can't see it being later than 2020 at best.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1113089678503305217

Yes it has, but is it sensible to do so? When they object to government ramming things through this looks unsound, especially as the Commons can provide a solution very quickly. This is cart before horse territory perhaps.

Doing this when the indicative votes failed rather shows their goal was remain at all costs rather than help come up with a solution, given they are still seeking control despite not finding a solution.

GIN1138 said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

GIN1138 said:

Is Cabinet still meeting?

It is.

And, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Paul Brand from ITV News is reporting rumours of a PM statement later.

#Activatethelectern

Nothing. Has. Changed.

Does it have the crest??

RobD said:

GIN1138 said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

GIN1138 said:

Is Cabinet still meeting?

It is.

And, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Paul Brand from ITV News is reporting rumours of a PM statement later.

#Activatethelectern

Nothing. Has. Changed.

Does it have the crest??

The Maybot with a mohawk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POxMp61Ksbk

TheValiant said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think @Sean_F is right that a VoNC should narrowly fail in the event of the MV passing.

On the one hand I’d expect the DUP to vote with the opposition (they mean what they say) but other independents and possibly even TIGers abstaining to avoid a GE and/or putting Corbyn in power, so HMG would survive. Just.

Question then is how the Con minority administration survives a new leader with c.300-310 MPs (I expect a few more casualties of war) for another 3 years with no C&S partner.

Agreed. It's why I can't see the government getting to 2022 anymore.
They slipped to 313 last night. Yes, many independents aren't going to support a VoNC, but few will be seen to back the government either.

If somehow the Deal passes, and then the DUP withdraw support an immediate VoNC might fail, but the government is never going to manage another two and a half years with only 307 MPs (or whatever they are left with when Grieve & Co flounce out). They either find a partner (who? Only Labour themselves or the SNP could offer enough MPs to make it worthwhile) or survive the summer before dying in the fires of a September VoNC over some trivial (or not so trivial) argument over a second stage negotiating point of Brexit.

I can't see how we avoid a General Election now; and I can't see it being later than 2020 at best.

Agreed. Last embers of the government.

Which makes all these cabinet members caring for nothing but taking over as leader all the more baffling to me. They wont get a chance to enjoy it, and might set a record for shortest PM reigns of the 20th century onwards.

AlastairMeeks said:

Mersea Island is very beautiful and very eerie. It would make a good setting for a rural zombie movie.

How would you tell?

(And yes, I have visited - often. Great birding spot, when I was living in London.)

FrancisUrquhart said:

Re Yugoslavia...it wasn't it will never happen there, it was when will it happen there.

You could say the same about Brexit. We were always the country likely to have a rush of blood to the head and think the EU needed us more than the other way round.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1113085401013596161

Andy_Cooke said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

There will soon come a point when PR is in every party's political interests.

Ah yes, PR because it will benefit my party. A very principled position.

As opposed to that principled position of' ah yes that antiquated system of FPTP; it is crap but it benefits my party."

"Disproportionate Representation is democratic when it's my party that gets the disproportionate representation?"

I do think that the contention that it is undemocratic for a party, ideology, or concept to have support in Parliament proportionate to its support in the electorate is a fairly strange contention, but it is one that, curiously, the supporters of the Big Two seem to hold dear.

No-one has ever claimed that PR is undemocratic. Many have, rightly in my view, claimed it's not a very good form of democracy.

Harris_Tweed said:

TGOHF said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TGOHF said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Macron and Varadkar press conference. Varadkar looking very worried

Perhaps he should be a bit more flexible - wouldn't have found himself in this mess.

He noticeably swallowed hard when he said no deal could happen on the 12th April

About 85% of Ireland's total EU freight trade goes via British ports...

Hasn't a (competent) EU version of Chris Grayling bought a load of ferry capacity on Rosslare-Cherbourg/Cork-Roscoff yet?

I think that line has actually scaled down. There is the new Dublin to Ostende mega ferry though.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/brexit-busting-ferry-launched-from-dublin-port-1.3468760?mode=amp