politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » By George! Will BJ flop or will he last a long time?
Options
Comments
-
What are you talking about? Parliament has already been ordered to be prorogued during that time.Alanbrooke said:
They dont have to wait on BoJo to cancel the conferences, they should be doing it now.Gallowgate said:
They haven’t been given the chance to cancel the conference season thanks to Boris. They have also indicated they will work weekends yeah.Alanbrooke said:
so if theyre so short of time, did they cancel their holidays ? Have they stopped the conference season ? Have they said they will work weekends ?Cyclefree said:
Various facts are wrong:basicbridge said:
Awkward facts, as i said.Gallowgate said:
Not this comment again.basicbridge said:Parliament has had THREE years to agree a deal. And it has failed to do so.
The corollary is that we leave without a deal.
The public seem to understand this rather better than the self-appointed guardians of moral and political rectitude on the remain side seem to realise.
I note no attempt on your part to refute them.
Fact 1: Article 50 was not triggered until 29 March 2017. Two and a half not three years ago.
Fact 2: the deal which was negotiated was first put to Parliament in December, first voted on in January 2019, with the third vote occurring on 29 March 2019.
So the period during which Parliament failed to agree a deal was 4 months. If you include the subsequent indicative votes that just adds a further 2 months.
The period during which Parliament has had time to consider and vote on any sort of deal has, in reality, been a quite short concentrated period. Not over three years at all.
As for weekends well so you say. I listened to one Tory remainer on R4 last week and it was clear he wasnt really that keen.0 -
Swinson will never be near it David , people are stupid but that stupidDavidL said:
We don't need more time to hold an election. Whether we need more time afterwards depends on the result. We may be revoking at the instance of PM Swinson. It's all to play for but this has dragged on too long already.Richard_Nabavi said:
We may well need a different parliament (we certainly need a different PM). The correct way to have got one would have been to agree an extension with the EU, in order to hold a GE with enough time aftwerards to implement the legislation necessary to mitigate the disaster of no-deal, or alternatively to agree and implement a smooth exit, depending on the GE result.DavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.0 -
Well in the absence I'll share an anecdote. I spoke to a local Tory - I think he is the local branch secretary or whatever that role is called in that organisation - in the street at lunchtime. He was really really angry and can't believe the state of the Conservatives and hopes they get walloped by Labour to knock some sense into them.Scott_P said:Hardly news, but local Tory constituency offices have been told not to issue any statements to the press, or members.
Now I should add that all that is true, but I actually know this guy quite well and he's much more of a local community activist than an ideological Tory. I have a feeling if he moved to a very Labour area he'd probably join them. He just likes getting things done. He is also pretty agnostic on Europe, though claims to be a leaver. So he's quite likely not at all representative of the members.
But he did say something that I found interesting. I asked if I should join up to fight against Brexit or were they already too far gone? His reply was that he was the only leaver who ever did any work, and that if it weren't for remainers the party would collapse.
I think he was venting because I am probably the only person in town who he could talk to about this kind of thing. So I don't think this is necessarily a balanced and accurate assessment of the real situation. But it could well be that the lurch to leave might have an adverse effect on the Tory ground game - which may well matter a lot.0 -
Who do you think will win then Malcolm?malcolmg said:
Swinson will never be near it David , people are stupid but that stupidDavidL said:
We don't need more time to hold an election. Whether we need more time afterwards depends on the result. We may be revoking at the instance of PM Swinson. It's all to play for but this has dragged on too long already.Richard_Nabavi said:
We may well need a different parliament (we certainly need a different PM). The correct way to have got one would have been to agree an extension with the EU, in order to hold a GE with enough time aftwerards to implement the legislation necessary to mitigate the disaster of no-deal, or alternatively to agree and implement a smooth exit, depending on the GE result.DavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.0 -
The general election result was we should leave with a deal. Therefore we should leave with a deal. Those are the facts.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.1 -
So your assunption is that MPs should just roll up to the conferences as if nothing is happening, Not much of a crisis then is it ?Gallowgate said:
What are you talking about? Parliament has already been ordered to be prorogued during that time.Alanbrooke said:
They dont have to wait on BoJo to cancel the conferences, they should be doing it now.Gallowgate said:
They haven’t been given the chance to cancel the conference season thanks to Boris. They have also indicated they will work weekends yeah.Alanbrooke said:
so if theyre so short of time, did they cancel their holidays ? Have they stopped the conference season ? Have they said they will work weekends ?Cyclefree said:
Various facts are wrong:basicbridge said:
Awkward facts, as i said.Gallowgate said:
Not this comment again.basicbridge said:Parliament has had THREE years to agree a deal. And it has failed to do so.
The corollary is that we leave without a deal.
The public seem to understand this rather better than the self-appointed guardians of moral and political rectitude on the remain side seem to realise.
I note no attempt on your part to refute them.
Fact 1: Article 50 was not triggered until 29 March 2017. Two and a half not three years ago.
Fact 2: the deal which was negotiated was first put to Parliament in December, first voted on in January 2019, with the third vote occurring on 29 March 2019.
So the period during which Parliament failed to agree a deal was 4 months. If you include the subsequent indicative votes that just adds a further 2 months.
The period during which Parliament has had time to consider and vote on any sort of deal has, in reality, been a quite short concentrated period. Not over three years at all.
As for weekends well so you say. I listened to one Tory remainer on R4 last week and it was clear he wasnt really that keen.
Keep Calm and do what Boris tells you.0 -
Boris is not in charge: Cummings is.Byronic said:
Boris doesn’t want No Deal. Not unless there is no alternative.Stark_Dawning said:Boris is starting to make himself look like an obsessive No Deal nut with this. The nod-and-wink strategy - that it was all a ruse to make the EU waver on the backstop - was okay as far as it went; this smacks of imposing No Deal just because Boris is miffed with his critics. This can only end with Boris and the Tories' being shackled to the rotting corpse of No Deal. Why do they want to go there?
He wants to get a deal or, failing that, to be forced into an extension, and/or a new election, where he can be on the side of “the people”.
I don't think we can trust to this government restraint or intelligence that it simply doesn't have. The Gaderene swine *will* go over the cliff.0 -
I see Cyclefree's comments nowadays through the post they made comparing a potential post-Brexit Britain to post-Tito Yugoslavia.
The trouble, you see, is that if you frame everything in the context of absurd hyperbole, as so many remainers have done, then you tend to undermine your own credibility..0 -
A bit optimistic there David I thinkDavidL said:FWIW I think that Boris will win a majority. Probably lose 7-9 seats to the SNP, a dozen or so to the Lib Dems but gain 40+ from Labour. Whether that actually amounts to a majority will very much depend on how many of the 22 are still there.
0 -
I may not have been entirely serious with that suggestion. Interesting question what the USP of Lib Dems in Scotland is going to be given the position of the SNP. They are almost certain to under perform their UK results up here, Scottish leader notwithstanding.malcolmg said:
Swinson will never be near it David , people are stupid but that stupidDavidL said:
We don't need more time to hold an election. Whether we need more time afterwards depends on the result. We may be revoking at the instance of PM Swinson. It's all to play for but this has dragged on too long already.Richard_Nabavi said:
We may well need a different parliament (we certainly need a different PM). The correct way to have got one would have been to agree an extension with the EU, in order to hold a GE with enough time aftwerards to implement the legislation necessary to mitigate the disaster of no-deal, or alternatively to agree and implement a smooth exit, depending on the GE result.DavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.0 -
He will be at home with his history in the labour partyJBriskinindyref2 said:0 -
Then why is Remain leading Leave in the polls?basicbridge said:I see Cyclefree's comments nowadays through the post they made comparing a potential post-Brexit Britain to post-Tito Yugoslavia.
The trouble, you see, is that if you frame everything in the context of absurd hyperbole, as so many remainers have done, then you tend to undermine your own credibility..1 -
They are even more awkward facts for leavers who want to blame remainers for why we haven't left yet.basicbridge said:
He is honouring the outcome of the referendum. Which let us not forget ALL parties agreed to honour.Tabman said:
That would be ... kharmic.noneoftheabove said:So he destroys the Conservative party to save himself. A selfish coward.
Article 50 was triggered by Parliament with an overwhelming majority.
Both are awkward facts for remain fanatics...0 -
Some of us particularly and interestingly so.Byronic said:
Christ. Why lie so obviously? This isn’t GUIDO. This is PB. We know our history, we know that Churchill qualified those remarks by saying Britain would and should stand apart from such a united Europe, because we are different.Gallowgate said:
“In his famous Zurich speech of 1946, Churchill said, ‘We must build a kind of United States of Europe.. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.’”basicbridge said:
I very very much doubt that.Gallowgate said:
Winston would have signed us up to the Euro.MarqueeMark said:
It's what Winston would have done.SouthamObserver said:Plastic Churchill Boris Johnson is going to throw Winston Churchill's grandson out of the Conservative party. The symbolism is magnificent. And there wil be many loons on here and in the country who will applaud it.
what is your evidence for this startling suggestion?
https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11/10/winston-churchill-a-founder-of-the-european-union/0 -
No it wasnt. Moreover, a deal between two parties can be requested, even desired, but never be guaranteed.noneoftheabove said:
The general election result was we should leave with a deal. Therefore we should leave with a deal. Those are the facts.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.0 -
-
Except she didn't say that.basicbridge said:I see Cyclefree's comments nowadays through the post they made comparing a potential post-Brexit Britain to post-Tito Yugoslavia.
The trouble, you see, is that if you frame everything in the context of absurd hyperbole, as so many remainers have done, then you tend to undermine your own credibility..
Why do you lie like a member of the Leave campaign?0 -
Hang on. You’re accusing *me* of misinterpreting facts? Have some self awareness.Byronic said:
Christ. Why lie so obviously? This isn’t GUIDO. This is PB. We know our history, we know that Churchill qualified those remarks by saying Britain would and should stand apart from such a united Europe, because we are different.Gallowgate said:
“In his famous Zurich speech of 1946, Churchill said, ‘We must build a kind of United States of Europe.. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.’”basicbridge said:
I very very much doubt that.Gallowgate said:
Winston would have signed us up to the Euro.MarqueeMark said:
It's what Winston would have done.SouthamObserver said:Plastic Churchill Boris Johnson is going to throw Winston Churchill's grandson out of the Conservative party. The symbolism is magnificent. And there wil be many loons on here and in the country who will applaud it.
what is your evidence for this startling suggestion?
https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11/10/winston-churchill-a-founder-of-the-european-union/0 -
-
QEDmalcolmg said:
Can you get any worse, Farage will never ever even as toilet cleaner be near Downing streetHYUFD said:
Further extension if allowed by Boris likely puts Farage in Downing Street or Corbyn in Downing Street with a split Leaver voteDavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.0 -
Flanner said:
And every candidate to personally commit to totally and only no deal or he stands candidates against the lotPhilip_Thompson said:
But that's not what Farage has demanded.Scott_P said:
If Johnson expels from the party any hardline Remainers then that should be sufficient to show he is serious about Brexit.
"Commit TOTALLY to No Deal", said Britain's most unsuccessful Parliamentary election organiser to Johnson ever last week, "Or I'll put 650 candidates up against you".
So either Farage admits he was posturing - or loses his deposit in the overwhelming majority of those 650 seats and hands practically all the others over to the opposition. Remember: EVERY election since the Euros that Brexit have stood in has resulted in Labour or the LDs winning a seat they'd have lost without Farage's help.0 -
Believing that Johnson would change the date of a general election after announcing it for an earlier date is a conspiracy too far in my opinion. I don't think any British politician would do that.0
-
I blame mild sunstroke for my shoddy syntax. It’s about 35C here, and feels much hotter. Sparta is scorchio.DavidL said:
Some of us particularly and interestingly so.Byronic said:
Christ. Why lie so obviously? This isn’t GUIDO. This is PB. We know our history, we know that Churchill qualified those remarks by saying Britain would and should stand apart from such a united Europe, because we are different.Gallowgate said:
“In his famous Zurich speech of 1946, Churchill said, ‘We must build a kind of United States of Europe.. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.’”basicbridge said:
I very very much doubt that.Gallowgate said:
Winston would have signed us up to the Euro.MarqueeMark said:
It's what Winston would have done.SouthamObserver said:Plastic Churchill Boris Johnson is going to throw Winston Churchill's grandson out of the Conservative party. The symbolism is magnificent. And there wil be many loons on here and in the country who will applaud it.
what is your evidence for this startling suggestion?
https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11/10/winston-churchill-a-founder-of-the-european-union/0 -
Not really. A swing in the Tories favour from Labour of 3.6% would imply a Tory vote share lead of 9.7% - in line with what some polls are currently suggesting. Other polls are showing a smaller swing of 2.25%.DavidL said:
The swing to win Labour's 40 most vulnerable seats is 3.61%, considerably less than what current polling is showing. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labour#UKParliamenttpfkar said:
Both sides seem convinced they are about to win a GE. So it probably does need testing. I can't quite see where 40 gains for the Tories from Labour come from to be honest - care to suggest a few? Even the likes of Canterbury won't be easy.DavidL said:FWIW I think that Boris will win a majority. Probably lose 7-9 seats to the SNP, a dozen or so to the Lib Dems but gain 40+ from Labour. Whether that actually amounts to a majority will very much depend on how many of the 22 are still there.
Tories under attack from SNP, grevious attack from Lib Dems, and even seats like SW Herts which could be Gauke/Tories/Brexit all on the leave side, usually a safe seat but anything could happen this time.
Of course this time around UNS will probably be as much use as a chocolate tea pot but a lot of these are in the east midlands and I suspect that they will be particularly vulnerable.0 -
The referendum was advisory. It was fought by Leave on the prospectus that a deal would be a cinch. No deal was not part of the prospectus. The advice of the advisory referendum no longer holds good and further guidance is needed.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.1 -
This is Boris though - a man who has been fired for lying and requested someone be beaten up. Also one who has the sexual morals an alley cat would be embarrassed aboutAndyJS said:Believing that Johnson would change the date of a general election after announcing it for an earlier date is a conspiracy too far in my opinion. I don't think any British politician would do that.
0 -
Cummings would.AndyJS said:Believing that Johnson would change the date of a general election after announcing it for an earlier date is a conspiracy too far in my opinion. I don't think any British politician would do that.
Remember, he literally holds Parliament in contempt0 -
Isn't that a bit like believing lightning will strike twice? I can't see Labour going from 25% to 40% at two elections running.bigjohnowls said:
The "Tory Landslide" ers are out again.DavidL said:
The swing to win Labour's 40 most vulnerable seats is 3.61%, considerably less than what current polling is showing. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labour#UKParliamenttpfkar said:
Both sides seem convinced they are about to win a GE. So it probably does need testing. I can't quite see where 40 gains for the Tories from Labour come from to be honest - care to suggest a few? Even the likes of Canterbury won't be easy.DavidL said:FWIW I think that Boris will win a majority. Probably lose 7-9 seats to the SNP, a dozen or so to the Lib Dems but gain 40+ from Labour. Whether that actually amounts to a majority will very much depend on how many of the 22 are still there.
Tories under attack from SNP, grevious attack from Lib Dems, and even seats like SW Herts which could be Gauke/Tories/Brexit all on the leave side, usually a safe seat but anything could happen this time.
Of course this time around UNS will probably be as much use as a chocolate tea pot but a lot of these are in the east midlands and I suspect that they will be particularly vulnerable.
Made me a fortune at GE 2017 that attitude0 -
Reminder number three thousand, four hundred and ninety one. (I know, remoaners go on so, don't we)
When your massive constitutional change only has 52% popular support, that 52% will never unify to form an agreement on what that massive constitutional change actually should look like.
All the people saying "but the democratic will of the people" need to understand that out of that 52% maybe: 10% wanted something Norway like, 10% wanted Canada Plus, 10% wanted No Deal, 5% wanted to stay in the CU and SM but screw everything else etc. etc. etc.
What you CANNOT claim is that the referendum gave a mandate to leave AT ANY COST NECESSARY. Literally that is the only question that was asked, but the context of the question and the campaign surrounding, as well as the political backlash since the referendum and the new administration, do not suggest that to be the case.1 -
Leavers claim whatever they want because facts, consideration, and reason no longer matter.0
-
philiph said:
It’s time for a general election and for laws to be enacted by the new Parliament.
What it isn’t is enough time for a second referendum0 -
Like no British politician would prorogue Parliament for partisan advantage, suggest that they do not need to follow laws or threaten MPs who voted against them with expulsion from their own party?AndyJS said:Believing that Johnson would change the date of a general election after announcing it for an earlier date is a conspiracy too far in my opinion. I don't think any British politician would do that.
0 -
They are facts, denying them doesnt change it. UKIP stood on no deal and got 1.8%. Tories and Labour stood on smooth orderly Brexits and got 80%. If the deal isnt ready yet then there is no mandate for anything so we can extend or go back to the people via an election or referendum. Those are the facts.basicbridge said:
No it wasnt. Moreover, a deal between two parties can be requested, even desired, but never be guaranteed.noneoftheabove said:
The general election result was we should leave with a deal. Therefore we should leave with a deal. Those are the facts.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.0 -
There ain’t a deal to debate at the moment. And the PM is proroguing Parliament to stop them doing anything.Alanbrooke said:
so if theyre so short of time, did they cancel their holidays ? Have they stopped the conference season ? Have they said they will work weekends ?Cyclefree said:
Various facts are wrong:basicbridge said:
Awkward facts, as i said.Gallowgate said:
Not this comment again.basicbridge said:Parliament has had THREE years to agree a deal. And it has failed to do so.
The corollary is that we leave without a deal.
The public seem to understand this rather better than the self-appointed guardians of moral and political rectitude on the remain side seem to realise.
I note no attempt on your part to refute them.
Fact 1: Article 50 was not triggered until 29 March 2017. Two and a half not three years ago.
Fact 2: the deal which was negotiated was first put to Parliament in December, first voted on in January 2019, with the third vote occurring on 29 March 2019.
So the period during which Parliament failed to agree a deal was 4 months. If you include the subsequent indicative votes that just adds a further 2 months.
The period during which Parliament has had time to consider and vote on any sort of deal has, in reality, been a quite short concentrated period. Not over three years at all.
And as I’m sure you recall it was May and her Leader of the House who kept putting off votes.0 -
I think NOM and then be down to horse trading , would expect evenCorbyn should be able to agree something to get in. Probably down to how many gains LD's get, SNP likely to get most of Scottish seats, might even be enough with just SNP with Labour.Gallowgate said:
Who do you think will win then Malcolm?malcolmg said:
Swinson will never be near it David , people are stupid but that stupidDavidL said:
We don't need more time to hold an election. Whether we need more time afterwards depends on the result. We may be revoking at the instance of PM Swinson. It's all to play for but this has dragged on too long already.Richard_Nabavi said:
We may well need a different parliament (we certainly need a different PM). The correct way to have got one would have been to agree an extension with the EU, in order to hold a GE with enough time aftwerards to implement the legislation necessary to mitigate the disaster of no-deal, or alternatively to agree and implement a smooth exit, depending on the GE result.DavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.0 -
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."AlastairMeeks said:
The referendum was advisory. It was fought by Leave on the prospectus that a deal would be a cinch. No deal was not part of the prospectus. The advice of the advisory referendum no longer holds good and further guidance is needed.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.
David Cameron, Prime Minister.
Fact.0 -
So if theres nothing to debate then theres no time lost, whats all the fuss about ?Cyclefree said:
There ain’t a deal to debate at the moment. And the PM is proroguing Parliament to stop them doing anything.Alanbrooke said:
so if theyre so short of time, did they cancel their holidays ? Have they stopped the conference season ? Have they said they will work weekends ?Cyclefree said:
Various facts are wrong:basicbridge said:
Awkward facts, as i said.Gallowgate said:
Not this comment again.basicbridge said:Parliament has had THREE years to agree a deal. And it has failed to do so.
The corollary is that we leave without a deal.
The public seem to understand this rather better than the self-appointed guardians of moral and political rectitude on the remain side seem to realise.
I note no attempt on your part to refute them.
Fact 1: Article 50 was not triggered until 29 March 2017. Two and a half not three years ago.
Fact 2: the deal which was negotiated was first put to Parliament in December, first voted on in January 2019, with the third vote occurring on 29 March 2019.
So the period during which Parliament failed to agree a deal was 4 months. If you include the subsequent indicative votes that just adds a further 2 months.
The period during which Parliament has had time to consider and vote on any sort of deal has, in reality, been a quite short concentrated period. Not over three years at all.
And as I’m sure you recall it was May and her Leader of the House who kept putting off votes.0 -
They will agree because they don't want to give any credit to the idea of them being blamed for no deal. As many brexiteers mention, no deal won't be easy for the EU either so if they can stall for time they will, and if we do no deal, at least they can blame it on perfidious albion. Macron's tough talk last time was just talk, he won't want to force a no deal on the UK if we are asking to extend.Byronic said:
Why on earth should the EU agree to an extension, unless we have a damn good reason to ask for one? Do the Remainers have a suggestion?Scott_P said:
It would also have the side benefit of destroying Boris Johnson's credibility, and it would be seen as another step closer to getting brexit scrapped. Which the EU would be very happy to see as it destroys the credibility of Frexit etc even more. Every extension chinks away at the inevitability of Brexit.0 -
I wouldn't have thought he'd prorogue but he did, and his base liked it. The tabloids would cheer him on and the people who supported the prorogation would support his constitutionally permissible exercise of prime ministerial powers.AndyJS said:Believing that Johnson would change the date of a general election after announcing it for an earlier date is a conspiracy too far in my opinion. I don't think any British politician would do that.
I think he probably wouldn't do this one because he probably doesn't really want No Deal, but I don't see any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.0 -
And then he promptly resigned.MarqueeMark said:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."AlastairMeeks said:
The referendum was advisory. It was fought by Leave on the prospectus that a deal would be a cinch. No deal was not part of the prospectus. The advice of the advisory referendum no longer holds good and further guidance is needed.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.
David Cameron, Prime Minister.
Fact.0 -
O/T
This is depressing:
"I saw many young people on beaches and by the pool but not one seemed to be having “fun”. Holidays with friends in my late teens/early twenties were childishly funny: boys chucking you in the pool; playing tipsy water volleyball on each other’s shoulders. Not any more. Most of these didn’t even get their hair wet. I was in a bit of a poseur’s paradise, true, but I didn’t see people so much as laugh. It was all staring at phones and no smiles except when taking selfies when suddenly they would hug and giggle on cue like Oscar-winning actors then, photo taken, instantly drop the pretence and resume their solitary glumness. It was fascinating."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/sunbathing-topless-is-as-uncool-as-having-fun-kmn6knww80 -
Fair enough, I have overstated that. As I did say I don't think UNS is going to be much use in any event. I suspect that there will be strong regional swings which will hinder and help all the main parties alike.justin124 said:
Not really. A swing in the Tories favour from Labour of 3.6% would imply a Tory vote share lead of 9.7% - in line with what some polls are currently suggesting. Other polls are showing a smaller swing of 2.25%.DavidL said:
The swing to win Labour's 40 most vulnerable seats is 3.61%, considerably less than what current polling is showing. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labour#UKParliamenttpfkar said:
Both sides seem convinced they are about to win a GE. So it probably does need testing. I can't quite see where 40 gains for the Tories from Labour come from to be honest - care to suggest a few? Even the likes of Canterbury won't be easy.DavidL said:FWIW I think that Boris will win a majority. Probably lose 7-9 seats to the SNP, a dozen or so to the Lib Dems but gain 40+ from Labour. Whether that actually amounts to a majority will very much depend on how many of the 22 are still there.
Tories under attack from SNP, grevious attack from Lib Dems, and even seats like SW Herts which could be Gauke/Tories/Brexit all on the leave side, usually a safe seat but anything could happen this time.
Of course this time around UNS will probably be as much use as a chocolate tea pot but a lot of these are in the east midlands and I suspect that they will be particularly vulnerable.0 -
Could be v important in several seats, e.g. CanterburyGallowgate said:
What impact so you think that will have?not_on_fire said:One important factor in an autumn GE is that the usual "students at home" factor will not apply
0 -
So it sought to. It was sabotaged by the extremist Leavers who now seek to take advantage of their own extremism by imposing on the country a course of action that before the referendum they angrily avowed would not happen.MarqueeMark said:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."AlastairMeeks said:
The referendum was advisory. It was fought by Leave on the prospectus that a deal would be a cinch. No deal was not part of the prospectus. The advice of the advisory referendum no longer holds good and further guidance is needed.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.
David Cameron, Prime Minister.
Fact.1 -
I don't see the Tories at 42% either to be fair, unless TBP stands down and even then...AndyJS said:
Isn't that a bit like believing lightning will strike twice? I can't see Labour going from 25% to 40% at two elections running.bigjohnowls said:
The "Tory Landslide" ers are out again.DavidL said:
The swing to win Labour's 40 most vulnerable seats is 3.61%, considerably less than what current polling is showing. http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labour#UKParliamenttpfkar said:
Both sides seem convinced they are about to win a GE. So it probably does need testing. I can't quite see where 40 gains for the Tories from Labour come from to be honest - care to suggest a few? Even the likes of Canterbury won't be easy.DavidL said:FWIW I think that Boris will win a majority. Probably lose 7-9 seats to the SNP, a dozen or so to the Lib Dems but gain 40+ from Labour. Whether that actually amounts to a majority will very much depend on how many of the 22 are still there.
Tories under attack from SNP, grevious attack from Lib Dems, and even seats like SW Herts which could be Gauke/Tories/Brexit all on the leave side, usually a safe seat but anything could happen this time.
Of course this time around UNS will probably be as much use as a chocolate tea pot but a lot of these are in the east midlands and I suspect that they will be particularly vulnerable.
Made me a fortune at GE 2017 that attitude0 -
The Government didn't.Gallowgate said:
And then he promptly resigned.MarqueeMark said:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."AlastairMeeks said:
The referendum was advisory. It was fought by Leave on the prospectus that a deal would be a cinch. No deal was not part of the prospectus. The advice of the advisory referendum no longer holds good and further guidance is needed.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.
David Cameron, Prime Minister.
Fact.0 -
I might be missing something, but if the SNP is up for an election and Boris can command 300 votes of his own, that’s enough isn’t it (noting the simple two or three clause fallback plan Bill from 2017 that’s doing the rounds)? That Bill will also fix the date.
On the other hand one would think that will weigh heavily in the rebels’ thinking. They could be unemployed by Friday if they are deselected and then there’s an election, and yet if this legislation doesn’t go through they still have another chance to overthrow the Gvt in October.0 -
He resigned. Fact. A new govt is not bound by its predecessors for obvious reasons. Fact.MarqueeMark said:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."AlastairMeeks said:
The referendum was advisory. It was fought by Leave on the prospectus that a deal would be a cinch. No deal was not part of the prospectus. The advice of the advisory referendum no longer holds good and further guidance is needed.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.
David Cameron, Prime Minister.
Fact.0 -
-
In the favour of Lab, LD or Tory?not_on_fire said:
Could be v important in several seats, e.g. CanterburyGallowgate said:
What impact so you think that will have?not_on_fire said:One important factor in an autumn GE is that the usual "students at home" factor will not apply
I assume this makes it more likely of a LD gain in Hallam although I don’t know if the students actually live in that constituency.0 -
One has to applaud Remain supporters for their amazing ability to see MPs thwarting the result of a referendum sold to the public as a once in a generation, final decision, taken by the voters NOT MPs, for three years as perfectly legitimate whilst seeing themselves as plucky victims of anti democratic forces.
It truly beggars belief. Had you told them in June 2016 this was how they’d act they’d say it was out of the question a la Peters denial of Jesus1 -
They offer nothing other than Willie ranting about no second referendum for indy , but happy to have one on Brexit. Hard to see why anyone in Scotland would waste a vote on them.DavidL said:
I may not have been entirely serious with that suggestion. Interesting question what the USP of Lib Dems in Scotland is going to be given the position of the SNP. They are almost certain to under perform their UK results up here, Scottish leader notwithstanding.malcolmg said:
Swinson will never be near it David , people are stupid but that stupidDavidL said:
We don't need more time to hold an election. Whether we need more time afterwards depends on the result. We may be revoking at the instance of PM Swinson. It's all to play for but this has dragged on too long already.Richard_Nabavi said:
We may well need a different parliament (we certainly need a different PM). The correct way to have got one would have been to agree an extension with the EU, in order to hold a GE with enough time aftwerards to implement the legislation necessary to mitigate the disaster of no-deal, or alternatively to agree and implement a smooth exit, depending on the GE result.DavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.
0 -
Might Ruth Davidson stand for Parliament in an early election?0
-
Fixed.malcolmg said:
They offer nothing other than Willie ranting about no second referendum for indy , but happy to have one on Brexit. Hard to see why anyoneDavidL said:
I may not have been entirely serious with that suggestion. Interesting question what the USP of Lib Dems in Scotland is going to be given the position of the SNP. They are almost certain to under perform their UK results up here, Scottish leader notwithstanding.malcolmg said:
Swinson will never be near it David , people are stupid but that stupidDavidL said:
We don't need more time to hold an election. Whether we need more time afterwards depends on the result. We may be revoking at the instance of PM Swinson. It's all to play for but this has dragged on too long already.Richard_Nabavi said:
We may well need a different parliament (we certainly need a different PM). The correct way to have got one would have been to agree an extension with the EU, in order to hold a GE with enough time aftwerards to implement the legislation necessary to mitigate the disaster of no-deal, or alternatively to agree and implement a smooth exit, depending on the GE result.DavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.in Scotlandwould waste a vote on them.0 -
I don’t want to thwart the decision at all. I want us to leave the EU but remain in the Single Market and Customs Union.isam said:One has to applaud Remain supporters for their amazing ability to see MPs thwarting the result of a referendum sold to the public as a once in a generation, final decision, taken by the voters NOT MPs, for three years as perfectly legitimate whilst seeing themselves as plucky victims of anti democratic forces. Beggars belief
0 -
I’m much less sure. Macron would lose too much face if he agreed to ANOTHER extension without a specific reason. And Macron is a vain man.Paristonda said:
They will agree because they don't want to give any credit to the idea of them being blamed for no deal. As many brexiteers mention, no deal won't be easy for the EU either so if they can stall for time they will, and if we do no deal, at least they can blame it on perfidious albion. Macron's tough talk last time was just talk, he won't want to force a no deal on the UK if we are asking to extend.Byronic said:
Why on earth should the EU agree to an extension, unless we have a damn good reason to ask for one? Do the Remainers have a suggestion?Scott_P said:
It would also have the side benefit of destroying Boris Johnson's credibility, and it would be seen as another step closer to getting brexit scrapped. Which the EU would be very happy to see as it destroys the credibility of Frexit etc even more. Every extension chinks away at the inevitability of Brexit.
I do agree with you that every extension weakens the Will to Brexit. If it is delayed again I reckon Brexit will never happen.0 -
Oh dear. When you have to put the word “debating” in quotation marks you’ve lost. There was no deal to debate prior to December 2018 and even then the vote was put off until mid-January.basicbridge said:
Your points is sophistry. The vote was over three years ago.Cyclefree said:
Various facts are wrong:basicbridge said:
Awkward facts, as i said.Gallowgate said:
Not this comment again.basicbridge said:Parliament has had THREE years to agree a deal. And it has failed to do so.
The corollary is that we leave without a deal.
The public seem to understand this rather better than the self-appointed guardians of moral and political rectitude on the remain side seem to realise.
I note no attempt on your part to refute them.
Fact 1: Article 50 was not triggered until 29 March 2017. Two and a half not three years ago.
Fact 2: the deal which was negotiated was first put to Parliament in December, first voted on in January 2019, with the third vote occurring on 29 March 2019.
So the period during which Parliament failed to agree a deal was 4 months. If you include the subsequent indicative votes that just adds a further 2 months.
The period during which Parliament has had time to consider and vote on any sort of deal has, in reality, been a quite short concentrated period. Not over three years at all.
Parliament was "debating" Brexit long before the WA was put to it and has been unable to unite around any alternative. There is no majority in Parliament for a deal and so "no deal" is the dafult.
Sorry, but these are facts. Your post smacks of desperation.
That was the first point at which it could have “agreed a deal” (to use your precise words).
Parliament wasted the time between January and March 2019 and subsequently. I agree there. But let’s not pretend, as you and others do, that there was anything to agree before then. There wasn’t. And that was chiefly the fault of Mrs May and her Cabinet, which included many members of the current Cabinet.0 -
You're right its not the select committees job to make legislation, the Commons doesn't negotiate deals either.Cyclefree said:
Select Committees don’t make legislation, as you well know. Select Committees don’t debate. They take evidence, issue reports, question Ministers.Philip_Thompson said:
Really? So there was no Parliamentary Select Committee on Brexit?OblitusSumMe said:
Parliament was completely sidelined until the first meaningful vote in January. Not even nine months ago.basicbridge said:Parliament has had THREE years to agree a deal. And it has failed to do so.
The corollary is that we leave without a deal.
The public seem to understand this rather better than the self-appointed guardians of moral and political rectitude on the remain side seem to realise.
What exactly has Hillary Benn been doing if Parliament wasn't debating Brexit until the first meaningful vote?
The only period during which Parliament had any role to agree or not a deal was over a 4 month (possibly 6 months, if you want to be generous) period.
Given how important a decision Brexit is, that is far too little. But both May and Johnson have this in common: a wish to sideline Parliament.
The Commons discussions on Brexit didn't begin with the finalised deal. The first reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was in January 2017 with Royal Assent given by March 2017. In that Act the Commons decided democratically to change our law that we leave the EU with or without a deal at the end of the Article 50 process.
Now given the Commons and Lords passed that Act, I would have thought that anyone opposed to No Deal would back any deal that came back to the Commons. But apparently the Commons thought better. So be it.
If we leave due to Article 50 expiring then that won't be due to a decision made this year alone. It will have been made possible by an Act of Parliament passed nearly 3 years ago.0 -
“Keir Starmer”AlastairMeeks said:0 -
I really don't get this live for the post on facebook mentality. I've never liked photos at all tbh, preferring to actually enjoy the moment. Bah, I'm getting old.AndyJS said:O/T
This is depressing:
"I saw many young people on beaches and by the pool but not one seemed to be having “fun”. Holidays with friends in my late teens/early twenties were childishly funny: boys chucking you in the pool; playing tipsy water volleyball on each other’s shoulders. Not any more. Most of these didn’t even get their hair wet. I was in a bit of a poseur’s paradise, true, but I didn’t see people so much as laugh. It was all staring at phones and no smiles except when taking selfies when suddenly they would hug and giggle on cue like Oscar-winning actors then, photo taken, instantly drop the pretence and resume their solitary glumness. It was fascinating."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/sunbathing-topless-is-as-uncool-as-having-fun-kmn6knww80 -
You're sounding a tad unhinged Scott!Scott_P said:
Cummings would.AndyJS said:Believing that Johnson would change the date of a general election after announcing it for an earlier date is a conspiracy too far in my opinion. I don't think any British politician would do that.
Remember, he literally holds Parliament in contempt
0 -
He made different remarks at different times. In the Hague speech, which came after that, he implied that Britain should be part of it.Byronic said:
Christ. Why lie so obviously? This isn’t GUIDO. This is PB. We know our history, we know that Churchill qualified those remarks by saying Britain would and should stand apart from such a united Europe, because we are different.Gallowgate said:
“In his famous Zurich speech of 1946, Churchill said, ‘We must build a kind of United States of Europe.. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.’”basicbridge said:
I very very much doubt that.Gallowgate said:
Winston would have signed us up to the Euro.MarqueeMark said:
It's what Winston would have done.SouthamObserver said:Plastic Churchill Boris Johnson is going to throw Winston Churchill's grandson out of the Conservative party. The symbolism is magnificent. And there wil be many loons on here and in the country who will applaud it.
what is your evidence for this startling suggestion?
https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11/10/winston-churchill-a-founder-of-the-european-union/0 -
Could the government get such a bill through the House of Lords in time, given the opposition ranged against it?ab195 said:I might be missing something, but if the SNP is up for an election and Boris can command 300 votes of his own, that’s enough isn’t it (noting the simple two or three clause fallback plan Bill from 2017 that’s doing the rounds)? That Bill will also fix the date.
On the other hand one would think that will weigh heavily in the rebels’ thinking. They could be unemployed by Friday if they are deselected and then there’s an election, and yet if this legislation doesn’t go through they still have another chance to overthrow the Gvt in October.0 -
How do you feel about remainers who are bemused by the stupidity of leavers sabotaging their own project?isam said:One has to applaud Remain supporters for their amazing ability to see MPs thwarting the result of a referendum sold to the public as a once in a generation, final decision, taken by the voters NOT MPs, for three years as perfectly legitimate whilst seeing themselves as plucky victims of anti democratic forces.
It truly beggars belief. Had you told them in June 2016 this was how they’d act they’d say it was out of the question a la Peters denial of Jesus0 -
The Referendum was not 'Remain' vs 'No Deal'isam said:One has to applaud Remain supporters for their amazing ability to see MPs thwarting the result of a referendum sold to the public as a once in a generation, final decision, taken by the voters NOT MPs, for three years as perfectly legitimate whilst seeing themselves as plucky victims of anti democratic forces. Beggars belief
It was 'Remain' vs 'Easiest and Best Deal Ever' (which the ERG then voted against).0 -
He would need 2/3, that would be 434. I.e, he needs Labour. The bill would need to go through the Lords as well. There be dragons (and churchmen)ab195 said:I might be missing something, but if the SNP is up for an election and Boris can command 300 votes of his own, that’s enough isn’t it (noting the simple two or three clause fallback plan Bill from 2017 that’s doing the rounds)? That Bill will also fix the date.
On the other hand one would think that will weigh heavily in the rebels’ thinking. They could be unemployed by Friday if they are deselected and then there’s an election, and yet if this legislation doesn’t go through they still have another chance to overthrow the Gvt in October.0 -
Why would that be needed if the election is 10th or 17th October?AlastairMeeks said:
Labour will win and then they themselves can call Brexit off with plenty of days to spare before 31st October... Unless they are going into the election expecting to lose it?0 -
Right, in that case BJ needs to stuff the Lords to prevent this legislation getting through.Scott_P said:
Create 100's new brexit party peerages if need be. Just block it.0 -
As @ab195 says, there is a fallback option:DavidL said:
He would need 2/3, that would be 434. I.e, he needs Labour.ab195 said:I might be missing something, but if the SNP is up for an election and Boris can command 300 votes of his own, that’s enough isn’t it (noting the simple two or three clause fallback plan Bill from 2017 that’s doing the rounds)? That Bill will also fix the date.
On the other hand one would think that will weigh heavily in the rebels’ thinking. They could be unemployed by Friday if they are deselected and then there’s an election, and yet if this legislation doesn’t go through they still have another chance to overthrow the Gvt in October.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/11685114841182248960 -
Let's just invade, say Luxembourg, and while we have it, use their ability to veto any extension. Need only be for a weekend.....Byronic said:
I’m much less sure. Macron would lose too much face if he agreed to ANOTHER extension without a specific reason. And Macron is a vain man.Paristonda said:
They will agree because they don't want to give any credit to the idea of them being blamed for no deal. As many brexiteers mention, no deal won't be easy for the EU either so if they can stall for time they will, and if we do no deal, at least they can blame it on perfidious albion. Macron's tough talk last time was just talk, he won't want to force a no deal on the UK if we are asking to extend.Byronic said:
Why on earth should the EU agree to an extension, unless we have a damn good reason to ask for one? Do the Remainers have a suggestion?Scott_P said:
It would also have the side benefit of destroying Boris Johnson's credibility, and it would be seen as another step closer to getting brexit scrapped. Which the EU would be very happy to see as it destroys the credibility of Frexit etc even more. Every extension chinks away at the inevitability of Brexit.
I do agree with you that every extension weakens the Will to Brexit. If it is delayed again I reckon Brexit will never happen.
(You can have that one for free, Dominic....)0 -
The interesting bit in that story isn’t the election stuff, which we know, it’s the next paragraph down. This:Scott_P said:
‘Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar signaled his willingness to consider alternatives to the backstop, by describing some proposals from the Ulster Unionist Party as “interesting.”
The UUP proposals include the creation of a criminal offense of transporting non-compliant goods through the U.K. to the EU, and creating a cross-border trade body, the BBC reported.
While Varadkar told reporters these wouldn’t solve all the problems at the frontier, they shouldn’t be dismissed “out of hand.”’
Are there faint faint glimmers of a last minute deal here?0 -
And you sound like an idiot that doesn't read the newsGIN1138 said:You're sounding a tad unhinged Scott!
Dominic Cummings, the former director of the official leave campaign, has been ruled to be in contempt of parliament after failing to appear before MPs investigating fake news.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/commons-report-rules-dominic-cummings-in-contempt-of-parliament0 -
-
Why ?nunuone said:
Right, in that case BJ needs to stuff the Lords to prevent this legislation getting through.Scott_P said:
Create 100's new brexit party peerages if need be. Just block it.
Parliament will decide bugger all in 3 months and in any events theyll use half that time for Christmas and skiing.0 -
What price is Leave with a deal by 31 Oct?0
-
At least telling the Queen to veto the decision of the elected representatives of the people would be a cheaper way of circumventing democracy than appointing a large number of peers. The latter would imply a recurring cost, and after all, there's no way of ensuring they would continue to do as they were told. You might have to appoint an even larger number to outvote them, if they became awkward.Scott_P said:
Yes - if we want a way of abolishing democracy, let's at least do it as cheaply as possible.0 -
Actually not true, when a Prime Minister resigns, so does the entire government.MarqueeMark said:
The Government didn't.Gallowgate said:
And then he promptly resigned.MarqueeMark said:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."AlastairMeeks said:
The referendum was advisory. It was fought by Leave on the prospectus that a deal would be a cinch. No deal was not part of the prospectus. The advice of the advisory referendum no longer holds good and further guidance is needed.basicbridge said:
All the parties agreed to observe the outcome of the referendum. The referendum result was to leave, therefore we should leave.Tabman said:
I'd put them at about the same mass. Johnson's johnson is probably more fertile though, perhaps bigger than a wardrobe key.Brom said:Not a huge fan of Boris but he's twice the man that lumbering oaf Soames is.
Those are the facts.
Those are the facts.
David Cameron, Prime Minister.
Fact.1 -
-
Surely none of the rebels would be there, unless they had backed down from being rebels when the crunch came.DavidL said:FWIW I think that Boris will win a majority. Probably lose 7-9 seats to the SNP, a dozen or so to the Lib Dems but gain 40+ from Labour. Whether that actually amounts to a majority will very much depend on how many of the 22 are still there.
Johnson would I think be quite happy losing 9 seats to the SNP, 12 to the LDs while gaining 21 back from Labour, plus 4 back from the TIG defectors and Boles.
That way he's up to 315 from the current 311.
Notionally not much different, but in practice it would make all the difference. The 315 could be relied upon to support the Government, whereas at the moment he can rely on only 285 or so.0 -
Once again that's exactly what I've suggested should be the solution all along.Byronic said:
The interesting bit in that story isn’t the election stuff, which we know, it’s the next paragraph down. This:Scott_P said:
‘Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar signaled his willingness to consider alternatives to the backstop, by describing some proposals from the Ulster Unionist Party as “interesting.”
The UUP proposals include the creation of a criminal offense of transporting non-compliant goods through the U.K. to the EU, and creating a cross-border trade body, the BBC reported.
While Varadkar told reporters these wouldn’t solve all the problems at the frontier, they shouldn’t be dismissed “out of hand.”’
Are there faint faint glimmers of a last minute deal here?
Drop the backstop, keep the border open, make smuggling across the border a crime and come down hard on criminals that do it. Problem solved.
Take the onus of enforcing the border away from posts and put it into self-declarations and self-enforcement.0 -
Anyway I will venture a tentative prediction:
1. There will be much huffing and puffing in Parliament this week but nothing definitive will happen.
2. Eventually there will be a GE.
3. Johnson may win but another hung Parliament is quite likely.
4. Britain will exit without a deal.
5. There will be a bit of chaos but nothing like as bad as feared in the immediate short-term.
6. Difficulties will reveal themselves over time.
7. The Johnson government will find itself ground down by having to deal with all these issues, as well as “Events”.
8. A post-Brexit settlement will still be unresolved this time next year.
9. There will likely be some unknown unknown which will render all or any of these predictions worthless.
1 -
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1168531276166500353 hell hath no fury like a chancellor sacked.0
-
I think that bill makes sense because it ties Boris to a date but it does have to get through the Lords, ie it needs cross party consent.Tissue_Price said:
As @ab195 says, there is a fallback option:DavidL said:
He would need 2/3, that would be 434. I.e, he needs Labour.ab195 said:I might be missing something, but if the SNP is up for an election and Boris can command 300 votes of his own, that’s enough isn’t it (noting the simple two or three clause fallback plan Bill from 2017 that’s doing the rounds)? That Bill will also fix the date.
On the other hand one would think that will weigh heavily in the rebels’ thinking. They could be unemployed by Friday if they are deselected and then there’s an election, and yet if this legislation doesn’t go through they still have another chance to overthrow the Gvt in October.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/11685114841182248960 -
If Labour refuses, there won't be an election.Scott_P said:0 -
By law or convention?Gallowgate said:0 -
But who beyond Governmenr loyalists would support that?Tissue_Price said:
As @ab195 says, there is a fallback option:DavidL said:
He would need 2/3, that would be 434. I.e, he needs Labour.ab195 said:I might be missing something, but if the SNP is up for an election and Boris can command 300 votes of his own, that’s enough isn’t it (noting the simple two or three clause fallback plan Bill from 2017 that’s doing the rounds)? That Bill will also fix the date.
On the other hand one would think that will weigh heavily in the rebels’ thinking. They could be unemployed by Friday if they are deselected and then there’s an election, and yet if this legislation doesn’t go through they still have another chance to overthrow the Gvt in October.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/11685114841182248960 -
I've said before - I'd be happy to be a Peer for a Year, just to get Brexit away, on the understanding I would then end my tenure. Me and thousands of others......Chris said:
At least telling the Queen to veto the decision of the elected representatives of the people would be a cheaper way of circumventing democracy than appointing a large number of peers. The latter would imply a recurring cost, and after all, there's no way of ensuring they would continue to do as they were told. You might have to appoint an even larger number to outvote them, if they became awkward.Scott_P said:
Yes - if we want a way of abolishing democracy, let's at least do it as cheaply as possible.0 -
-
Labour would, I think, be okay with a definite mid-October date, as it rules out the (fanciful imo) idea that Boris could later change the date to post Oct 31.DavidL said:
I think that bill makes sense because it ties Boris to a date but it does have to get through the Lords, ie it needs cross party consent.Tissue_Price said:
As @ab195 says, there is a fallback option:DavidL said:
He would need 2/3, that would be 434. I.e, he needs Labour.ab195 said:I might be missing something, but if the SNP is up for an election and Boris can command 300 votes of his own, that’s enough isn’t it (noting the simple two or three clause fallback plan Bill from 2017 that’s doing the rounds)? That Bill will also fix the date.
On the other hand one would think that will weigh heavily in the rebels’ thinking. They could be unemployed by Friday if they are deselected and then there’s an election, and yet if this legislation doesn’t go through they still have another chance to overthrow the Gvt in October.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/11685114841182248960 -
Yes. If we no deal Brexit, the eventual solution will surely be something like that. With added tech.Philip_Thompson said:
Once again that's exactly what I've suggested should be the solution all along.Byronic said:
The interesting bit in that story isn’t the election stuff, which we know, it’s the next paragraph down. This:Scott_P said:
‘Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar signaled his willingness to consider alternatives to the backstop, by describing some proposals from the Ulster Unionist Party as “interesting.”
The UUP proposals include the creation of a criminal offense of transporting non-compliant goods through the U.K. to the EU, and creating a cross-border trade body, the BBC reported.
While Varadkar told reporters these wouldn’t solve all the problems at the frontier, they shouldn’t be dismissed “out of hand.”’
Are there faint faint glimmers of a last minute deal here?
Drop the backstop, keep the border open, make smuggling across the border a crime and come down hard on criminals that do it. Problem solved.
Take the onus of enforcing the border away from posts and put it into self-declarations and self-enforcement.
In which case everyone will ask why the F the two sides couldn’t reach a deal, including this. It will be a tremendous failure of statecraft, by all concerned.0 -
Geoffrey Howe, in fairness, was a serious figure.dr_spyn said:https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1168531276166500353 hell hath no fury like a chancellor sacked.
0 -
Brexit is already the most tremendous failure of statecraft since the European powers fell into WW1.....Byronic said:
Yes. If we no deal Brexit, the eventual solution will surely be something like that. With added tech.Philip_Thompson said:
Once again that's exactly what I've suggested should be the solution all along.Byronic said:
The interesting bit in that story isn’t the election stuff, which we know, it’s the next paragraph down. This:Scott_P said:
‘Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar signaled his willingness to consider alternatives to the backstop, by describing some proposals from the Ulster Unionist Party as “interesting.”
The UUP proposals include the creation of a criminal offense of transporting non-compliant goods through the U.K. to the EU, and creating a cross-border trade body, the BBC reported.
While Varadkar told reporters these wouldn’t solve all the problems at the frontier, they shouldn’t be dismissed “out of hand.”’
Are there faint faint glimmers of a last minute deal here?
Drop the backstop, keep the border open, make smuggling across the border a crime and come down hard on criminals that do it. Problem solved.
Take the onus of enforcing the border away from posts and put it into self-declarations and self-enforcement.
In which case everyone will ask why the F the two sides couldn’t reach a deal, including this. It will be a tremendous failure of statecraft, by all concerned.0 -
I was being generous to themMarqueeMark said:
Fixed.malcolmg said:
They offer nothing other than Willie ranting about no second referendum for indy , but happy to have one on Brexit. Hard to see why anyoneDavidL said:
I may not have been entirely serious with that suggestion. Interesting question what the USP of Lib Dems in Scotland is going to be given the position of the SNP. They are almost certain to under perform their UK results up here, Scottish leader notwithstanding.malcolmg said:
Swinson will never be near it David , people are stupid but that stupidDavidL said:
We don't need more time to hold an election. Whether we need more time afterwards depends on the result. We may be revoking at the instance of PM Swinson. It's all to play for but this has dragged on too long already.Richard_Nabavi said:
We may well need a different parliament (we certainly need a different PM). The correct way to have got one would have been to agree an extension with the EU, in order to hold a GE with enough time aftwerards to implement the legislation necessary to mitigate the disaster of no-deal, or alternatively to agree and implement a smooth exit, depending on the GE result.DavidL said:
I think that is too simple. The extension to 31st October has been a disaster. We should have left in March. It has damaged our economy, damaged our politics and damaged the Conservative party. I can see no evidence at all that any further extension would not be even worse. Parliament must choose and if it won't we need a different Parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
He's simply at the mercy of events, having made the initial spectacular error of tying himself to the October 31st date.DavidL said:
I find it bizarre that people are still accusing Boris of being a coward. He may be reckless or incompetent or wrong but he has shown a determination and focus since becoming PM. Having an election now and risking being the briefest PM in history is not the act of a coward. It may well be what Yes Minister might have called "brave".noneoftheabove said:
10/1 to change seat is betterAramintaMoonbeamQC said:Highly tempted by that 5/1 on BJ to lose his seat.
Leadership interviews - ran away
Leadership debates - ran away
Parliamentary scrutiny - prorogues
Deal with rebels - not talking to them and kick them out
A coward only interested in himself.in Scotlandwould waste a vote on them.0
This discussion has been closed.