politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Cummings & Johnson strategy could well be dubbed as the ch
Comments
-
That has to be the most ridiculous and far-fetched excuse ever attempted on this Site!Theuniondivvie said:
Also makes the 'he's a tall bloke trying to listen to the speaker' brigade look like diddies.StuartDickson said:
Negates 100% of the sympathy he was getting on here last night (much of it from opponents).Scott_P said:Stark_Dawning said:It looks worse the more I see of it. Last night I foolishly accepted the spin from some on here who said he was merely pressing his ear against an audio speaker, which is palpable nonsense. The man clearly intended to demonstrate beyond all doubt that a chap of his breeding can do what the hell he likes and the riff-raff would do well to take note.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1169177120515481600Slackbladder said:I think the final which was the final straw for me last night was JRM. His high and snobby attitude and speech might be endearing in another place, but here, where actual jobs and economies matter it was misplaced and out of order.
I'm actually wondering if a period of Corbyn government, as disasterous as it would be in some areas wouldn't now be whats at least required, if certainly not desired.0 -
Because no one at the Guardian would know?Theuniondivvie said:
Just imagine if someone had written that in the Graun, Paul Embery would have a tweet prolapse.isam said:but in general working class people quite like an eccentric posho
0 -
No they don't.Beibheirli_C said:You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
It is what May should have insisted upon had she not been so weak after losing her majority last time.
The EU won't be happy, the Irish won't be happy, but they will have an honest choice to make. Deal or no deal. Lose the backstop but keep a legal open border during transition, or lose the deal including losing the backstop. I think the EU facing a Tory majority united on that proposal would blink.
This is what I've been saying for the last year should be agreed and my predictions recently keep coming right - including predicting this would and should be made a confidence motion which I was told was impossible post-FTPA.0 -
@Philip_Thompson that ‘if’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting.0
-
Oh well no one ever said it was "Brilliant" - only time will tell on that - just that its clearly gone to plan from their POV.Beibheirli_C said:
Just because a crazy plan "works" does not make it brilliant. Boris has neutered his party and handed control of his politcal destiny to Corbyn. That is not brilliant, it is a massive gamble.GIN1138 said:Because its achieved they outcome they (Boris and Cummings wanted)
At any point from Boris becoming leader to yesterday's vote they could have dialled back the rhetoric and started compromise.
Instead they ratched it up and even had Cummings berating the Remainer delegation when they went to meet Boris yesterday.
Given then way they have played this you have to fink its gone entirely to as expected and to plan - which makes it a success if not a victory?
It might be ballsy, but it is not genius.0 -
28 - 20
-
Excellent bowling from SB1
-
I've already said that was an autocorrect error. It was meant to be destination which makes much more sense.Theuniondivvie said:
When folk start going on about 'a destiny (singular) we are going to', that's never worrying, not in the slightest.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said anything like that.Beibheirli_C said:
Burn them!!!! BURN THE WITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!Philip_Thompson said:
Same as the MPs who voted Remain. They decide if they can live with a policy of leaving 31 Oct do or die, or not.Scott_P said:
Purge the impure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We have a destiny we are going to and they can decide if they want to be a part of that or not. If not its a free country but get off the train.0 -
They will do what Trump supporters do, and either deny it is happening (fake), or claim that you are too stupid to understand the 4D Chess he is playing. They won't admit they are wrong, they will keep digging.Scott_P said:When BoZo's OODA loop of calling an election is scuppered by prorogation, how are the cultists going to spin that as Cummings genius?
0 -
I see the theory, but I don't understand why the Conservatives would prefer this to campaigning locally under a "Get Brexit Done" slogan.beentheredonethat said:
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.Gallowgate said:
Exactly.beentheredonethat said:
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?Gallowgate said:
That’s the pact.beentheredonethat said:
No. How do you get to that from my question?Gallowgate said:
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?beentheredonethat said:
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?Gallowgate said:Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.
Bomb the seat with messages like "Your Brexit-supporting Conservative candidate Stuart Leaver promises to take us out of the EU on 31st October - even if there's No Deal".
What does allying yourself with Farage get you over that? He has no track record at Westminster elections. Previously his schtick was "I'm committed to Brexit, Theresa May isn't", but that won't work with Johnson, who has just defenestrated of his own 21 MPs for not being committed enough to Brexit.
I suspect this is why Farage is making entreaties about a pact. Cummings has shot his fox.0 -
Aaaand they have lost a review as well. That could be very important later0
-
No because May chose to give MPs the choice and chose to agree to it and chose to agree to the extension.williamglenn said:When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/24/theresa-mays-government-chicken-has-bottled-brexit-boris-johnson/
If Parliament forces an extension with him voting against it, it will be Parliament that was chicken.0 -
No one knows if Cummings is playing the game well or not but you nutty FBPE lot think he can only do wrong Im afraidglw said:
They will do what Trump supporters do, and either deny it is happening (fake), or claim that you are too stupid to understand the 4D Chess he is playing. They won't admit they are wrong, they will keep digging.Scott_P said:When BoZo's OODA loop of calling an election is scuppered by prorogation, how are the cultists going to spin that as Cummings genius?
1 -
Are you confident Farage will give Johnson a free pass?Philip_Thompson said:
No because May chose to give MPs the choice and chose to agree to it and chose to agree to the extension.williamglenn said:When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/24/theresa-mays-government-chicken-has-bottled-brexit-boris-johnson/
If Parliament forces an extension with him voting against it, it will be Parliament that was chicken.0 -
Worth remembering that everyone thought Vote Leave was doing a bad job. Until they won.Brom said:
No one knows if Cummings is playing the game well or not but you nutty FBPE lot think he can only do no wrong Im afraidglw said:
They will do what Trump supporters do, and either deny it is happening (fake), or claim that you are too stupid to understand the 4D Chess he is playing. They won't admit they are wrong, they will keep digging.Scott_P said:When BoZo's OODA loop of calling an election is scuppered by prorogation, how are the cultists going to spin that as Cummings genius?
0 -
nah they'l keep thatbeentheredonethat said:Aaaand they have lost a review as well. That could be very important later
0 -
Terrible idea, many people travel for Christmas and expecting that a million people request a postal vote in December ist crazy.148grss said:
I said this earlier:nico67 said:Surely Labour should only accept a general election once no deal cannot happen on 31 st October .
That would mean Bozo has broken his promise and keeps the Brexit Party taking votes from the Tories .
An election before then could still deliver a no deal if the Tories get a majority .
The one thing that has changed though is the removal of the whip from the rebels . If you’ve got nothing left to lose then more of those rebels might back a VONC .
My ideal Christmas present:
...Boxing day. Good GE day: people already off work (sorry council workers who have to do the count), families are together so intergenerational discussion on which direction the country should go...
0 -
"Tradition is an election following a loss of confidence"Philip_Thompson said:
It was a matter of confidence, the PM said so before the vote.kamski said:
Agree, the conservatives can withdraw the whip from whoever they want for whatever reason (just as May could, maybe should, have withdrawn the whip from Johnson and others when they voted against her government's most important bill). I'm just objecting to the argument that this has to happen to rebels on this occasion because the bill in parliament was "a matter of confidence".Charles said:
Important to distinguish between party and governmentkamski said:
if it was in any sense a "matter of confidence" then the Prime Minister would immediately resign having lost the vote.Charles said:
Because if he votes against the party on a matter of confidence then he has chosen his path.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/1169144620258910208Jonathan said:You get the feeling that the Tory party will wake up at some point realising what the hell it has done to itself. The only question is will it be too late to do anything about it.
Boris said. I am leader of the party. This is my policy. If you don’t agree then there’s the door
He won a clear majority of Tory MPs.
Those that don’t support the leadership on this fundamental policy can exit stage left
And the idea the PM resigns following losing a vote of confidence is a total myth. Tradition is an election following a loss of confidence and under the terms of the FTPA the PM is tabling an election motion.
- There have been a grand total of 3 lost confidence votes since the beginning of the 20th Century. 2 were followed by dissolution and election. 1 was followed by the Govt resigning and an alternative government being formed.
- There have been no lost confidence votes since the FTPA, so no tradition applies.
If it was really supposed to be an effective matter of confidence Johnson would either resign, or call an immediate vote of no confidence in his own government (or has he promised to resign as soon as fails to get the 2 thirds for his election motion to win?)
Also when did the PM say the vote was a "matter of confidence"? I can't find it.0 -
I'm confident Boris has neutralised Farage.williamglenn said:
Are you confident Farage will give Johnson a free pass?Philip_Thompson said:
No because May chose to give MPs the choice and chose to agree to it and chose to agree to the extension.williamglenn said:When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/24/theresa-mays-government-chicken-has-bottled-brexit-boris-johnson/
If Parliament forces an extension with him voting against it, it will be Parliament that was chicken.
Boris was the face of the Vote Leave campaign and by literally expelling Grieve and co Boris now completely owns Brexit. Farage is moot.0 -
-
Agreed. They will be singing that song from Sound of Music next....Theuniondivvie said:
When folk start going on about 'a destiny (singular) we are going to', that's never worrying, not in the slightest.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said anything like that.Beibheirli_C said:
Burn them!!!! BURN THE WITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!Philip_Thompson said:
Same as the MPs who voted Remain. They decide if they can live with a policy of leaving 31 Oct do or die, or not.Scott_P said:
Purge the impure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We have a destiny we are going to and they can decide if they want to be a part of that or not. If not its a free country but get off the train.0 -
0
-
I doubt he'd vote. Would never put himself on the electoral register.isam said:
So would Del BoySouthamObserver said:
They don't like Jeremy Corbyn.isam said:
Leave doesn’t mean leave, we know that!noneoftheabove said:
Or basic manners, if someone was doing that in a meeting I was leading they would be asked to leave. And leave would mean leave.isam said:
Inverse snobberry. So distastefulScott_P said:Stark_Dawning said:It looks worse the more I see of it. Last night I foolishly accepted the spin from some on here who said he was merely pressing his ear against an audio speaker, which is palpable nonsense. The man clearly intended to demonstrate beyond all doubt that a chap of his breeding can do what the hell he likes and the riff-raff would do well to take note.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1169177120515481600Slackbladder said:I think the final which was the final straw for me last night was JRM. His high and snobby attitude and speech might be endearing in another place, but here, where actual jobs and economies matter it was misplaced and out of order.
I'm actually wondering if a period of Corbyn government, as disasterous as it would be in some areas wouldn't now be whats at least required, if certainly not desired.
There are instances of bad manners every single time the commons is in session - interrupting, being drunk, booing & jeering, talking over someone, falling asleep.
JRM is porn for middle class, middle aged wannabe rebels because it makes them feel like they’re at Uni again, but in general working class people quite like an eccentric posho
It is true, though, that there has always been a strong tradition of deference within the working class - hence the working class Tory vote. Alf Garnett would love JRM.
0 -
Quelle surprise.Scott_P said:0 -
The Parliament website have taken all 21 off the Conservative total. It was 310 yesterday evening (presumably down from 311 before Lee crossed the floor) and is now at 289.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
I'm wondering whether to try and work out when the largest party last had fewer MPs - the Tories are now currently a notional 36 seats short of a majority. Labour under Callaghan? The Tories at some point in the 20s or early 30s?0 -
Can Boris prorogue the proroguing if necessary?0
-
Umpires call means they retain the review even though Harris was outbeentheredonethat said:Aaaand they have lost a review as well. That could be very important later
0 -
Far too many mps would lose their seats so self preservationAlastairMeeks said:
Quelle surprise.Scott_P said:
Boris snookered0 -
-
Tories will stand aside in precisely zero seats.beentheredonethat said:
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.Gallowgate said:
Exactly.beentheredonethat said:
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?Gallowgate said:
That’s the pact.beentheredonethat said:
No. How do you get to that from my question?Gallowgate said:
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?beentheredonethat said:
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?Gallowgate said:Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.0 -
0
-
The face of the leave campaign changes depending on who Remainers’ Emmanuel Goldstein is in those 120 secondsPhilip_Thompson said:
I'm confident Boris has neutralised Farage.williamglenn said:
Are you confident Farage will give Johnson a free pass?Philip_Thompson said:
No because May chose to give MPs the choice and chose to agree to it and chose to agree to the extension.williamglenn said:When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/24/theresa-mays-government-chicken-has-bottled-brexit-boris-johnson/
If Parliament forces an extension with him voting against it, it will be Parliament that was chicken.
Boris was the face of the Vote Leave campaign and by literally expelling Grieve and co Boris now completely owns Brexit. Farage is moot.
Cummings/Boris/Farage/JRM/Gove0 -
Not Lab in 1970s - possibly the Tories, who were the largest party during the first Labour Government in 1924?OblitusSumMe said:
The Parliament website have taken all 21 off the Conservative total. It was 310 yesterday evening (presumably down from 311 before Lee crossed the floor) and is now at 289.CarlottaVance said:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
I'm wondering whether to try and work out when the largest party last had fewer MPs - the Tories are now currently a notional 36 seats short of a majority. Labour under Callaghan? The Tories at some point in the 20s or early 30s?0 -
The one superpower Farage possesses is the ability to unite his opponents. Any pact with him will go some way towards neutralising the potency of the anti Corbyn vote among moderate Tories.El_Capitano said:
I see the theory, but I don't understand why the Conservatives would prefer this to campaigning locally under a "Get Brexit Done" slogan.beentheredonethat said:
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.Gallowgate said:
Exactly.beentheredonethat said:
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?Gallowgate said:
That’s the pact.beentheredonethat said:
No. How do you get to that from my question?Gallowgate said:
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?beentheredonethat said:
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?Gallowgate said:Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.
Bomb the seat with messages like "Your Brexit-supporting Conservative candidate Stuart Leaver promises to take us out of the EU on 31st October - even if there's No Deal".
What does allying yourself with Farage get you over that? He has no track record at Westminster elections. Previously his schtick was "I'm committed to Brexit, Theresa May isn't", but that won't work with Johnson, who has just defenestrated of his own 21 MPs for not being committed enough to Brexit.
I suspect this is why Farage is making entreaties about a pact. Cummings has shot his fox.1 -
5 years was seen as a sign of desperation/reluctance to face the electorate.kinabalu said:
They weren't early. 4 years was the norm.PeterC said:1955 - almost 18 months early - govt increased majority
1983 - a year early - govt landslide
1987 - a year early - govt landslide
2001 - a year early - govt landslide
2005 - a year early - govt majority ca 600 -
And nor were they unexpected.kinabalu said:
They weren't early. 4 years was the norm.PeterC said:1955 - almost 18 months early - govt increased majority
1983 - a year early - govt landslide
1987 - a year early - govt landslide
2001 - a year early - govt landslide
2005 - a year early - govt majority ca 600 -
Yeah, I mean can you imagine the attack line: "Conservatives are running scared they won't even stand in x,y and z". Smaller parties can join a "rebel alliance" and not come out of it too badly beaten in the press. Lab / Cons can't.Dadge said:
Tories will stand aside in precisely zero seats.beentheredonethat said:
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.Gallowgate said:
Exactly.beentheredonethat said:
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?Gallowgate said:
That’s the pact.beentheredonethat said:
No. How do you get to that from my question?Gallowgate said:
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?beentheredonethat said:
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?Gallowgate said:Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.0 -
Quite possibly, but I still think he’d love himSouthamObserver said:
I doubt he'd vote. Would never put himself on the electoral register.isam said:
So would Del BoySouthamObserver said:
They don't like Jeremy Corbyn.isam said:
Leave doesn’t mean leave, we know that!noneoftheabove said:
Or basic manners, if someone was doing that in a meeting I was leading they would be asked to leave. And leave would mean leave.isam said:
Inverse snobberry. So distastefulScott_P said:Stark_Dawning said:It looks worse the more I see of it. Last night I foolishly accepted the spin from some on here who said he was merely pressing his ear against an audio speaker, which is palpable nonsense. The man clearly intended to demonstrate beyond all doubt that a chap of his breeding can do what the hell he likes and the riff-raff would do well to take note.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1169177120515481600Slackbladder said:I think the final which was the final straw for me last night was JRM. His high and snobby attitude and speech might be endearing in another place, but here, where actual jobs and economies matter it was misplaced and out of order.
I'm actually wondering if a period of Corbyn government, as disasterous as it would be in some areas wouldn't now be whats at least required, if certainly not desired.
There are instances of bad manners every single time the commons is in session - interrupting, being drunk, booing & jeering, talking over someone, falling asleep.
JRM is porn for middle class, middle aged wannabe rebels because it makes them feel like they’re at Uni again, but in general working class people quite like an eccentric posho
It is true, though, that there has always been a strong tradition of deference within the working class - hence the working class Tory vote. Alf Garnett would love JRM.0 -
currently the only way to remove the threat of no deal is to vote for the existing deal.Scott_P said:
Corbyn isnt saying he'll do that0 -
Labour may live life to regret this. Does seem to be too clever by half. We shall see.0
-
Oh there's grumbling from some of the old Salmondites all right, but the point is they will not be "given the chance". She is completely in control. It's part of the SNP appeal.Alistair said:
The party is absolutely not loyal to Sturgeon no matter what. About 20% would declare UDI if given the chance. And that includes MPs and MSPs, not just membership.Burgessian said:
Don't think you are right about Nicola, the party will stay ultra-loyal to her whatever. There is no plausible alternative leader, for one thing. And I still think she is torn about a referendum - the whole argument about being careful about what you wish for.malcolmg said:
It was commentators that said it needed 60% not the Government, they are getting more popular after 12 years not less, they have NO opposition, it is nothing like Quebec where Canada gave them powers and money and kept their promises. There is no conundrum for Sturgeon , she will be out if she does not have a referendum.Burgessian said:
This is the SNP conundrum which is made more acute by the surprising fact that "Yes" has failed to break through the 50% barrier so far. This really ought to be peak polling for them. If they lose a second IndyRef its all over for them. Sturgeon, for all the rhetoric, is genuinely torn.HYUFD said:
No, for a separatist party 49% for independence excuding Don't Knows is bad news.noneoftheabove said:
For a separatist party 49% is fine, it is well within the margin of error and they only need to win one referendum whereas unionists need to win every referendum.HYUFD said:Agree though that it is bad news for the SNP that despite Brexit 51% of Scottish voters would still vote to stay in the UK
In Quebec in 1995 the pro independence side had a narrow lead in final polls excluding Don't Knows in their second independence referendum but No won as Don't Knows went No and No won 51% to 49%.
Quebec has never had another independence referendum again and is now firmly in Canada with devomax
It would be "do or die" as there will certainly not be a third referendum as Scotland will turn its back on the subject as the Quebecois did, and the Nats will start suffering from the effects of long-term incumbency at Holyrood. And we haven't had the Salmond trial yet.
My recollection is that there was talk of a precondition of a second IndyRef being Yes polling in the region of 60% in order to demonstrate the "settled will". We don't seem to be quite there yet.
I also think you may be under-estimating "referendum fatigue" up here.0 -
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.Philip_Thompson said:
No they don't.Beibheirli_C said:You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"2 -
Theresa May withdrew the whip from Heseltine and co. Johnson has so far not done anything to suggest he’s more serious about No Deal than May was.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm confident Boris has neutralised Farage.williamglenn said:
Are you confident Farage will give Johnson a free pass?Philip_Thompson said:
No because May chose to give MPs the choice and chose to agree to it and chose to agree to the extension.williamglenn said:When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/24/theresa-mays-government-chicken-has-bottled-brexit-boris-johnson/
If Parliament forces an extension with him voting against it, it will be Parliament that was chicken.
Boris was the face of the Vote Leave campaign and by literally expelling Grieve and co Boris now completely owns Brexit. Farage is moot.0 -
May did not choose to give MPs a choice. That was Gina Miller.Philip_Thompson said:No because May chose to give MPs the choice and chose to agree to it and chose to agree to the extension.
(Well done on debut header btw. It was good.)0 -
If Boris can't no deal Brexit, and the EU doesn't blink, and if he can't have an election before the 31st October — all of which look probable now — doesn't that mean that the only way Boris can keep his promise is to get the
WAall-new shiny WA 2.0* through the Commons?
* Please do not closely examine WA 2.0.0 -
They were all launched at moments of very high polling. 1983 is the classic. Previous to the Falklands Mrs Thatcher was heading for a landslide defeat, not a win.anothernick said:
And nor were they unexpected.kinabalu said:
They weren't early. 4 years was the norm.PeterC said:1955 - almost 18 months early - govt increased majority
1983 - a year early - govt landslide
1987 - a year early - govt landslide
2001 - a year early - govt landslide
2005 - a year early - govt majority ca 600 -
No that would be an alternative proposal.Beibheirli_C said:
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.Philip_Thompson said:
No they don't.Beibheirli_C said:You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
I'm saying the technology used etc would be determined during transition in my proposal. Just as the future relationship is already meant to be determined during transition. It makes sense to know what technology is needed once you know the future relationship anyway - the problem at the moment is putting the cart before the horse.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.0 -
Running for hills in complete and utter panic at the prospect of facing the voters.Scott_P said:
But do they still want to #StopTheCoup ?
0 -
Doesn't sound like the Brexit party are ready to make nice just yet:
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/11692008394430668870 -
I’m now more confused. Let’s wait for Corbyn in a few minutes.
0 -
Yup you are right. Umpires call. Got a bit over excited hahahaBrom said:
nah they'l keep thatbeentheredonethat said:Aaaand they have lost a review as well. That could be very important later
0 -
A bit like skirt length and loud sportswear, it is hard to know if Jezza is years ahead or years behind the times. My money is on the latter.Recidivist said:
Corbyn's superpower is supporting policies that look crazy at the time but which everyone agrees with 10-15 years later. Trying to find the middle ground on Brexit may well be part of that pattern.eek said:So the next election will be:-
BXP - leave europe now (without a deal)
Tory - leave europe now (with a deal if europe blinks (and they won't) so without a deal)
Labour - renegotiate and a second referendum
Lib Dems - revoke
SNP revoke
Suddenly the Labour policy everyone has hated for a year is starting to look sane... Corbyn really is a lucky general.0 -
Ken Clarke in his usual seat on the government benches0
-
-
We will indeed.ab195 said:Labour may live life to regret this. Does seem to be too clever by half. We shall see.
I think it's smart to refuse the election unless a 31 Oct No Deal is ruled out. It looks like National Interest (i.e. can be spun that way) and it traps Johnson in an uncomfortable place.
It also kills off the conspiracy theory that Corbyn is working covertly to engineer a Tory Hard Brexit.0 -
Not sure how money will mitigate civil warCarlottaVance said:0 -
So given that the technology required doesn't currently exist (it's currently Fairy unicorn dust) and the default end state (the backstop) is the bit the ERG and everyone hates how do you start any transition if the ERG won't allow transition to begin.Philip_Thompson said:
No that would be an alternative proposal.Beibheirli_C said:
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.Philip_Thompson said:
No they don't.Beibheirli_C said:You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
I'm saying the technology used etc would be determined during transition in my proposal. Just as the future relationship is already meant to be determined during transition. It makes sense to know what technology is needed once you know the future relationship anyway - the problem at the moment is putting the cart before the horse.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.0 -
Whereas the EU want the arrangements sorted in advance and they hold the whip hand here. They have far less to lose than us.Philip_Thompson said:The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
But that does not matter does it?0 -
Wheres Ken sitting? Same spot?
Seen the thread now - brilliant next to TMay!!!!
Bless her.0 -
+1. The biggest problem with people who believe in the Brexit fantasy is that they have not got a clue how to deliver anything in practice. If we have no-deal we will be in the weakest possible place to negotiate a subsequent trade deal with Europe. And deal we will, eventually, at massive cost to business and jobs. What a bunch of fuckwits!Beibheirli_C said:
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.Philip_Thompson said:
No they don't.Beibheirli_C said:You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"0 -
Yes alongside Theresa MayScrapheap_as_was said:Wheres Ken sitting? Same spot?
0 -
-
Yeah, it's pretty simple. 'Yes, you can have a GE but contact us again after October 31st because we don't trust you, lying bastard.'kinabalu said:
We will indeed.ab195 said:Labour may live life to regret this. Does seem to be too clever by half. We shall see.
I think it's smart to refuse the election unless a 31 Oct No Deal is ruled out. It looks like National Interest (i.e. can be spun that way) and it traps Johnson in an uncomfortable place.
It also kills off the conspiracy theory that Corbyn is working covertly to engineer a Tory Hard Brexit.
That'll do it.1 -
Anyway - I have stuff to do in the real world, so I will leave you lot to enjoy "opposite world"
Later peeps!0 -
-
They should get a room.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yes alongside Theresa MayScrapheap_as_was said:Wheres Ken sitting? Same spot?
0 -
Iraq/PFI/Libya/AusterityFoxy said:
A bit like skirt length and loud sportswear, it is hard to know if Jezza is years ahead or years behind the times. My money is on the latter.Recidivist said:
Corbyn's superpower is supporting policies that look crazy at the time but which everyone agrees with 10-15 years later. Trying to find the middle ground on Brexit may well be part of that pattern.eek said:So the next election will be:-
BXP - leave europe now (without a deal)
Tory - leave europe now (with a deal if europe blinks (and they won't) so without a deal)
Labour - renegotiate and a second referendum
Lib Dems - revoke
SNP revoke
Suddenly the Labour policy everyone has hated for a year is starting to look sane... Corbyn really is a lucky general.0 -
No it doesn't matter. That was my point.Beibheirli_C said:
Whereas the EU want the arrangements sorted in advance and they hold the whip hand here. They have far less to lose than us.Philip_Thompson said:The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
But that does not matter does it?
They want the arrangemtns sorted in advance but that is a desire not a need. If we give them a forced choice: deal with border sorted in transition, or no deal, then I think they will reluctantly go for the deal. but they'll only do that if they know we are serious.0 -
Are they still having Javid's spending review today?0
-
Thats the planGIN1138 said:Are they still having Javid's spending review today?
1 -
I think he means "No Deal", not "No Brexit".Richard_Tyndall said:
Not sure how money will mitigate civil warCarlottaVance said:0 -
Fuck me, BoZo is really, really bad0
-
Yes he is. May for all her faults was a good PM in being sensible and having a plan and policy.Scott_P said:Fuck me, BoZo is really, really bad
Boris has bluster.0 -
He's making Corbyn look good, which is quite the achievement.Scott_P said:Fuck me, BoZo is really, really bad
0 -
No one cares what Isabel Oakeshott thinks. It only matters whether Farage decides he wants Brexit more than the opportunity to continue taking chunks out of the two main parties, or vice versa.AlastairMeeks said:Doesn't sound like the Brexit party are ready to make nice just yet:
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/11692008394430668870 -
"More than 100,000 people have applied to register to vote in the past 48 hours, according to government figures.
Some 52,408 applications were submitted on Monday, followed by 64,485 on Tuesday - compared with a daily average figure of about 27,000 over the past month...."1 -
It’s a re-tread of yesterday.Scott_P said:Fuck me, BoZo is really, really bad
He didn’t even acknowledge Corbyn’s point about the Bahamas (HMQEII head of state, former colony, Commonwealth Member).0 -
I think that's generous,Scott_P said:Fuck me, BoZo is really, really bad
0 -
I've said once a deal is agreed it too should be a confidence issue. If the ERG refuses to agree a backstopless transition deal then they should be expelled from the party too.eek said:
So given that the technology required doesn't currently exist (it's currently Fairy unicorn dust) and the default end state (the backstop) is the bit the ERG and everyone hates how do you start any transition if the ERG won't allow transition to begin.Philip_Thompson said:
No that would be an alternative proposal.Beibheirli_C said:
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.Philip_Thompson said:
No they don't.Beibheirli_C said:You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
I'm saying the technology used etc would be determined during transition in my proposal. Just as the future relationship is already meant to be determined during transition. It makes sense to know what technology is needed once you know the future relationship anyway - the problem at the moment is putting the cart before the horse.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
Though I highly doubt it will come to that. The Brady Amendment was voted by Parliament and as far as I'm aware all but one of those who voted against the Brady Amendment are now no longer Tories. So a Tory majority absolutely should be able to pass that.0 -
I know I'm not the only poster here responsible for running and managing projects. Can anything think of an example from their own experience where stating an unmovable deadline "do or die" has ever made things happen? I certainly can't, a date doesn't deliver any work and it's the refuge of people out of their depth and unable to comprehend the work and risk involved in delivering the project.Nigel_Foremain said:
+1. The biggest problem with people who believe in the Brexit fantasy is that they have not got a clue how to deliver anything in practice. If we have no-deal we will be in the weakest possible place to negotiate a subsequent trade deal with Europe. And deal we will, eventually, at massive cost to business and jobs. What a bunch of fuckwits!Beibheirli_C said:
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.Philip_Thompson said:
No they don't.Beibheirli_C said:You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"1 -
I can't even begin to understand the people saying Corbyn should accept a GE which could be timed to force No Deal.kinabalu said:
We will indeed.ab195 said:Labour may live life to regret this. Does seem to be too clever by half. We shall see.
I think it's smart to refuse the election unless a 31 Oct No Deal is ruled out. It looks like National Interest (i.e. can be spun that way) and it traps Johnson in an uncomfortable place.
It also kills off the conspiracy theory that Corbyn is working covertly to engineer a Tory Hard Brexit.0 -
Since Isabel Oakeshott is Richard Tice's partner, we can reliably assume that she is accurately reflecting thinking at the top of the Brexit party.Endillion said:
No one cares what Isabel Oakeshott thinks. It only matters whether Farage decides he wants Brexit more than the opportunity to continue taking chunks out of the two main parties, or vice versa.AlastairMeeks said:Doesn't sound like the Brexit party are ready to make nice just yet:
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/11692008394430668870 -
Farage wants to take chunks off both parties - where will he get his money from otherwise...Endillion said:
No one cares what Isabel Oakeshott thinks. It only matters whether Farage decides he wants Brexit more than the opportunity to continue taking chunks out of the two main parties, or vice versa.AlastairMeeks said:Doesn't sound like the Brexit party are ready to make nice just yet:
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/11692008394430668870 -
That is powerful
Boris
I want to spend 1 billion on the police
He wants to give the EU 1 billion a month0 -
A reminder that most people want the Backstop and that most MPs want the Backstop.0
-
Jezza the chameleon pronouncing ‘Lancaster’ as ‘Lancarster’ today, as opposed to his short vowelled ‘chance’ yesterday0
