politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Boris Johnson ignores the no deal law then 50/1 on him bein
Comments
-
Aren't we generally seeing a shift to a looser age pf party allegiance? The first time is always the hardest, and all that.Black_Rook said:
The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?SouthamObserver said:So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.
0 -
At least it stops the clowns getting their grubby incompetent mitts into anything elseRobD said:
True, but a common complaint against this and the last government is that it is myopically focused on Brexit.Anabobazina said:
Au contraire, the problem with most governments is hyperactivity.RobD said:
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.Richard_Nabavi said:Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
A government that is unable to do much at all is often a blessing for businesses, who are safe in the knowledge that they aren't going to faff around with legislation needlessly, causing unintended consequences, as is exactly what happens 99.9% of the time.0 -
I didn't know Labour had published a manifesto! I think you might have been reading too much Brexit supporting media, who make things up...Black_Rook said:
The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?SouthamObserver said:So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.
0 -
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?Byronic said:
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growthBeibheirli_C said:
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.Byronic said:
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. EtcRichard_Nabavi said:
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.Byronic said:Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.0 -
What evidence for that whiff of tactical voting?kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
0 -
They are trying the heavy bails now – with screws in the end to make them even heavier.AndyJS said:
Never seen that before. I've seen the heavy bails being used a few times.Anabobazina said:No bails on the stumps FFS.
1 -
The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.algarkirk said:
Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.RobD said:
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.Richard_Nabavi said:Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
0 -
What a shame. I was looking forward to @HYUFD explaining that Tory grandees were in fact LibDems.Scott_P said:Reverse Ferret !!!
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/11692780403603087384 -
The ferrets are going back and forth so much today they must feel like shuttles on a loom.Scott_P said:Reverse Ferret !!!
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/11692780403603087380 -
All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.Black_Rook said:
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.Gabs2 said:
An extra thought on this. I can not imagine the new Tory Party, expunged of many Remainers both in parliament and in the electorate, will accept the result of a second referendum to Remain. They will say the other side wasn't bound by the previous one so why should they listen? It is highly likely they put a pledge to leave the EU in their manifesto for every GE from now on. Leaving the EU will be as much part of Tory DNA as leaving the UK is for the SNP.Gabs2 said:
This was what I asked for the other day and nobody could find. Clearly I was wrong. But Corbyn would still wait to renegotiate first.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
0 -
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
0 -
-
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?eristdoof said:
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
0 -
Australia would be 5 down by now if Joel Wilson was umpiring.0
-
Cummings is an oppositionist, I don't think much of Boris's judgement in utilising someone like Cummings as it is a completely different skill set being in opposition to being in Government. When a PM makes decisions you will always find opponents internally and externally. The current administration does not seem interested in Governing, just blaming everybody else for the mess they have created.Beibheirli_C said:
So, the masterplan, after losing control of the Commons, is to lose control of the Lords?Scott_P said:
What sort of genius is Cumming supposed to be?0 -
No, he’s the Klinsmann. Appointed for a short term but specific gig (2006 World Cup hosting and prep) and will then slope off after being quite successful. Anyone worried that Cummings will be running the show in 2021 (or even easter 2020) isn’t paying much attention.NottingHiller said:
Cummings is heading for a major fall from grace. The Sam Allardyce of politics.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
0 -
Which, leaving the FTPA out of it, is what?Chris said:
The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.algarkirk said:
Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.RobD said:
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.Richard_Nabavi said:Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
0 -
-
When the next Labour manifesto is published and it does NOT contain any plans for hundreds of billions in extra borrowing and/or money printing, a swathe of hugely expensive (and, in some or all cases, arguably wholly needless) renationalisations, and measures that amount to the expropriation of private property by the state, then I shall withdraw my remarks with a blend of surprise, relief and delight.The_Taxman said:
I didn't know Labour had published a manifesto! I think you might have been reading too much Brexit supporting media, who make things up...Black_Rook said:
The real test doesn't come now. It comes if Labour wins an election outright and Corbyn and McDonnell choose to try to unleash Disaster Socialism upon the country. Which, if any, of the more extreme ideas in the Labour manifesto will the "moderates" vote down?SouthamObserver said:So, it looks like it is McDonnell and Starmer v Corbyn and the Morning Star Brexiteers, with the vast majority of the PLP on the former's side. It is for moments like these that Labour MPs will tell you they have not walked away. Today they have real power and there is absolutely nothing Corbyn, Momentum, Milne or anyone else can do about it.
However, I do not presently expect to be surprised, relieved and delighted.0 -
Surely we should expect some snap polls tonight from the last 24 hrs?0
-
any batshit theory is possible.Pulpstar said:
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?eristdoof said:
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
0 -
-
I've found out what is happening.Beibheirli_C said:
Is there an English translation of this available?Scott_P said:
There are 86 amendments currently tabled. Every amendment needs 2 votes - a closure vote to agree that debate should be brought to a close followed by a vote on the amendment.
This is going to take time so it's a battle of wills - 478 Lords are taking part and the Non- Government Lords outnumber the Government Lords 2 to 1 by the looks of it.
30 Lords need to be there for a vote to take place and there clearly need to be more Non-government lords than Government Lords.0 -
Small point of order. Referenda are allowed in Germany, but only at district or state level. You are right that at the federal level they are not allowed.Black_Rook said:
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
But on the main point. I agree, after Dave's big three, we will not be seeing many Referenda in the future.
0 -
If Cummings can persuade the masses that bien pensant Lib/Lab voters, with their pro-EU hysteria and shameless sense of entitlement, conspired to rob Boris of his democratic due through tactical voting, then perhaps we're talking a Boris landslide.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
0 -
It didn't cut any ice with those that accused the Treasury for lying when they made the same point in their short term impacts report back in 2016.Byronic said:
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growthBeibheirli_C said:
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.Byronic said:
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. EtcRichard_Nabavi said:
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.Byronic said:Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.0 -
I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.
Certainly won’t be posted on here either.
One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.
Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in
Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.
Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.0 -
You could screw them to the stumps to stop them from blowing away!Anabobazina said:
They are trying the heavy bails now – with screws in the end to make them even heavier.AndyJS said:
Never seen that before. I've seen the heavy bails being used a few times.Anabobazina said:No bails on the stumps FFS.
0 -
I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede.Black_Rook said:
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.
If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.
There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible.
The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.0 -
Implied probability of a No Deal Brexit this year down to 26% on Betfair now.
The betting market doesn't seem to think Johnson will sweep to victory on a No Deal election platform.0 -
Was that (b)ironic?Stark_Dawning said:
If Cummings can persuade the masses that bien pensant Lib/Lab voters, with their pro-EU hysteria and shameless sense of entitlement, conspired to rob Boris of his democratic due through tactical voting, then perhaps we're talking a Boris landslide.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
0 -
Not heavy enough for Labuschagne.eristdoof said:
You could screw them to the stumps to stop them from blowing away!Anabobazina said:
They are trying the heavy bails now – with screws in the end to make them even heavier.AndyJS said:
Never seen that before. I've seen the heavy bails being used a few times.Anabobazina said:No bails on the stumps FFS.
0 -
Cambridge Brewdog spiked drinks with pro Boris mind altering hops.Alanbrooke said:
any batshit theory is possible.Pulpstar said:
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?eristdoof said:
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
So the mad Cat woman told me..0 -
As I said the other day, HYUFD's vision of a large Conservative majority in the near future is certainly within the realms of possibility. The problem is that a large Corbynite majority is also feasible, as is a Lib Dem/SNP/whatever coalition.TGOHF said:I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.
Certainly won’t be posted on here either.
One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.
Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in
Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.
Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.
I'll be darned if I know what'll happen. I don't really have an idea which of the Brexit offerings I'd prefer, and which would be best for the country - but I do know who I don't want to vote, for, and that precludes both Corbyn and Boris.0 -
A reminder that Cameron's memoires will be published in a couple of weeks.
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/11692755609562398720 -
-
Yes, it's batshit, because of the steps taken by this and the previous government to prevent a repeat of that happening...Alanbrooke said:
any batshit theory is possible.Pulpstar said:
If the Tories win a majority will the whole 'Russian interference' meme kick off again ?eristdoof said:
A phone call to Cambridge Analytica and another to Putin should get it sorted.kinabalu said:I'm picking up a whiff of MASSIVE tactical voting against Johnson if there is an election in this climate. But I'm still worried because Cummings will probably have 'gamed' that. It's what he does. He's a stone cold genius.
although..
for some reason I've forgotten what steps /were/taken. Can anyone jog my memory?0 -
-
A new Parliamentary Session opens on October 14th and another attempt could be made then.Scott_P said:
0 -
For my sins, I’ve just read the BoE report on No Deal Brexit. To be fair, me, Nabavi and the Guardian are allowed to be confused, because the bank itself is confused. These predictions are so tenuous as to be practically valueless. Also, we have no real idea what might have happened in alternative scenarios, not more than a year or so into the “future”, anywayFF43 said:
It didn't cut any ice with those that accused the Treasury for lying when they made the same point in their short term impacts report back in 2016.Byronic said:
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growthBeibheirli_C said:
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.Byronic said:
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. EtcRichard_Nabavi said:
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.Byronic said:Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
I admit to being surprised by suggestions that No Deal will cost a couple of percentage points over ten years when Brexit has already cost 3% over three years and we haven't left yet.
The one thing we can say is that No Deal will be painful. With a potential to be hideously painful. And is really best avoided, if poss.1 -
-
Each header more hysterical than the last.
Once this has all blown over some of these threads will be looked back on with good-natured amusement and no small amount of embarrassment I suspect.0 -
Yes if Cameron had invited a panel of senior leavers at the time to get togerther 100 civil servants for a year, negotiate with the EU and put a framework together for leave, then the referendum would have been much cleaner and the result either way easier to implement.Noo said:
I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede.Black_Rook said:
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.
If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.
There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible.
The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.0 -
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labourBeibheirli_C said:
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?Byronic said:
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growthBeibheirli_C said:
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.Byronic said:
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. EtcRichard_Nabavi said:
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.Byronic said:Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.0 -
-
We can't be certain that Scotland would be independent under such circumstances, because arming the Scottish Parliament with the right to demand independence directly would change the terms of the election of its members and could dissuade some voters from backing pro-independence legislators. But I won't dig any further into the mechanics as this is a wholly hypothetical argument in any event.algarkirk said:All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.
I certainly see no particular reason why secession could not be decided by votes in legislatures rather than direct democracy. We can craft our own rules; after all, we're unusual in entertaining the notion of secession in the first place. In most jurisdictions with formal federal systems in place - the US, Germany and Australia to name but three - the nation is considered indissoluble.0 -
0
-
I am with you there Mr JessopJosiasJessop said:
As I said the other day, HYUFD's vision of a large Conservative majority in the near future is certainly within the realms of possibility. The problem is that a large Corbynite majority is also feasible, as is a Lib Dem/SNP/whatever coalition.TGOHF said:I doubt any sage and balanced analysis of PM BJ will be possible before 1/11/19.
Certainly won’t be posted on here either.
One must remember the scenario he inherited - no disciple, no real majority, a single topic dominating the headlines.
Will his approach work ? impossible to judge with confidence before the election results come in
Until then it’s partisan tweets and anecdotes.
Meanwhile I’m sure focus group facilitators are doing a roaring trade.
I'll be darned if I know what'll happen. I don't really have an idea which of the Brexit offerings I'd prefer, and which would be best for the country - but I do know who I don't want to vote, for, and that precludes both Corbyn and Boris.0 -
The Scots joined the United Kingdom as a result of decision in their ParliamentBlack_Rook said:
We can't be certain that Scotland would be independent under such circumstances, because arming the Scottish Parliament with the right to demand independence directly would change the terms of the election of its members and could dissuade some voters from backing pro-independence legislators. But I won't dig any further into the mechanics as this is a wholly hypothetical argument in any event.algarkirk said:All very plausible and well argued. But the right of self determination by referendum is now getting fairly well established, and it is easier to get a genie out of the bottle than it is to put it back in. BTW, if we had such a system, Scotland would already be independent, and all the current bits of UK would be safely in the EU.
I certainly see no particular reason why secession could not be decided by votes in legislatures rather than direct democracy. We can craft our own rules; after all, we're unusual in entertaining the notion of secession in the first place. In most jurisdictions with formal federal systems in place - the US, Germany and Australia to name but three - the nation is considered indissoluble.0 -
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?isam said:
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labourBeibheirli_C said:
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?Byronic said:
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growthBeibheirli_C said:
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.Byronic said:
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. EtcRichard_Nabavi said:
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.Byronic said:Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.0 -
Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature0 -
I'm not keen on referendums, but if you have them there should be rules. I suggest:
1. Selection of two choices, each of which must be viable and clear in its effect
2. One option must the status quo
3. The other option must be a fully enabling Act of Parliament, where the final ratification is the referendum.0 -
I think he is the sort of worm that will crack under a bit of pressure and scrutiny. Opposition parties should do all they can to call him to accountScott_P said:0 -
-
Absolutely. The shitshow of Brexit has surely put paid to the idea that “we’re British, we will muddle through, we can wing it and it will be fine, somehow”noneoftheabove said:
Yes if Cameron had invited a panel of senior leavers at the time to get togerther 100 civil servants for a year, negotiate with the EU and put a framework together for leave, then the referendum would have been much cleaner and the result either way easier to implement.Noo said:
I think you have spoken powerfully against the idea of referendums in out system, and I have a sympathy with your point of view. But there is an elephant in the room: consent. There must be a defined process that allows for a peaceful and democratic path for a part of any country to secede.Black_Rook said:
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
The hazard is that an electoral system can throw up an result where a majority of representatives are elected with a minority of votes. 2015, less than a year after Scotland voted no, is a case in point. Should the election of 56/59 MPs be a mandate for independence? I do not think so, even if Margaret Thatcher did.
If that's not the pathway to withdrawal of consent, the only other one I can think of is a direct vote.
There is a stark difference between Scotland's and the UK's referendums. The Scottish one, combative as it was, rarely strayed into the darkness. The UK one certainly did. I think a major reason for that difference is the preparation that went into them. The independence referendum was years in the making, and both sides were responsible.
The EUref was hurried and ill-planned. And there's the lesson. If you're gonna do something, take the time to do it properly. I'm sad to see this current government has not learned that important lesson.
No, we’re not fine, and we’re not muddling through. We needed a plan from the start.
To be fair to the much-maligned Dom Cummings, he did point this out in his infamous blog.0 -
Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.HYUFD said:Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature0 -
Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.0
-
-
From the Guardian:
MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.0 -
https://twitter.com/JBeattieMirror/status/1169279587588722688WhisperingOracle said:Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
0 -
The outgoing PM is obliged to name a successsor.algarkirk said:
Which, leaving the FTPA out of it, is what?Chris said:
The FTPA is nothing to do with who is prime minister. It's purely to do with when there's a parliamentary election. All the stuff to do with appointing prime ministers is just the same as it was before.algarkirk said:
Is it clear what would happen next if Boris unilaterally resigned as PM and took his bat home, declining to name a successor? The FTPA seems not to allow for it, but if he did it it would be hard to see how he could be stopped.RobD said:
Maybe in that one specific scenario it is an improvement, but forcing a government without a majority to limp along for months or years is in no-ones interest.Richard_Nabavi said:Contrary to popular belief, isn't the current farrago evidence that the Fixed Term Parliament Act is an improvement on the previous system? I say that because, under the old system, an unelected minority PM could have crashed us out in chaos, despite the will of parliament, by using his personal power to call a GE to get parliament out of the way over the critical date. With the Act in place, the opposition parties can ensure that the options are kept open until we've had a GE and any new government can then decide what to do.
After a sucessfull VoNC there are 14 days to find a successor. The PM would then make the recommendation to the queen.
As I understand it the PM is not 100% legally compelled to go the queen if there is a VoNC followed by confidence vote in a new PM, but refusing would be a very quick route to the PM being held in contempt and being expelled.
I do not think the Queen will be impressed if Johnson phones her and says "I'm moving out of Downing Street. The keys are in the post. It's your problem now"0 -
BoZo about to expel a former Party Chair?0
-
Looks like noone has changed their mind. I include Spelman in that because she probably would have voted with the rebels yesterday but chose not to as they had the numbers in order to be a test case for "Does she lose the whip or not" if she rebels today.OldKingCole said:From the Guardian:
MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.0 -
One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.Scott_P said:0 -
Over 20% - which means over 70% believe the Queen was wrong to assent to proroguing Parliament.El_Capitano said:
Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.HYUFD said:Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.0 -
Each vote takes 15 minutes so it's at the very least 30 minutes per amendment plus there must be some time to debate each amendment - even if only 5 to 10 minutes that's a total of 35 to 40 minutes per amendment.eek said:
I've found out what is happening.Beibheirli_C said:
Is there an English translation of this available?Scott_P said:
There are 86 amendments currently tabled. Every amendment needs 2 votes - a closure vote to agree that debate should be brought to a close followed by a vote on the amendment.
This is going to take time so it's a battle of wills - 478 Lords are taking part and the Non- Government Lords outnumber the Government Lords 2 to 1 by the looks of it.
30 Lords need to be there for a vote to take place and there clearly need to be more Non-government lords than Government Lords.
So it looks like a minimum of approx 50 hours.0 -
Maybe he did not realise how badly his previous advice was going to go down and the fact that the opposition are not playing ball. Given the opposition to a second referendum maybe the penny is beginning to drop the No Deal Brexit is not welcome and he is trying to save Brexit from death? A desperate last throw of the dice!WhisperingOracle said:Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
0 -
The Irish example is the one to follow.FF43 said:I'm not keen on referendums, but if you have them there should be rules. I suggest:
1. Selection of two choices, each of which must be viable and clear in its effect
2. One option must the status quo
3. The other option must be a fully enabling Act of Parliament, where the final ratification is the referendum.
The Government had a plan they wanted to implement, knew how and when it would be done, and used a referendum for public consent.0 -
One more person than yesterday! The right honourable member for Hallam?OldKingCole said:From the Guardian:
MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.0 -
A second referendum has always been the most likely way to get a no deal brexit.WhisperingOracle said:Some interesting ideas floating about tonight that Cummings could have actually gamed for a second referendum. After all, it was the first that made his name ; but it would be a much harder task for him than the first.
0 -
0
-
Me personally? It depends which yearwilliamglenn said:
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?isam said:
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labourBeibheirli_C said:
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?Byronic said:
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growthBeibheirli_C said:
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.Byronic said:
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. EtcRichard_Nabavi said:
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.Byronic said:Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM0 -
Enhance your calm.Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1169286286324248579
CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!
0 -
Couldn't disagree more. Plenty of countries make referendums a key part of their legislation and do it very well. And your two examples of failure are spurious.Black_Rook said:
The fallout from both 2014 and 2016 has been a masterclass in why representative and direct democracy are wholly incompatible. First the Scottish electorate votes in a Nationalist Government and then denies it its core policy objective at a referendum. Then the UK electorate votes for a policy in a referendum, but elects a Parliament that is unwilling and unable to implement the policy. The result is that the policy in dispute gains a life of its own and all else begins to revolve and polarise around it. Scotland has Ulsterized around independence, and it's quite possible that England will Ulsterize around membership of the EU. It's hugely destructive.
We should therefore follow the example of the Germans and ban plebiscites under all circumstances save two: an NI border poll, because of the GFA, and for ratification or amendment of a constitution, should Parliament decide that one is needed and put it to the people.
As far as any other issue, include Scottish independence, is concerned, it should be a matter for our representatives. England as well as Scotland and Wales should have its own Parliament and, if we are going to continue to recognise the Union between them as temporary and dissoluble rather than permanent, then all three of those bodies should have a right to vote for secession, subject to certain limited safeguards.
In the case of the Scottish vote there is nothing problematic or inconsistent with having the SNP elected with one their policies being independence and then having that specific policy rejected by the electorate. They still have many other policies they can enact in Government. Moreover the alternative would be to say that the SNP should simply have declared independence without a referendum - something that at the time clearly had only minority support as we well know from the referendum itself.
As far as Brexit is concerned I would suggest many of those MPs now obstructing or trying to reverse Brexit would never have got elected in 2015 had they been honest and said they would try to reverse the referendum.
The problem is not referendums it is the MPs.0 -
Of course.Byronic said:
One wonders how we will all get on if we Revoke and Remain, after, say, a 2nd referendum. Very uncomfortable.Scott_P said:
It's like a spouse going through a mid life crisis, threatening to move out, talking about the gorgeous person at work they've been going for drinks with, and fancy moving in with.
Then coming back in a fit of remorse and saying it was just a phase.
The other spouse will be understandably treating them as on probation.0 -
By close of play tonight Boris will have lost the same number of Parliamentary votes as Margaret Thatcher did in 11 years.Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1169286286324248579
CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!
0 -
As usual TSE is talking rot. The first to break precedent was the speaker acting on behalf of remainers:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy0 -
Is that even a useful comparison? She had a comfortable majority from the outset.eek said:
By close of play tonight Boris will have lost the same number of Parliamentary votes as Margaret Thatcher did in 11 years.Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1169286286324248579
CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!0 -
Spellman expelled0
-
No it is great news for Boris, Parliament blocking the will of the people and defying 17 million Leave voters as the Tories poll lead grows furtherScott_P said:https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1169286286324248579
CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!0 -
That rabble-rousing radical Dame Caroline Spelman.eristdoof said:
One more person than yesterday! The right honourable member for Hallam?OldKingCole said:From the Guardian:
MPs have voted to give the bill to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October a second reading by 329 votes to 300 - a majority of 29.0 -
The Queen acts on the advice of her PM. The truly revolutionary act would have been to refuse Johnson's request (which after all was only for 4 days).eek said:
Over 20% - which means over 70% believe the Queen was wrong to assent to proroguing Parliament.El_Capitano said:
Over 20%. Wow. A colossal level of public support.HYUFD said:Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
Boris is really going to be remembered - as the person who destroyed the UK and destroyed the monarchy with it.
You people are sowing dragons' teeth with this nonsense...0 -
It's completely unfair but surely CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!RobD said:
Is that even a useful comparison? She had a comfortable majority from the outset.eek said:
By close of play tonight Boris will have lost the same number of Parliamentary votes as Margaret Thatcher did in 11 years.Scott_P said:https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1169286286324248579
CUMMINGS HAS WARGAMED THIS !!!0 -
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1169287207187886081
Kicking out Spelman is sure to calm some nerves...0 -
Look plank, there's a distinction between breaking a precedent, and breaking the law.basicbridge said:As usual TSE is talking rot. The first to break precedent was the speaker acting on behalf of remainers:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/john-bercow-decision-endangers-the-office-of-speaker-and-our-democracy0 -
Last days of Rome? It’s embarrassing.bigjohnowls said:Spellman expelled
0 -
If Cummings had looked back even briefly, he would have seen that there was a good chance the EU would only offer an extension for a "new dispensation" such as a referendum. He would surely have anticipated the forcing of an extension, too, so in fact it seems quite likely he should have factored the combined sequential forcing of a referendum, by parliament and then the EU, into his plans.0
-
Trouble is, you expel productive European workers and sack higher rate taxpayers, shrink the economy and wreck trade for decades, you're not going to make life any better for anyone.isam said:
Me personally? It depends which yearwilliamglenn said:
Is the average EU migrant earning more or less than you, I wonder?isam said:
Finally a remain voter is in the mindset of the people who voted Leave because of the mass immigration of cheap EU labourBeibheirli_C said:
If I lose my job because of it, why would I care which category it belongs in?Byronic said:
You don’t understand basic economics. There is a WORLD of difference between 5% shrinkage in absolute GDP, and a 5% opportunity cost in lost growthBeibheirli_C said:
You are quibbling over details. To people losing jobs because of it, they will not gave a d*mn which category the recession belongs to.Byronic said:
Hahaha. I pwned the great Nabavi. All your base are belong to I. EtcRichard_Nabavi said:
It depends what timescale you look at. Yes it's lost growth if you look far enough out, but to get there you have substantial downturn first.Byronic said:Either you, the guardian or Carney is wrong. Or all of you. See my recent post
But it’s an understandable error. That is truly shit reporting by the Guardian. Making lost growth look like absolute shrinkage? TSK
What difference would it make? I would still be unemployed.
But the pressure put on wages, job security & state services added to the rapid change in their neighbourhood demographic were the equivalent of a No Deal Brexit on the lowest paid British workers from 2004-2016, that's why they voted Leave, and the lack of negative impact on richer Brits was the reason they didn't/don't understand the problem with FOM0 -
This figure seems very dodgy. Almost everyone knows the Queen approved the proroguing that is the protocol, and not in practice a decision that she makes. The 20% is probably the figure for "Proroguing was right".HYUFD said:Unless the Queen signs a law requiring further extension Boris will not be breaking the law as passage of an Act of Parliament alone does not a law make, it also requires royal assent.
With over 20% of UK voters believing the Queen was right to assent to proroguing Parliament the current crisis is not harming the monarchy but the legislature
As a follow up the Queen is not going to refuse to give assent to an act that has been approved by both houses.0 -
New Betfair markets just opened - seats under / over for each Party.0
-
TSE has let it all go to his head and gone a little mad, i fear.CaptainBuzzkill said:Each header more hysterical than the last.
Once this has all blown over some of these threads will be looked back on with good-natured amusement and no small amount of embarrassment I suspect.0
