The only comments I've heard around here about Brexit are in line with the following …
(1) Why are we asking for another extension? Nothing is going to happen in that time. The EU may well grant it, but they have no reason to move anymore.
My view? Its a continuation of the last three years of the politicians playing silly buggers in order to delay and finally eliminate a chance of any Brexit.
I do have a genuine question. We've heard a lot from some Remainers who blame the Brexit enthusiasts for not tying to appease the 48% of the voters who voted for the EU. Had the result gone 52 - 48 in favour of staying, what would the government and the majority Remainers in the HoC done to appease the 48% of dissident Leavers?
Would they have announced a mini-leave? Perhaps withdrawn from some obligations? We know the answer to that. Why then are they not called out for their clear and obvious hypocrisy. Perhaps because their arrogance blinds them?
I suspect the poshos will have their way. We'll stay and Nationhood will disappear as we're subsumed into a single country. But we'll still be ruled by politicians who think they know better and the voters are barely the means to an end.
I think our semi-detached status in the EU (opt-outs, no Euro, no Schengen) was in recognition of the fact that a section of the country was never reconciled to being a member. That would have continued had we voted to remain. In but as far out as possible.
A close leave vote should have resulted in out but as close as possible. Instead there have always been those with an agenda to cut ties completely and hitch up to the USA and there was no deal that they would ever accept. Hence the impasse.
I find it ironic when you talk of "poshos" having their way when the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg are the ones heading up your side. Some of you leavers seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder. The key reason we are where we are is that there was no agreement on how to execute Brexit before the referendum and there has been none since. Of course it is far more satisfying to blame it all on "posho" remainers.
Quite, the remain equivalent of the leavers' initial push for hard brexit would have been to join schengen and the euro (hard remain).
The remainer equivalent of the current pursuit of no deal would be to apply to become part of France and/or Germany.
Neither would have been justified by such a close result, which explains why we refuse to accept hard brexit or no deal. A 52-48 remain victory should have led to soft remain (i.e. Cameron's deal). The 52-48 leave victory should have led to a soft brexit, i.e. Norway or something similar.
Oh God, Nick Robinson saying that Grieve’s motion is asking for the “private” messages of government officials.
No - it bloody isn’t. It’s asking for messages which relate to the reasons why prorogation was being sought. These are work messages not private messages. How hard is it for journalists to understand this?
Its like a private phone being used to pass on insider trading. We decided quite some time ago that was not desirable and needed to be stopped. But as I said down thread correspondence was produced to the Court of Session last week and is already in the public domain.
All pubs within 2 miles of Downing Street should have hidden microphones incase govt members talk to each other about stuff Grieve doesn’t like.
Thought crimes next.
Total nonsense. I won't repeat Cyclefree's points but you might do well to respond to that if you have any serious points to make instead of daft hyperbole.
Cummings treated the public and parliament with contempt in giving the reasons he did for proroguing parliament. Do you believe those were the reasons for proroguing? If you lie expect your opponents to try to find proof that that is what you are doing.
It just shows how bad Boris and Cummings are that there were enough ex conservative mps who abstained last night who had they retained the whip would see Boris winning the vote
Oh God, Nick Robinson saying that Grieve’s motion is asking for the “private” messages of government officials.
No - it bloody isn’t. It’s asking for messages which relate to the reasons why prorogation was being sought. These are work messages not private messages. How hard is it for journalists to understand this?
Its like a private phone being used to pass on insider trading. We decided quite some time ago that was not desirable and needed to be stopped. But as I said down thread correspondence was produced to the Court of Session last week and is already in the public domain.
All pubs within 2 miles of Downing Street should have hidden microphones incase govt members talk to each other about stuff Grieve doesn’t like.
Thought crimes next.
Total nonsense. I won't repeat Cyclefree's points but you might do well to respond to that if you have any serious points to make instead of daft hyperbole.
Cummings treated the public and parliament with contempt in giving the reasons he did for proroguing parliament. Do you believe those were the reasons for proroguing? If you lie expect your opponents to try to find proof that that is what you are doing.
In many countries the vote is becoming less Bipartisan and more parties are getting more MPs. Even in countries which have traditionally had coalitions, the recent coalitions have had to be more diverse and required carefully collated coalition agreements.
The move away from two parties has also been a part of UK voters for many year, but the UK has a voting system which rewards the two main parties in terms of MPs and often delivers an absolute Majority. Since 2010 though, we are now in the situation where no-overall-majority is more likely than an overall majority, and the parties need to realise this. Succesfull politicians of today need to be prepared to work together and be prepared to build coalitions.
Yes- and this has revealed huge problems with a constitutional settlements that assumes hung parliaments are wholly exceptional rather than the norm.
The UK used to be able to cope with hung parliaments. i.e. in the interwar years and in 1974.
What has changed to destroy that previously accepted constitutional settlement?: 1. The FTPA removed from government the ability to bring those parliaments to an end in circumstances when it could not get key legislation through. 2. The FTPA also compromised the ability of a weak government to get key legislation through, as with votes of confidence no longer being linked to legislation, party discipline has been greatly weakened. 3. Bercow junked all precedent so that control of the legislative agenda was taken out of the hands of government, effectively giving opposition parties a positive incentive to continue parliamentary sessions in circumstances when the government had lost the ability to govern.
Even the revolving post war Italian governments look strong by comparison with the mess now created.
I agree the FTPA needs some serious bodywork for those reasons. There were good grounds for trying to stop incumbent PMs massaging the electoral cycle for their own advantage, so I can see why a >50pc vote for an early poll is desirable. But the "zombie government" side effect when you can't pass anything isn't great.
I'm less convinced by point 3. Given the demonstrable strength of 'royal' prerogative we've seen during this episode, and if we're at all serious that "parliament is sovereign" rather than having an elected dictatorship, then a bit of a crowbar in the system is needed. Bercow didn't play every card optimally, but if backbenchers are to be more than £70k salaried sheep, someone needs to assist them in up-ending the untrammeled power of the whips
I did not watch last night as I could not listen to these venal mps tearing bits out of each other as ordinary decent people despair
Boris is dreadful but he can be joined by Corbyn, Bercow, Grieve and many others
I have no idea what this will do to the polls but I cannot think anything other than the Country will not give anyone a boost
Fortunately, my wife and I leave on Saturday on our trans atlantic cruise and only return on the 8th October, just before the crunch mid october period when anything could happen
And last night I learnt David Jones, a committed brexiteer, is not seeking re-election in Clwyd West
As Cromwell said in 1653:
Ye sordid prostitutes, have you not defil’d this sacred place and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral purposes and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
He was spot on. And their reluctance to face their employers is telling.
And how did Cromwell solve the problem? Did it happen to involve getting more power for himself?
I believe that it did, yes.
Probably not in reality. Oliver Cromwell worked with the powers that were around and provided co-ordination. BUT if he had accrued all the power to himself then there would have been no difficulty with his regime continuing after his death with Richard Cromwell in charge.
We probably owe quite a lot to Richard Cromwell - by all accounts quite a decent chap.
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
In many countries the vote is becoming less Bipartisan and more parties are getting more MPs. Even in countries which have traditionally had coalitions, the recent coalitions have had to be more diverse and required carefully collated coalition agreements.
The move away from two parties has also been a part of UK voters for many year, but the UK has a voting system which rewards the two main parties in terms of MPs and often delivers an absolute Majority. Since 2010 though, we are now in the situation where no-overall-majority is more likely than an overall majority, and the parties need to realise this. Succesfull politicians of today need to be prepared to work together and be prepared to build coalitions.
Yes- and this has revealed huge problems with a constitutional settlements that assumes hung parliaments are wholly exceptional rather than the norm.
The UK used to be able to cope with hung parliaments. i.e. in the interwar years and in 1974.
What has changed to destroy that previously accepted constitutional settlement?: 1. The FTPA removed from government the ability to bring those parliaments to an end in circumstances when it could not get key legislation through. 2. The FTPA also compromised the ability of a weak government to get key legislation through, as with votes of confidence no longer being linked to legislation, party discipline has been greatly weakened. 3. Bercow junked all precedent so that control of the legislative agenda was taken out of the hands of government, effectively giving opposition parties a positive incentive to continue parliamentary sessions in circumstances when the government had lost the ability to govern.
Even the revolving post war Italian governments look strong by comparison with the mess now created.
I agree the FTPA needs some serious bodywork for those reasons. There were good grounds for trying to stop incumbent PMs massaging the electoral cycle for their own advantage, so I can see why a >50pc vote for an early poll is desirable. But the "zombie government" side effect when you can't pass anything isn't great.
I'm less convinced by point 3. Given the demonstrable strength of 'royal' prerogative we've seen during this episode, and if we're at all serious that "parliament is sovereign" rather than having an elected dictatorship, then a bit of a crowbar in the system is needed. Bercow didn't play every card optimally, but if backbenchers are to be more than £70k salaried sheep, someone needs to assist them in up-ending the untrammeled power of the whips
The "zombie government" is caused by zombie politicians not being prepared to work with one another. Labour is just as bad as the tories in this respect.
PB Tories staggering, fainting and clutching pearls all over the shop this morning I see. Usually a good sign. (Catching up on last night's thread I see that the 'Corbyn is finished' squeal was back amongst drunken PB Tories - in incarnation no. 456346789999. Again, usually a good sign.)
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Grown ups? Hiding paperwork to avoid scrutiny is not the work of a grown up
I did not watch last night as I could not listen to these venal mps tearing bits out of each other as ordinary decent people despair
Boris is dreadful but he can be joined by Corbyn, Bercow, Grieve and many others
I have no idea what this will do to the polls but I cannot think anything other than the Country will not give anyone a boost
Fortunately, my wife and I leave on Saturday on our trans atlantic cruise and only return on the 8th October, just before the crunch mid october period when anything could happen
And last night I learnt David Jones, a committed brexiteer, is not seeking re-election in Clwyd West
I would put most MPs in the category of 'ordinary decent people' rather than venal. Corbyn, Bercow and Grieve have all simply done their job - holding the government to account, allowing the Commons to have its say as the instrument of the British people, and working cross-party to prevent the government forcing a no deal Brexit on us, respectively. A venal parliament would be one where MPs simply turn up and collect their salary and allow the government to trash our country unopposed.
All the mps trashed our Country last night in a display of abject irresponsibility
How? By closing the door to a disastrous no deal Brexit? I would say that was highly responsible behaviour.
If you cannot see how appalling yesterday's behaviour was and the media coverage this morning confirms it you are playing the worst kind of politics
This is not about who is right or wrong, this is about the image of the Mother of Parliaments trashing its reputation in front of the country and world wide
I don't know about worldwide, but on the German radio this morning (popular station mostly playing music but has some news and other features): Short discussion about the latest news about the UK parliament. Reporter starts by saying "Brexit, yes ok, I know, wake me up when it's over" but goes onto say something like "this has gone beyond Brexit, this is about parliament defending democracy in the place where modern democracy was founded". Suspension of parliament being portrayed as anti-democratic, which seems to be how most Germans I know see things. I would say most people here see Johnson as a kind of Trump figure who is trashing the UK's reputation.
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Risky move. The loaded question can be lobbed back: "so you think it's better to run the country without a parliament?"
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
One striking feature of the comments this morning is how very poster - Leave or Remain - seems to think public opinion is on their side. Presumably a symptom of the echo chamber response.
maybe there should be an election so the UK can find out?
It just shows how bad Boris and Cummings are that there were enough ex conservative mps who abstained last night who had they retained the whip would see Boris winning the vote
Alternatively, the repeated failure of those ex Conservative MPs to support the government in votes since they lost the whip can be interpreted as a vindication of Johnson's actions. They are absolutely determined to compromise his ability to govern, yet they apparently see it as their right to be given the opportunity to be selected to stand again for the Conservatives.
Johnson has spent his entire political career avoiding scrutiny - and you can see why when he fails to avoid it. Closing down Parliament is the latest example of this. And he’ll do it again if given the slightest opportunity.
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Risky move. The loaded question can be lobbed back: "so you think it's better to run the country without a parliament?"
It is risky but they will be looking at ways to try and yank back the narrative
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Grown ups? Hiding paperwork to avoid scrutiny is not the work of a grown up
Well I dont expect them to present a balanced view of things. Politicians arent noted for it
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Sacking someone the day before they retire? That's a Trump move.
Holding governments to account is fundamental to liberal democracy. The one where governments get to do as they please is called dictatorship. Please keep up.
There are some real idiots posting just now, alternatively they think it is OK for governments to break the law and do as this wish.
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Sacking someone the day before they retire? That's a Trump move.
One striking feature of the comments this morning is how very poster - Leave or Remain - seems to think public opinion is on their side. Presumably a symptom of the echo chamber response.
maybe there should be an election so the UK can find out?
That would definitely work if we had a proportional system. But the Tories could get a majority on 35% of the vote, and again both sides would have good cause to continue in their beliefs.
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Sacking someone the day before they retire? That's a Trump move.
Though Yougov and Opinium still predict a Tory majority I would argue it actually helps Boris for it to look like it will be another hung parliament in the polls with maybe Corbyn PM propped up by the SNP and perhaps even the LDs too.
After all that was what it looked like in 2015 before Cameron won a majority to stop Ed Miliband winning propped up by the SNP, in 2017 though when all pollsters bar Survation suggested a Tory majority May lost her majority as swing voters voted for the opposition parties to clip her wings
Polls leading up to the 2017 election had the LDs on 8-10% which was accurate. Now the polls have the LDs between 17 and 21% . It is much harder for either Lab or Con to get a surprise overall majority when the third party in England is around 20%
It isn't if the Tories win enough Labour Leave seats with a big enough lead over Corbyn Labour as Yougov and Opinium are predicting them too even if not other pollsters to make up for any losses to the LDs and SNP
Well it's a strategy. I don't know the north of England at all well so it may be that both Brexit and the Tories are a lot more popular up there than I think they should be. But I do see people who I'd never thought would ever switch away from the Tories not so much drifting away from them as dropping all their possessions and running in the opposite direction. Doesn't the South East matter?
Brexit is a realignment to some extent, the average Tory voter now looks much more like the average US Republican party voter under Boris e.g. lower middle or working class white male non graduate than they did under David Cameron where the average Tory was more middle even upper middle class.
The Tories have won more UKIP 2015 voters and a few Labour Leave voters but lost some Tory 2015 Remain voters to the LDs
The UK could never be Singapore, (GDP/capita $65,000) which is a city state, but London could. Worth pointing out that Malaysia, of which Singapore was once a part, has a GDP/capita of $11,000. If that seems a fanciful comparison, consider that west inner London has a GDP/capita almost 10 times as high as West Wales and the Valleys - and that is with the existing level of redistribution from richer to poorer regions.
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Sacking someone the day before they retire? That's a Trump move.
Last night was somewhat a declaration of war
"war" oh, do fuck off
Oh ffs get a life it's an expression in the context of speaker versus the government You prove yourself daily to be a boorish hothead
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Have you considered why Bercow, who was a right wing Monday Club Tory MP, became neutral ?
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Have you considered why Bercow, who was a right wing Monday Club Tory MP, became neutral ?
He isn't neutral, his actions prove that. And his political journey appears to be due to his heart ruling his leanings
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Have you considered why Bercow, who was a right wing Monday Club Tory MP, became neutral ?
Bercow is many, many things - but he is far from being neutral
The FTPA has a built-in clause requiring a committee review its provisions with a view to amending or repealing them in June 2020, after the supposed date of the next general election following the end of the coalition government. If they'd worded it better, the review would have occurred after the 2017 election.
Frightening thought: Boris's resignation honours list will include a peerage for Dominic Cummings.
Well, let's see the propagation emails etc first. It could be the Tower rather than the Lords.
Whatsapp messages are permanently deletable.
The government lawyers will already have seen them for the court cases last week.
c.
You've been making some of the best comments and the occasional header of late - much appreciated.
While I do not always agree, Cyclefree is a class act on this forum
Speaking as an outsider, the thread headers that are a cut above are almost universally written by Alistair Meeks, even though he and I have little overlap in our politics. He could launch a subscription only blog and I’d subscribe. I hesitate to disparage anyone for putting their head above the trench line so I’ll leave the specifics there, save to say there are some quite tedious and repetitive whines in the thread headers these days.
Among the posters, SeanT was the one that kept me coming here (lurking) for a decade, even if he was quite clearly bonkers. It was a relief to see his mantle was so smoothly picked up by Lord George Gordon.
Ah, well said - though I think all of the thread header writers do us proud tbf.
The other joy of PB is the range of poster's characters, views and approach. I profoundly disagree with many of them but what a cast we have.
Special mention for...
@HYUFD - Tory party apparatchik and poll* addict (*provided they match the party line) @Richard_Tyndall - forever struggling with those anger management techniques @Byronic - SeanT reincarnate @Big_G_NorthWales - always a gent, would so love to vote anything but Tory but just can't bring himself to do it @Sunil_Prasannan - train buff, film buff, comedy b... er, no sorry Sunil.
Apols to those and to the many others I enjoy - too many to mention.
With all the talk of electoral prospects, i’m still not really sure of the scenario where we actually get an election. Now that Corbyn has abandoned his policy of pursuing one come what may, and adopted a position of “it depends on the polls”. And whatever the hypothetical polling about elections post Oct 31st say at the moment I have serious doubts that they message they suggest will sustain. Will Labour then find another excuse to oppose one?
I doubt they'll just stall with nothing happening come October/November. They'll want to hold on until it's clear that Boris's "renegotiation" cupboard is bare then either fight an election or VONC and support a new government.
I think a GE will either be called by mid Nov for early Jan, or the Queens Speech will fail and a VONC will follow, leading to the 14 days and so on then GE.
I did not watch last night as I could not listen to these venal mps tearing bits out of each other as ordinary decent people despair
Boris is dreadful but he can be joined by Corbyn, Bercow, Grieve and many others
I have no idea what this will do to the polls but I cannot think anything other than the Country will not give anyone a boost
Fortunately, my wife and I leave on Saturday on our trans atlantic cruise and only return on the 8th October, just before the crunch mid october period when anything could happen
And last night I learnt David Jones, a committed brexiteer, is not seeking re-election in Clwyd West
I would put most MPs in the category of 'ordinary decent people' rather than venal. Corbyn, Bercow and Grieve have all simply done their job - holding the government to account, allowing the Commons to have its say as the instrument of the British people, and working cross-party to prevent the government forcing a no deal Brexit on us, respectively. A venal parliament would be one where MPs simply turn up and collect their salary and allow the government to trash our country unopposed.
All the mps trashed our Country last night in a display of abject irresponsibility
How? By closing the door to a disastrous no deal Brexit? I would say that was highly responsible behaviour.
If you cannot see how appalling yesterday's behaviour was and the media coverage this morning confirms it you are playing the worst kind of politics
This is not about who is right or wrong, this is about the image of the Mother of Parliaments trashing its reputation in front of the country and world wide
I don't know about worldwide, but on the German radio this morning (popular station mostly playing music but has some news and other features): Short discussion about the latest news about the UK parliament. Reporter starts by saying "Brexit, yes ok, I know, wake me up when it's over" but goes onto say something like "this has gone beyond Brexit, this is about parliament defending democracy in the place where modern democracy was founded". Suspension of parliament being portrayed as anti-democratic, which seems to be how most Germans I know see things. I would say most people here see Johnson as a kind of Trump figure who is trashing the UK's reputation.
The Reichstag parliaments of the Weimar Republic compromised the ability of German governments to function, and in doing so discredited the reputation of those parliaments and thus democracy itself, creating the opportunity for those who wanted to put an end to the chaos.
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Sacking someone the day before they retire? That's a Trump move.
Last night was somewhat a declaration of war
"war" oh, do fuck off
Oh ffs get a life it's an expression in the context of speaker versus the government You prove yourself daily to be a boorish hothead
You don't like people disagreeing with you, do you? Perhaps you should "declare war" on me.
On topic good thread. I have often said that it perplexes me when I hear "the betting markets are saying" about some political event as though they impart some great wisdom.
It is usually an event that we here are fighting like cats in a sack and have no idea about and if I may say we are quite an informed group so how on earth would "the betting markets" know better?
And often said by people who don't understand probabilities. Nobody produces a list of horse races or football matches where the odds-on favorite didn't win, and says "the betting markets are all wrong". Because long shots come in every day.
The predictions turn out to be quite good. And the political predictions are heavily based on polling - maybe this suggests when Betfair and opinion polls seem to be pointing in opposite directions, then tend to believe the polls.
If I'm reading the politics chart correctly, they've actually tended to overestimate outsiders' chances a little bit, and underestimate the favorites'.
Well said Kamski! Since Nov 2016 I have been standing up for five thirty eight's good prediction. A 30% chance means Trump needed to roll a five or six, and he rolled a five.
One of the things that brought me to this website is that most contributors and commentators understand the difference between odds/probabilities and predicting a winner.
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
I thought proroguing , the fancy word for "shutting down", Parliament was the nuclear option. Do you think President Cummings and PM Johnson should go into dictatorship ?
I agree the FTPA needs some serious bodywork for those reasons. There were good grounds for trying to stop incumbent PMs massaging the electoral cycle for their own advantage, so I can see why a >50pc vote for an early poll is desirable. But the "zombie government" side effect when you can't pass anything isn't great.
I'm less convinced by point 3. Given the demonstrable strength of 'royal' prerogative we've seen during this episode, and if we're at all serious that "parliament is sovereign" rather than having an elected dictatorship, then a bit of a crowbar in the system is needed. Bercow didn't play every card optimally, but if backbenchers are to be more than £70k salaried sheep, someone needs to assist them in up-ending the untrammeled power of the whips
At the moment we don’t know if the FTPA results in a Government unable to pass anything - all we know is that it can’t pass anything contentious after annoying every other party and a fair few of their own MPs.
The UK could never be Singapore, (GDP/capita $65,000) which is a city state, but London could. Worth pointing out that Malaysia, of which Singapore was once a part, has a GDP/capita of $11,000. If that seems a fanciful comparison, consider that west inner London has a GDP/capita almost 10 times as high as West Wales and the Valleys - and that is with the existing level of redistribution from richer to poorer regions.
I tend to agree the Singapore model is only realistic for London and the South East commuter belt
Picking up some excitement around an NI only backstop. And why not, the idea IS exciting. Furthermore it is supremely logical. An Irish solution to an Irish problem. It's the key to the door - the only one that fits - and all that's stopping us using it is a minor party pursuing a narrow sectarian agenda not even supported by a majority in its own backyard. So, yes, the NI only backstop, let's be having you. If PM Johnson is serious about negotiating this - and can find a way to finesse it through - there will be two simple words forever attached to his name in the annals. Great Man.
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Risky move. The loaded question can be lobbed back: "so you think it's better to run the country without a parliament?"
Better to run without this particular parliament... that is the case for the GE
The UK could never be Singapore, (GDP/capita $65,000) which is a city state, but London could. Worth pointing out that Malaysia, of which Singapore was once a part, has a GDP/capita of $11,000. If that seems a fanciful comparison, consider that west inner London has a GDP/capita almost 10 times as high as West Wales and the Valleys - and that is with the existing level of redistribution from richer to poorer regions.
It’s fatuous and only promoted by people with minimal to no understanding of Singapore.
Mr. kinabalu, it imposes a customs barrier within the national territory of the United Kingdom. It's unacceptable.
And that's before we get to the Northern Irish having regulations and laws imposed upon them without any democratic representation. Or the fact that trade policy is not devolved.
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
I thought proroguing , the fancy word for "shutting down", Parliament was the nuclear option. Do you think President Cummings and PM Johnson should go into dictatorship ?
I'm suggesting what they might consider, not championing its morality. Not everything is a party political broadcast
Frightening thought: Boris's resignation honours list will include a peerage for Dominic Cummings.
Well, let's see the propagation emails etc first. It could be the Tower rather than the Lords.
Whatsapp messages are permanently deletable.
The government lawyers will already have seen them for the court cases last week.
c.
You've been making some of the best comments and the occasional header of late - much appreciated.
While I do not always agree, Cyclefree is a class act on this forum
Speaking as an outsider, the thread headers that are a cut above are almost universally written by Alistair Meeks, even though he and I have little overlap in our politics. He could launch a subscription only blog and I’d subscribe. I hesitate to disparage anyone for putting their head above the trench line so I’ll leave the specifics there, save to say there are some quite tedious and repetitive whines in the thread headers these days.
Among the posters, SeanT was the one that kept me coming here (lurking) for a decade, even if he was quite clearly bonkers. It was a relief to see his mantle was so smoothly picked up by Lord George Gordon.
Ah, well said - though I think all of the thread header writers do us proud tbf.
The other joy of PB is the range of poster's characters, views and approach. I profoundly disagree with many of them but what a cast we have.
Special mention for...
@HYUFD - Tory party apparatchik and poll* addict (*provided they match the party line) @Richard_Tyndall - forever struggling with those anger management techniques @Byronic - SeanT reincarnate @Big_G_NorthWales - always a gent, would so love to vote anything but Tory but just can't bring himself to do it @Sunil_Prasannan - train buff, film buff, comedy b... er, no sorry Sunil.
Apols to those and to the many others I enjoy - too many to mention.
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Risky move. The loaded question can be lobbed back: "so you think it's better to run the country without a parliament?"
Better to run without this particular parliament... that is the case for the GE
The people chose that parliament. If the government doesn't like it, tough. Governments get their mandate from parliament, not the other way around.
One striking feature of the comments this morning is how very poster - Leave or Remain - seems to think public opinion is on their side. Presumably a symptom of the echo chamber response.
maybe there should be an election so the UK can find out?
True, but consider this.
The public don't know what Yellowhammer says. Will no deal be fine or not? The public don't know the brilliant plan to deal with Ireland, or how Ireland and the EU will feel about it. The public don't know if there was anything dodgy about the prorogation plans. Nobody knows if Boris is a brilliant negotiator who will pull a rabbit from his hat next month.
Personally, I'm glad we're not having an election without some more information. If any of this goes wrong, last night's antics will likely pale into insignificance.
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Sacking someone the day before they retire? That's a Trump move.
Last night was somewhat a declaration of war
"war" oh, do fuck off
Oh ffs get a life it's an expression in the context of speaker versus the government You prove yourself daily to be a boorish hothead
You don't like people disagreeing with you, do you? Perhaps you should "declare war" on me.
Telling me to fuck off isn't disagreeing it's just a thuggish attack. With that, I'm done with you unless and until youd like to discuss politics rather than wave your willy about
The UK could never be Singapore, (GDP/capita $65,000) which is a city state, but London could. Worth pointing out that Malaysia, of which Singapore was once a part, has a GDP/capita of $11,000. If that seems a fanciful comparison, consider that west inner London has a GDP/capita almost 10 times as high as West Wales and the Valleys - and that is with the existing level of redistribution from richer to poorer regions.
I tend to agree the Singapore model is only realistic for London and the South East commuter belt
It could become independent of the rest of the UK, and join the EU! I'm all for it!
I did not watch last night as I could not listen to these venal mps tearing bits out of each other as ordinary decent people despair
Boris is dreadful but he can be joined by Corbyn, Bercow, Grieve and many others
I have no idea what this will do to the polls but I cannot think anything other than the Country will not give anyone a boost
Fortunately, my wife and I leave on Saturday on our trans atlantic cruise and only return on the 8th October, just before the crunch mid october period when anything could happen
And last night I learnt David Jones, a committed brexiteer, is not seeking re-election in Clwyd West
I would put most MPs in the category of 'ordinary decent people' rather than venal. Corbyn, Bercow and Grieve have all simply done their job - holding the government to account, allowing the Commons to have its .
All the mps trashed our Country last night in a display of abject irresponsibility
How? By closing the door to a disastrous no deal Brexit? I would say that was highly responsible behaviour.
If you cannot see how appalling yesterday's behaviour was and the media coverage this morning confirms it you are playing the worst kind of politics
This is not about who is right or wrong, this is about the image of the Mother of Parliaments trashing its reputation in front of the country and world wide
I don't know about worldwide, but on the German radio this morning (popular station mostly playing music but has some news and other features): Short discussion about the latest news about the UK parliament. Reporter starts by saying "Brexit, yes ok, I know, wake me up when it's over" but goes onto say something like "this has gone beyond Brexit, this is about parliament defending democracy in the place where modern democracy was founded". Suspension of parliament being portrayed as anti-democratic, which seems to be how most Germans I know see things. I would say most people here see Johnson as a kind of Trump figure who is trashing the UK's reputation.
The Reichstag parliaments of the Weimar Republic compromised the ability of German governments to function, and in doing so discredited the reputation of those parliaments and thus democracy itself, creating the opportunity for those who wanted to put an end to the chaos.
It’s fair to say democracy hadn’t been long established in Germany and was associated with catastrophic economic collapse.....we’re not quite there yet....
The UK could never be Singapore, (GDP/capita $65,000) which is a city state, but London could. Worth pointing out that Malaysia, of which Singapore was once a part, has a GDP/capita of $11,000. If that seems a fanciful comparison, consider that west inner London has a GDP/capita almost 10 times as high as West Wales and the Valleys - and that is with the existing level of redistribution from richer to poorer regions.
Why on earth would the UK want to become Singapore? Why don't we just become Luxembourg - much richer than Singapore, much more democratic (12th vs 66th, UK is 14th, out of 167 countries), culturally closer, happier. And we wouldn't have to bother with Brexit.
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Risky move. The loaded question can be lobbed back: "so you think it's better to run the country without a parliament?"
Tories might consider the nuclear option. 'Notwithstanding his announcement to resign on Oct 31, last night's disrespectful antics by the Speaker mean the government is forced to seriously consider bringing a vote of no confidence against him on the return of parliament' Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
Sacking someone the day before they retire? That's a Trump move.
Last night was somewhat a declaration of war
"war" oh, do fuck off
Oh ffs get a life it's an expression in the context of speaker versus the government You prove yourself daily to be a boorish hothead
You don't like people disagreeing with you, do you? Perhaps you should "declare war" on me.
Telling me to fuck off isn't disagreeing it's just a thuggish attack. With that, I'm done with you unless and until youd like to discuss politics rather than wave your willy about
I accept your gracious surrender. Don't do it again.
Show me a policy short of revoking Article 50 that Grieve would ever have supported.
Trying to build a concensus with people like him would be a fools errand. The truth is, Boris inherited a horrendously fractured party from May. May had no power to enforce her will after she lost her majority. Boris is at least looking to build a party that will have an internal coherence after the next election, whether in power or not.
The Conservative Party's problems stem from over-indulging a handful of self-important grandees. Keeping them in the tent has been a grave mistake - one which Boris has remedied.
A Norway style Brexit would have got through the House, with votes from people like Grieve, as well as a number of Labour MPs.
The issue was not and never really was the kind of Brexit, it was the method. This is why May and Johnson are bad at politics. They lived in a political reality where it was necessary to work across the aisle to form consensus, and instead they have tried to bulldoze through Parliament, the Opposition and members of their own party.
Johnson didn't have to box himself into Oct 31st, do or die, he chose to. May didn't have to have a mantra of "No Deal is better than a bad deal", she chose to. May, having lost her majority, could have easily set up a commission or a working group or cross party committee to come up with a framework for Brexit acceptable to the House that included everyone: ERGers, 1nats, Corbynistas, Blairites, Orange Bookers, Liberals, etc etc etc. She could have said to them "the framework you come up with will be delivered by the executive, whilst you do that rather unpopular task, I will deal with domestic policy and reverse austerity and be popular".
She didn't. Instead, at every turn, she refused oversight by the House, the argument being you don't hold negotiations in the open. The problem with that being the EU were publishing everything anyway because they had been mandated to update their parliament along the way so that negotiations were held in the light. Johnson has taken the same tactic as May and put it on steroids.
Politics is the art of the possible. They have failed at making possible the things they want, therefore they failed at politics. To say "but they were opposed, what do you expect" is like saying a footballer can't be expected to score goals because the defence and goalkeeper where in the way. That is how it works, so strategise around it.
On topic good thread. I have often said that it perplexes me when I hear "the betting markets are saying" about some political event as though they impart some great wisdom.
It is usually an event that we here are fighting like cats in a sack and have no idea about and if I may say we are quite an informed group so how on earth would "the betting markets" know better?
And often said by people who don't understand probabilities. Nobody produces a list of horse races or football matches where the odds-on favorite didn't win, and says "the betting markets are all wrong". Because long shots come in every day.
The predictions turn out to be quite good. And the political predictions are heavily based on polling - maybe this suggests when Betfair and opinion polls seem to be pointing in opposite directions, then tend to believe the polls.
If I'm reading the politics chart correctly, they've actually tended to overestimate outsiders' chances a little bit, and underestimate the favorites'.
Well said Kamski! Since Nov 2016 I have been standing up for five thirty eight's good prediction. A 30% chance means Trump needed to roll a five or six, and he rolled a five.
One of the things that brought me to this website is that most contributors and commentators understand the difference between odds/probabilities and predicting a winner.
Like when it's raining and BBC weather says a 5% chance of rain.
I did not watch last night as I could not listen to these venal mps tearing bits out of each other as ordinary decent people despair
Boris is dreadful but he can be joined by Corbyn, Bercow, Grieve and many others
I have no idea what this will do to the polls but I cannot think anything other than the Country will not give anyone a boost
Fortunately, my wife and I leave on Saturday on our trans atlantic cruise and only return on the 8th October, just before the crunch mid october period when anything could happen
And last night I learnt David Jones, a committed brexiteer, is not seeking re-election in Clwyd West
I would put most MPs in the category of 'ordinary decent people' rather than venal. Corbyn, Bercow and Grieve have all simply done their job - holding the government to account, allowing the Commons to have its say as the instrument of the British people, and working cross-party to prevent the government forcing a no deal Brexit on us, respectively. A venal parliament would be one where MPs simply turn up and collect their salary and allow the government to trash our country unopposed.
All the mps trashed our Country last night in a display of abject irresponsibility
How? By closing the door to a disastrous no deal Brexit? I would say that was highly responsible behaviour.
If you cannot see how appalling yesterday's behaviour was and the media coverage this morning confirms it you are playing the worst kind of politics
This is not about who is right or wrong, this is about the image of the Mother of Parliaments trashing its reputation in front of the country and world wide
I don't know about worldwide, but on the German radio this morning (popular station mostly playing music but has some news and other features): Short discussion about the latest news about the UK parliament. Reporter starts by saying "Brexit, yes ok, I know, wake me up when it's over" but goes onto say something like "this has gone beyond Brexit, this is about parliament defending democracy in the place where modern democracy was founded". Suspension of parliament being portrayed as anti-democratic, which seems to be how most Germans I know see things. I would say most people here see Johnson as a kind of Trump figure who is trashing the UK's reputation.
You should listen to Deutschlandfunk. They have the excellent Friedbert Maurer, who is very good at summarising the dificulties, and twists in the arcane British political system.
Johnson’s No Deal choices: 1. Break the law 2. Break the Conservative party 3. Resign That’s it.
He will do 3 in the end and become Leader of the Opposition
Which is of course the huge victory you have been predicting for some time now.
Just delayed
To the long run?
But you are saying it's better for Boris to give Lab a 5-yr parliamentary term?
He is to Cons as Corbyn is to Lab. Without him we get a sensible Cons party keeping Lab out. With him? As you yourself are saying, it is a Labour government.
Mr. kinabalu, it imposes a customs barrier within the national territory of the United Kingdom. It's unacceptable.
And that's before we get to the Northern Irish having regulations and laws imposed upon them without any democratic representation. Or the fact that trade policy is not devolved.
One can only think you're a chain-yanker.
I yank you not.
It was the UK's 1st choice remember.
But of course not all would be happy. C'est la vie.
"What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it. It was unfortunate that during the autumn quite a few people lost their heads over the triggering of Article 50 and came to believe that this would in some way be thwarted by Parliament or by the judiciary in their judgment that only Parliament could trigger a profound constitutional change of this kind. These criticisms were entirely misplaced and the proper process followed since has ensured that our system works correctly to give effect to the referendum decision through Parliament with proper scrutiny of its details. We have also been fortunate to have a Prime Minister with the determination both to see the complex challenges of Brexit through and to do this with a constant eye to maximising opportunities and minimising the risks involved to our economic well being, security and quality of life. As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum. I therefore strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination to secure a negotiated arrangement for leaving the EU and for forging a new trading relationship for the future, providing certainty for trade and business whilst giving us control of migration and releasing us from the direct effect of EU Law. I also believe that the people of our country will benefit from a close continuing relationship with a strong EU and I will work to help build these important links for our future. I very much hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be able to achieve something close to the goals she set out in her speech at Lancaster House in February."
Should.
As Malcolm Tucker said, "Should does not mean yes"
On topic good thread. I have often said that it perplexes me when I hear "the betting markets are saying" about some political event as though they impart some great wisdom.
It is usually an event that we here are fighting like cats in a sack and have no idea about and if I may say we are quite an informed group so how on earth would "the betting markets" know better?
And often said by people who don't understand probabilities. Nobody produces a list of horse races or football matches where the odds-on favorite didn't win, and says "the betting markets are all wrong". Because long shots come in every day.
The predictions turn out to be quite good. And the political predictions are heavily based on polling - maybe this suggests when Betfair and opinion polls seem to be pointing in opposite directions, then tend to believe the polls.
If I'm reading the politics chart correctly, they've actually tended to overestimate outsiders' chances a little bit, and underestimate the favorites'.
Well said Kamski! Since Nov 2016 I have been standing up for five thirty eight's good prediction. A 30% chance means Trump needed to roll a five or six, and he rolled a five.
One of the things that brought me to this website is that most contributors and commentators understand the difference between odds/probabilities and predicting a winner.
Like when it's raining and BBC weather says a 5% chance of rain.
No not at all like that. I'll leave you to figure out what the difference in the two types of probailities are.
Is Labour standing aside in any constituencies for the Greens (or the Lib Dems, or Plaid Cymru)? No. So why do they think they have a right to ask the Greens to do so?
The UK could never be Singapore, (GDP/capita $65,000) which is a city state, but London could. Worth pointing out that Malaysia, of which Singapore was once a part, has a GDP/capita of $11,000. If that seems a fanciful comparison, consider that west inner London has a GDP/capita almost 10 times as high as West Wales and the Valleys - and that is with the existing level of redistribution from richer to poorer regions.
Why on earth would the UK want to become Singapore? Why don't we just become Luxembourg - much richer than Singapore, much more democratic (12th vs 66th, UK is 14th, out of 167 countries), culturally closer, happier. And we wouldn't have to bother with Brexit.
Mr. kinabalu, it imposes a customs barrier within the national territory of the United Kingdom. It's unacceptable.
And that's before we get to the Northern Irish having regulations and laws imposed upon them without any democratic representation. Or the fact that trade policy is not devolved.
One can only think you're a chain-yanker.
I yank you not.
It was the UK's 1st choice remember.
But of course not all would be happy. C'est la vie.
That's an important point. No scenario will see everybody happy, not by a long way. The DUP should not be regarded as having a veto, especially since the problems being addressed with the backstop are partially of their own making.
On topic good thread. I have often said that it perplexes me when I hear "the betting markets are saying" about some political event as though they impart some great wisdom.
It is usually an event that we here are fighting like cats in a sack and have no idea about and if I may say we are quite an informed group so how on earth would "the betting markets" know better?
And often said by people who don't understand probabilities. Nobody produces a list of horse races or football matches where the odds-on favorite didn't win, and says "the betting markets are all wrong". Because long shots come in every day.
The predictions turn out to be quite good. And the political predictions are heavily based on polling - maybe this suggests when Betfair and opinion polls seem to be pointing in opposite directions, then tend to believe the polls.
If I'm reading the politics chart correctly, they've actually tended to overestimate outsiders' chances a little bit, and underestimate the favorites'.
Well said Kamski! Since Nov 2016 I have been standing up for five thirty eight's good prediction. A 30% chance means Trump needed to roll a five or six, and he rolled a five.
One of the things that brought me to this website is that most contributors and commentators understand the difference between odds/probabilities and predicting a winner.
Like when it's raining and BBC weather says a 5% chance of rain.
No not at all like that. I'll leave you to figure out what the difference in the two types of probailities are.
Are you misunderstanding me? Or me you? I am saying we shouldn't be surprised when it is raining and the prediction was that there was a 5% chance of rain. Because that means once in every 20 times under such conditions it would be raining and we are in one of those times.
The problem with hypothetical polling is the asking of the question: GE after No Deal Brexit which was only possible because the PM, his government and his advisers broke the law, for which they are currently on trail for: maybe not a Tory majority?
Holding governments to account is fundamental to liberal democracy. The one where governments get to do as they please is called dictatorship. Please keep up.
There are some real idiots posting just now, alternatively they think it is OK for governments to break the law and do as this wish.
Is Labour standing aside in any constituencies for the Greens (or the Lib Dems, or Plaid Cymru)? No. So why do they think they have a right to ask the Greens to do so?
In fact, the Greens have approached Labour in several parts of the country about doing mutually beneficial deals (as has happened between Green and Lib Dem), and always get knocked back. Labour have no moral authority to complain about other people standing.
Looks reasonable to me. I have thought for a while now that we could have a boxing day GE, as annoying as that would be for everyone, early December makes much more sense, though.
Is Labour standing aside in any constituencies for the Greens (or the Lib Dems, or Plaid Cymru)? No. So why do they think they have a right to ask the Greens to do so?
And I'm not sure instructing her to think again is his place. Asking or pleading, sure, but he instructs her like the greens are an adjunct of the labour party.
Tactically the Tories should run on condemnation of last night's antics and present as the grown ups in the room, especially with parliament out for the count. It's a chance for them to seize back the narrative a bit with no looming votes to lose. No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Risky move. The loaded question can be lobbed back: "so you think it's better to run the country without a parliament?"
Better to run without this particular parliament... that is the case for the GE
The people chose that parliament. If the government doesn't like it, tough. Governments get their mandate from parliament, not the other way around.
People voted on the basis of the manifestos and public statements of the candidates. In terms of mandate, votes were being cast on that basis - and the two largest parties both were explicit about delivering Brexit. Too many MPs have ignored that part of their 'mandate'
There are many ways of viewing things like mandates - but this Parliament is no longer fit for purpose. Something needs resetting. A GE is absolutely necessary
Is Labour standing aside in any constituencies for the Greens (or the Lib Dems, or Plaid Cymru)? No. So why do they think they have a right to ask the Greens to do so?
In fact, the Greens have approached Labour in several parts of the country about doing mutually beneficial deals (as has happened between Green and Lib Dem), and always get knocked back. Labour have no moral authority to complain about other people standing.
Political party a decides to stand against political part b in election. Shock and horror.
Maybe if Labour were willing to actually sit at a table and not assume that they deserved every left of centre vote, other parties would work with them... just saying.
Comments
How odd that if you create more wealth and consume less you don't get the debt problems.
Anyway I wonder what Owen Paterson's voting record is - I suspect it doesn't quite match his Singapore on the Severn musings.
The remainer equivalent of the current pursuit of no deal would be to apply to become part of France and/or Germany.
Neither would have been justified by such a close result, which explains why we refuse to accept hard brexit or no deal. A 52-48 remain victory should have led to soft remain (i.e. Cameron's deal). The 52-48 leave victory should have led to a soft brexit, i.e. Norway or something similar.
Unfortunately, it seems compromise is dead.
Total nonsense. I won't repeat Cyclefree's points but you might do well to respond to that if you have any serious points to make instead of daft hyperbole.
Cummings treated the public and parliament with contempt in giving the reasons he did for proroguing parliament. Do you believe those were the reasons for proroguing? If you lie expect your opponents to try to find proof that that is what you are doing.
spot on
And revealed how much they now expect to lose on that market ?
But the "zombie government" side effect when you can't pass anything isn't great.
I'm less convinced by point 3. Given the demonstrable strength of 'royal' prerogative we've seen during this episode, and if we're at all serious that "parliament is sovereign" rather than having an elected dictatorship, then a bit of a crowbar in the system is needed. Bercow didn't play every card optimally, but if backbenchers are to be more than £70k salaried sheep, someone needs to assist them in up-ending the untrammeled power of the whips
We probably owe quite a lot to Richard Cromwell - by all accounts quite a decent chap.
No comment on the moral validity of such is intended, merely observing the correct political move.
Any chance it can be kept closed until 2040?
Short discussion about the latest news about the UK parliament. Reporter starts by saying "Brexit, yes ok, I know, wake me up when it's over" but goes onto say something like "this has gone beyond Brexit, this is about parliament defending democracy in the place where modern democracy was founded". Suspension of parliament being portrayed as anti-democratic, which seems to be how most Germans I know see things. I would say most people here see Johnson as a kind of Trump figure who is trashing the UK's reputation.
Flush out his bias a little further and have it parade naked before the electorate
oh, do fuck off
1. Break the law
2. Break the Conservative party
3. Resign
That’s it.
Not at all impressed with her choice
The Tories have won more UKIP 2015 voters and a few Labour Leave voters but lost some Tory 2015 Remain voters to the LDs
You prove yourself daily to be a boorish hothead
The vast, cramped housing estates and poor standard of living isn't something to aspire to
Since Nov 2016 I have been standing up for five thirty eight's good prediction.
A 30% chance means Trump needed to roll a five or six, and he rolled a five.
One of the things that brought me to this website is that most contributors and commentators understand the difference between odds/probabilities and predicting a winner.
He retains his labour membership but will sit as a crossbencher in the Lords
“Oh look! Low taxes! Let’s do that!” Morons.
And that's before we get to the Northern Irish having regulations and laws imposed upon them without any democratic representation. Or the fact that trade policy is not devolved.
One can only think you're a chain-yanker.
The public don't know what Yellowhammer says. Will no deal be fine or not?
The public don't know the brilliant plan to deal with Ireland, or how Ireland and the EU will feel about it.
The public don't know if there was anything dodgy about the prorogation plans.
Nobody knows if Boris is a brilliant negotiator who will pull a rabbit from his hat next month.
Personally, I'm glad we're not having an election without some more information. If any of this goes wrong, last night's antics will likely pale into insignificance.
The issue was not and never really was the kind of Brexit, it was the method. This is why May and Johnson are bad at politics. They lived in a political reality where it was necessary to work across the aisle to form consensus, and instead they have tried to bulldoze through Parliament, the Opposition and members of their own party.
Johnson didn't have to box himself into Oct 31st, do or die, he chose to. May didn't have to have a mantra of "No Deal is better than a bad deal", she chose to. May, having lost her majority, could have easily set up a commission or a working group or cross party committee to come up with a framework for Brexit acceptable to the House that included everyone: ERGers, 1nats, Corbynistas, Blairites, Orange Bookers, Liberals, etc etc etc. She could have said to them "the framework you come up with will be delivered by the executive, whilst you do that rather unpopular task, I will deal with domestic policy and reverse austerity and be popular".
She didn't. Instead, at every turn, she refused oversight by the House, the argument being you don't hold negotiations in the open. The problem with that being the EU were publishing everything anyway because they had been mandated to update their parliament along the way so that negotiations were held in the light. Johnson has taken the same tactic as May and put it on steroids.
Politics is the art of the possible. They have failed at making possible the things they want, therefore they failed at politics. To say "but they were opposed, what do you expect" is like saying a footballer can't be expected to score goals because the defence and goalkeeper where in the way. That is how it works, so strategise around it.
But you are saying it's better for Boris to give Lab a 5-yr parliamentary term?
He is to Cons as Corbyn is to Lab. Without him we get a sensible Cons party keeping Lab out. With him? As you yourself are saying, it is a Labour government.
It was the UK's 1st choice remember.
But of course not all would be happy. C'est la vie.
We have also been fortunate to have a Prime Minister with the determination both to see the complex challenges of Brexit through and to do this with a constant eye to maximising opportunities and minimising the risks involved to our economic well being, security and quality of life.
As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum. I therefore strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination to secure a negotiated arrangement for leaving the EU and for forging a new trading relationship for the future, providing certainty for trade and business whilst giving us control of migration and releasing us from the direct effect of EU Law. I also believe that the people of our country will benefit from a close continuing relationship with a strong EU and I will work to help build these important links for our future. I very much hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be able to achieve something close to the goals she set out in her speech at Lancaster House in February."
Should.
As Malcolm Tucker said, "Should does not mean yes"
https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1171096788046155776
Is Labour standing aside in any constituencies for the Greens (or the Lib Dems, or Plaid Cymru)? No. So why do they think they have a right to ask the Greens to do so?
And they make their living by being a tax haven within the EU...
Tax avoidance drives nearly 40% of global FDI
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Tax-avoidance-drives-nearly-40-of-global-FDI-report
I don't think either of those things are options for us.
The “Central Provident Fund”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund (which we started)
And the Housing and Development Board: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board (82% live in public housing)
There are many ways of viewing things like mandates - but this Parliament is no longer fit for purpose. Something needs resetting. A GE is absolutely necessary
Maybe if Labour were willing to actually sit at a table and not assume that they deserved every left of centre vote, other parties would work with them... just saying.
90% of them have never been to either place.