politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Case of the Missing Documents
Comments
-
https://twitter.com/BBCandrewkerr/status/1171711489612419072dr_spyn said:Is the fan about to hit the shit?
https://twitter.com/BBCandrewkerr/status/11717109792620380160 -
Amusingly this could bring forward a GE if the Supreme Court agrees...
Jezza will be furious.0 -
https://twitter.com/alistairkgrant/status/1171711293054758912 More work for Supreme Court.0
-
Well that Jolyon Maugham is owed a few apologies.0
-
Am I right in thinking it's the advice that has been ruled unlawful, not the prorogation?0
-
... with a jealously guarded separate legal system, and with a Court of Sessions to which English barriers do not have audience rights. Seems a bit spongiform.malcolmg said:
Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United KingdomMattW said:Two questions:
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
I am interested to know the basis of their claim to Jurisdiction. I am sure that there is one.0 -
Yes. The proroguation is near-irrelevant now. Canceling it might even help Boris.noneoftheabove said:
Does that mean we can get a GE after all! It could be good for dear leader Boris!TheScreamingEagles said:Hoo boy.
The Scottish Courts eh?
Those LD numbers should TERRIFY Labour. Swinson is charming and plausible. Labour are about to adopt several insane commie policies. Labour’s position on Brexit is calamitously incoherent.
In a volatile election it’s easy to see the Libs charging through and beating Labour on votes, and maybe even MPs.0 -
BoZo's unbeaten (sic) record continues...0
-
More silly buggering about. Just get on with the f##king general election!0
-
But this definitely wasn't going to happen, I was told so on here.dr_spyn said:Is the fan about to hit the shit?
https://twitter.com/BBCandrewkerr/status/11717109792620380160 -
Interesting that the most recent 2 polls have been from the firms which have consistently had the biggest house effects in opposite directions.dyedwoolie said:Have we done Kantars new poll?
38/24/20/7 snp 4 fieldwork 5-9 sep
So:
Kantar 38/24/20/7
ComRes 30/29/17/13
Leads of 1% or 14%. Take your pick. Kantar don't prompt for the BP, I think ComRes do.0 -
The BBC are reporting it as the Prorogation itself...Chris said:Am I right in thinking it's the advice that has been ruled unlawful, not the prorogation?
0 -
I agree.Casino_Royale said:I see the betting markets are finally starting to move (a little bit) on a GE2019.
I can’t see anyone going for one this side of Christmas if they’re only doomed to return with almost precisely the same number of MPs all round, except more ideological.
I think 2020 is the year in which we will see the general election and - depending on the outcome - Brexit either delivered or put back to referendum.0 -
Stop. I can only be so aroused.Byronic said:
Yes. The proroguation is near-irrelevant now. Canceling it might even help Boris.noneoftheabove said:
Does that mean we can get a GE after all! It could be good for dear leader Boris!TheScreamingEagles said:Hoo boy.
The Scottish Courts eh?
Those LD numbers should TERRIFY Labour. Swinson is charming and plausible. Labour are about to adopt several insane commie policies. Labour’s position on Brexit is calamitously incoherent.
In a volatile election it’s easy to see the Libs charging through and beating Labour on votes, and maybe even MPs.0 -
Supreme Court > Scotland Court.
This could really help Bozza though.0 -
-
wowCarnyx said:
https://twitter.com/BBCandrewkerr/status/1171711489612419072dr_spyn said:Is the fan about to hit the shit?
https://twitter.com/BBCandrewkerr/status/11717109792620380160 -
If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.0
-
Blow for GE blocking MPs...0
-
The more time Sunil spends in Scotland doing the ScotRail network, the more Remainery he becomesTheScreamingEagles said:Hoo boy.
The Scottish Courts eh?
0 -
MattW said:
... with a jealously guarded separate legal system, and with a Court of Sessions to which English barriers do not have audience rights. Seems a bit spongiform.malcolmg said:
Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United KingdomMattW said:Two questions:
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
I am interested to know the basis of their claim to Jurisdiction. I am sure that there is one.
You could equally make the same point about english courts
0 -
Are we actually living through utterly unprecedented times? Has there ever been a point in recent British history where the internal waters are quite so muddy and unclear, despite no external threat?0
-
On reflection if parliament comes back, I think it brings forward PM Corbyn by a few weeks.Byronic said:
Yes. The proroguation is near-irrelevant now. Canceling it might even help Boris.noneoftheabove said:
Does that mean we can get a GE after all! It could be good for dear leader Boris!TheScreamingEagles said:Hoo boy.
The Scottish Courts eh?
Those LD numbers should TERRIFY Labour. Swinson is charming and plausible. Labour are about to adopt several insane commie policies. Labour’s position on Brexit is calamitously incoherent.
In a volatile election it’s easy to see the Libs charging through and beating Labour on votes, and maybe even MPs.0 -
Is there even a mechanism for Parliament to be un-prorogued? Surely that would require a QS which presumably isn't ready?0
-
0
-
I think it might be a bit more nuanced than that.Brom said:Supreme Court > Scotland Court.
This could really help Bozza though.
I'm sure it'll 'fire up the base'. But there'll be plenty of others for whom it adds to the evidence pile that he's a shifty bugger.0 -
Scottish judges unwrap parcel of prorogues.2
-
Agreed. It is a very bad look having Scottish legal decisions overturned by a court in London given they are supposed to.be separate legal systems.noneoftheabove said:If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
0 -
Like quite a few other scenarios this seems both entirely plausible and at the same time quite unlikely to me.Casino_Royale said:
I’m sorry to say I currently expect the following two things as more likely than the alternatives:Recidivist said:
I think you must be right. If the Brexit Party fights every seat and takes enough votes to deprive the Tories of a majority and so ends Brexit altogether, they have simply got to have a plausible 'it wasn't us guv' story.Freggles said:
Look at the body language on the photos they have chosen. Facing off against each other, Farage aloof and determined, Johnson seems to be asking a question.TGOHF said:
They could have chosen one of them appearing to stand side by side. Seems like setting the scene for Johnson to refuse
(1) Boris’s Deal, when it emerges, will go crashing down to a defeat just as serious as Theresa May’s. He is risking making himself untrusted and disliked by all, all round.
(2) If the “clean” Brexit some in the BXP and ERG seem to think he can/will deliver doesn’t look like it will materialise a few of them will break cover to say, “we’d be better off staying in the EU!”, which will lead to us staying in the EU.
Rather than pandering to the BXP and Spartans and chasing them ever further to the right, and then trying to pursue their votes in a GE, he’d have better luck putting a compromise deal to the HoC to resolve Brexit that’s reasonable to middle-ground voters.
If the HoC votes it down (it would) he puts that and revoke to the British people in a straight choice referendum and advocates his Deal, saying there’s no alternative.
I believe a soft Brexit would clearly win, and then he goes back to governing. When he calls a GE if that doesn’t work out he’d be more fortunate in pulling back votes from Lib Dems and Ex-Tories than he would BXP, which would anyway diminish a bit once a Brexit (any Brexit) had been delivered.
We are certainly living through some interesting times!0 -
-
Look what happened to the Scots Tories after indyref. As the most pro-union party, they became the home for unionist votes. From nowhere they became the second largest Scottish party and the official opposition.Gallowgate said:
Stop. I can only be so aroused.Byronic said:
Yes. The proroguation is near-irrelevant now. Canceling it might even help Boris.noneoftheabove said:
Does that mean we can get a GE after all! It could be good for dear leader Boris!TheScreamingEagles said:Hoo boy.
The Scottish Courts eh?
Those LD numbers should TERRIFY Labour. Swinson is charming and plausible. Labour are about to adopt several insane commie policies. Labour’s position on Brexit is calamitously incoherent.
In a volatile election it’s easy to see the Libs charging through and beating Labour on votes, and maybe even MPs.
I see few reasons why the exact same thing couldn’t happen to the pro-Remain Libs, in the UK, especially when you compare Corbyn with Swinson.0 -
-
Either you believe in the UK or you don't, in any case the lower Scottish court upheld the Government's decision.noneoftheabove said:If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
In any case proroguing Parliament is largely irrelevant now the anti No Deal Bill has passed0 -
The practical difficulty with that is that even revoke (which I do not support) still makes it possible to have another referendum (can be in manifesto at next election) and in that referendum any form of Brexit is still available. If we leave, then rejoining on the current terms is probably not possible. We can Brexit at any time, but keeping the status quo is likely only possible if we don't leave.Charles said:
Where they cross the line is they are trying to prevent the implementation of the referendum result
It would be entire legitimate to have a Rejoin position
If we'd be able to rejoin on current terms, then sure, leave and then campaign to rejoin - the decision can be reversed if it's demonstrated that we've changed our minds. Given we probably can't, it would make sense to enure that there really is a majority for leave now (or when, if ever) we know what kind of leave we're going for.0 -
So my paragraph 2 above now becomes highly pertinent.
Well, well - events!
If anyone in government is reading this and is wondering where to find not just a good investigator but one with courage, well ....0 -
Try the Treaty of Union. Scots law has always been sovereign in its jurisdiction and this was preserved in the Treaty.MattW said:
... with a jealously guarded separate legal system, and with a Court of Sessions to which English barriers do not have audience rights. Seems a bit spongiform.malcolmg said:
Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United KingdomMattW said:Two questions:
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
I am interested to know the basis of their claim to Jurisdiction. I am sure that there is one.1 -
Polling question! It seems pollsters dont know/cant agree whether to prompt for BP. In such circumstances isnt a blended approach, prompting BP for some but not others a mathematically better answer than the binary approach of doing the same for everyone.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Interesting that the most recent 2 polls have been from the firms which have consistently had the biggest house effects in opposite directions.dyedwoolie said:Have we done Kantars new poll?
38/24/20/7 snp 4 fieldwork 5-9 sep
So:
Kantar 38/24/20/7
ComRes 30/29/17/13
Leads of 1% or 14%. Take your pick. Kantar don't prompt for the BP, I think ComRes do.1 -
True, but you could say the same about the SNP when they lost the original case or Gina Miller and John Major when they lose their case.Harris_Tweed said:
I think it might be a bit more nuanced than that.Brom said:Supreme Court > Scotland Court.
This could really help Bozza though.
I'm sure it'll 'fire up the base'. But there'll be plenty of others for whom it adds to the evidence pile that he's a shifty bugger.0 -
The key thing is what the opinion shows as to how they came to this decision.
This will have huge bearing on the SC next week.0 -
United Kingdom Legal, political, constitutional systems = Antonio Brown0
-
The Gaelic for Mallaig is actually Malaig. Just so you know*.Theuniondivvie said:Just so you know.
https://twitter.com/ScotsGaelicfor/status/1171713881451958272?s=20
(* according to the platform signs at the station.)1 -
I'm gratified that the anything/everything is good for Yes PB meme has now been replaced by anything/everything is good for Boris/Brexit.1
-
So prorogation was illegal under Scots law and legal under english and Welsh law. Supreme court decider!0
-
The only solution is to open parliament for more sing songs during the Labour conference.0
-
I think 40 would be too many for Johnson.Wulfrun_Phil said:Johnson would I think contemplate this if he was able to negotiate Farage down to about 40 Labour voting seats of which only perhaps 5 or so the Conservatives would feel they would otherwise have had a chance of winning anyway. I would expect the combined Con/Brexit party vote to fall to no less than 40% (compared to 43%-47% in recent polls) and crucially it would be efficiently distributed.
Here's my logic. To get a deal through Parliament Johnson needs 330-340 MPs.
Whether he's in a pact with BXP or not, he will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP and he will lose seats in Remainia (like Richmond Park) to the LDs. The Alliance will also pick up from both the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, which increases the number of Anti No Deal votes.
He therefore realistically starts with about 290-300 seats and needs to gain 30-40 minimum. Handing 40 theoretically winnable seats to BXP means, then, that he needs to be looking way down the list at Labour seats for gains.
And then there's the other side of the equation. You correctly note that not all BXP voters will come to the Conservatives, irrespective of a pact. Likewise, not all Conservative voters will vote BXP in those Labour Leave seats. BigG certainly wouldn't for example. So, maybe the BXP pact makes those Labour Leave seats safer for them (see: Peterborough).
I think if Johnson wants a majority, he needs to keep the number of seats the BXP gets to stand in down to about half a dozen. Otherwise, they are going to end up with the Balace of Power, and Johnson is going to be in almost exactly the same predicament as now.1 -
Will the fact the prorogation order was issued in Scotland make any difference?dyedwoolie said:So prorogation was illegal under Scots law and legal under english and Welsh law. Supreme court decider!
0 -
Parliament recalled next Wednesday - VONC or short election bill passes - when will the GE be ? October ?0
-
Parliament is in in ... England tho.Carnyx said:
Try the Treaty of Union. Scots law has always been sovereign in its jurisdiction and this was preserved in the Treaty.MattW said:
... with a jealously guarded separate legal system, and with a Court of Sessions to which English barriers do not have audience rights. Seems a bit spongiform.malcolmg said:
Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United KingdomMattW said:Two questions:
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
I am interested to know the basis of their claim to Jurisdiction. I am sure that there is one.0 -
-
Wasn't the SNP but a cross-party group of MPs and peers (by definition not SNP).Brom said:
True, but you could say the same about the SNP when they lost the original case or Gina Miller and John Major when they lose their case.Harris_Tweed said:
I think it might be a bit more nuanced than that.Brom said:Supreme Court > Scotland Court.
This could really help Bozza though.
I'm sure it'll 'fire up the base'. But there'll be plenty of others for whom it adds to the evidence pile that he's a shifty bugger.0 -
Serious question. Why does he need 330 - 340? Surely he needs something around 321 taking Sinn Fein and Speaker into account.rcs1000 said:
I think 40 would be too many for Johnson.Wulfrun_Phil said:Johnson would I think contemplate this if he was able to negotiate Farage down to about 40 Labour voting seats of which only perhaps 5 or so the Conservatives would feel they would otherwise have had a chance of winning anyway. I would expect the combined Con/Brexit party vote to fall to no less than 40% (compared to 43%-47% in recent polls) and crucially it would be efficiently distributed.
Here's my logic. To get a deal through Parliament Johnson needs 330-340 MPs.
Whether he's in a pact with BXP or not, he will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP and he will lose seats in Remainia (like Richmond Park) to the LDs. The Alliance will also pick up from both the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, which increases the number of Anti No Deal votes.
He therefore realistically starts with about 290-300 seats and needs to gain 30-40 minimum. Handing 40 theoretically winnable seats to BXP means, then, that he needs to be looking way down the list at Labour seats for gains.
And then there's the other side of the equation. You correctly note that not all BXP voters will come to the Conservatives, irrespective of a pact. Likewise, not all Conservative voters will vote BXP in those Labour Leave seats. BigG certainly wouldn't for example. So, maybe the BXP pact makes those Labour Leave seats safer for them (see: Peterborough).
I think if Johnson wants a majority, he needs to keep the number of seats the BXP gets to stand in down to about half a dozen. Otherwise, they are going to end up with the Balace of Power, and Johnson is going to be in almost exactly the same predicament as now.0 -
After the Court of Session decision I'm inviting the Prime Minister to Auchentennach Castle for a stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure and for the pleasure of the Hereditary Keeper of the Privy Tools of the Dungeon.0
-
I'd say Joanna Cherry made it all about the SNP (as usual)Carnyx said:
Wasn't the SNP but a cross-party group of MPs and peers (by definition not SNP).Brom said:
True, but you could say the same about the SNP when they lost the original case or Gina Miller and John Major when they lose their case.Harris_Tweed said:
I think it might be a bit more nuanced than that.Brom said:Supreme Court > Scotland Court.
This could really help Bozza though.
I'm sure it'll 'fire up the base'. But there'll be plenty of others for whom it adds to the evidence pile that he's a shifty bugger.0 -
But if this is confirmed by the Supreme Court, it will have relevance to future prorogations.HYUFD said:
Either you believe in the UK or you don't, in any case the lower Scottish court upheld the Government's decision.noneoftheabove said:If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
In any case proroguing Parliament is largely irrelevant now the anti No Deal Bill has passed
Johnson might be tempted to prorogue again in October if he thinks he can get away with it.0 -
Does that mean the Queen has also acted unlawfully?0
-
It is quite gripping to see the entire concept of a British national identity disintegrating in realtime.noneoftheabove said:If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
1 -
FFS it's not "Scotland's highest court"
The Supreme Court is such.0 -
Because Mark Francois and John Redwood and Steve Baker are likely to vote against any deal. And I suspect that Sinn Fein will lose 2-3 MPs to the Alliance, who will turn out and vote.Richard_Tyndall said:
Serious question. Why does he need 330 - 340? Surely he needs something around 321 taking Sinn Fein and Speaker into account.rcs1000 said:
I think 40 would be too many for Johnson.Wulfrun_Phil said:Johnson would I think contemplate this if he was able to negotiate Farage down to about 40 Labour voting seats of which only perhaps 5 or so the Conservatives would feel they would otherwise have had a chance of winning anyway. I would expect the combined Con/Brexit party vote to fall to no less than 40% (compared to 43%-47% in recent polls) and crucially it would be efficiently distributed.
Here's my logic. To get a deal through Parliament Johnson needs 330-340 MPs.
Whether he's in a pact with BXP or not, he will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP and he will lose seats in Remainia (like Richmond Park) to the LDs. The Alliance will also pick up from both the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, which increases the number of Anti No Deal votes.
He therefore realistically starts with about 290-300 seats and needs to gain 30-40 minimum. Handing 40 theoretically winnable seats to BXP means, then, that he needs to be looking way down the list at Labour seats for gains.
And then there's the other side of the equation. You correctly note that not all BXP voters will come to the Conservatives, irrespective of a pact. Likewise, not all Conservative voters will vote BXP in those Labour Leave seats. BigG certainly wouldn't for example. So, maybe the BXP pact makes those Labour Leave seats safer for them (see: Peterborough).
I think if Johnson wants a majority, he needs to keep the number of seats the BXP gets to stand in down to about half a dozen. Otherwise, they are going to end up with the Balace of Power, and Johnson is going to be in almost exactly the same predicament as now.
Maybe 330 is on the high side, but I think 321 is on the lo side.0 -
-
She has been advised to do so, but yes.Slackbladder said:Does that mean the Queen has also acted unlawfully?
0 -
Well well well. I'd say this was another plan gone awry but I think we all know adding judges to parliament in a 'people vs the establishment (but not me)' message is something Boris would be only too happy to do. Forces of remain and all that. The SNP will be ecstatic if the supreme court overrules as well. The others who brought case less so, but different goals after all.0
-
Summary of judgement. I can't see any permission for HMG to appeal to UKSC buyt maybe that is separate.
https://twitter.com/bbclornag/status/1171714405685452801/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1171714405685452801&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/sep/11/brexit-latest-news-public-would-not-benefit-from-hearing-official-worst-case-no-deal-assumptions-says-leadsom-live-news0 -
Because the people who have campaigned to leave the EU for 30 years will always vote against leaving the EU!Richard_Tyndall said:
Serious question. Why does he need 330 - 340? Surely he needs something around 321 taking Sinn Fein and Speaker into account.rcs1000 said:
I think 40 would be too many for Johnson.Wulfrun_Phil said:Johnson would I think contemplate this if he was able to negotiate Farage down to about 40 Labour voting seats of which only perhaps 5 or so the Conservatives would feel they would otherwise have had a chance of winning anyway. I would expect the combined Con/Brexit party vote to fall to no less than 40% (compared to 43%-47% in recent polls) and crucially it would be efficiently distributed.
Here's my logic. To get a deal through Parliament Johnson needs 330-340 MPs.
Whether he's in a pact with BXP or not, he will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP and he will lose seats in Remainia (like Richmond Park) to the LDs. The Alliance will also pick up from both the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, which increases the number of Anti No Deal votes.
He therefore realistically starts with about 290-300 seats and needs to gain 30-40 minimum. Handing 40 theoretically winnable seats to BXP means, then, that he needs to be looking way down the list at Labour seats for gains.
And then there's the other side of the equation. You correctly note that not all BXP voters will come to the Conservatives, irrespective of a pact. Likewise, not all Conservative voters will vote BXP in those Labour Leave seats. BigG certainly wouldn't for example. So, maybe the BXP pact makes those Labour Leave seats safer for them (see: Peterborough).
I think if Johnson wants a majority, he needs to keep the number of seats the BXP gets to stand in down to about half a dozen. Otherwise, they are going to end up with the Balace of Power, and Johnson is going to be in almost exactly the same predicament as now.0 -
I’d be interested to read that full judgement.Scott_P said:
The suspension was clearly a political move, as the judgement reflects, but once the PM advises the Queen and she accepts and instructs i don’t see how it can be illegal.0 -
This is quite a turn up - that the abrupt silencing of our parliament by a Prime Minister seeking to avoid scrutiny turns out to be illegal. I really did not expect that. God knows where we go from here. The only way is up - surely?0
-
Scotland still sends MPs to Westminster...Pulpstar said:
Parliament is in in ... England tho.Carnyx said:
Try the Treaty of Union. Scots law has always been sovereign in its jurisdiction and this was preserved in the Treaty.MattW said:
... with a jealously guarded separate legal system, and with a Court of Sessions to which English barriers do not have audience rights. Seems a bit spongiform.malcolmg said:
Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United KingdomMattW said:Two questions:
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
I am interested to know the basis of their claim to Jurisdiction. I am sure that there is one.0 -
He's not correct on that - the court said parliament is still prorogued till the SC hears the matter.Gallowgate said:0 -
290 to 300 seats plus 30 to 40 = 320 to 340.Richard_Tyndall said:
Serious question. Why does he need 330 - 340? Surely he needs something around 321 taking Sinn Fein and Speaker into account.rcs1000 said:
I think 40 would be too many for Johnson.Wulfrun_Phil said:Johnson would I think contemplate this if he was able to negotiate Farage down to about 40 Labour voting seats of which only perhaps 5 or so the Conservatives would feel they would otherwise have had a chance of winning anyway. I would expect the combined Con/Brexit party vote to fall to no less than 40% (compared to 43%-47% in recent polls) and crucially it would be efficiently distributed.
Here's my logic. To get a deal through Parliament Johnson needs 330-340 MPs.
Whether he's in a pact with BXP or not, he will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP and he will lose seats in Remainia (like Richmond Park) to the LDs. The Alliance will also pick up from both the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, which increases the number of Anti No Deal votes.
He therefore realistically starts with about 290-300 seats and needs to gain 30-40 minimum. Handing 40 theoretically winnable seats to BXP means, then, that he needs to be looking way down the list at Labour seats for gains.
And then there's the other side of the equation. You correctly note that not all BXP voters will come to the Conservatives, irrespective of a pact. Likewise, not all Conservative voters will vote BXP in those Labour Leave seats. BigG certainly wouldn't for example. So, maybe the BXP pact makes those Labour Leave seats safer for them (see: Peterborough).
I think if Johnson wants a majority, he needs to keep the number of seats the BXP gets to stand in down to about half a dozen. Otherwise, they are going to end up with the Balace of Power, and Johnson is going to be in almost exactly the same predicament as now.
But in any event Boris surely needs 330 plus to give a cushion against remaining sane Tory MPs who manage to escape deselection and won't go quietly into No Deal.0 -
I think he would be quite content with 311 (the number May started with in 2017) who he could rely upon not to defy him on a vote on "no deal" that was deemed to be one of confidence. There are many Remainer Conservative MPs who still disagree with him, but none of the ones who were prepared to stick their head above the parapet would have been returned.Richard_Tyndall said:
Serious question. Why does he need 330 - 340? Surely he needs something around 321 taking Sinn Fein and Speaker into account.rcs1000 said:
I think 40 would be too many for Johnson.Wulfrun_Phil said:Johnson would I think contemplate this if he was able to negotiate Farage down to about 40 Labour voting seats of which only perhaps 5 or so the Conservatives would feel they would otherwise have had a chance of winning anyway. I would expect the combined Con/Brexit party vote to fall to no less than 40% (compared to 43%-47% in recent polls) and crucially it would be efficiently distributed.
Here's my logic. To get a deal through Parliament Johnson needs 330-340 MPs.
Whether he's in a pact with BXP or not, he will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP and he will lose seats in Remainia (like Richmond Park) to the LDs. The Alliance will also pick up from both the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, which increases the number of Anti No Deal votes.
He therefore realistically starts with about 290-300 seats and needs to gain 30-40 minimum. Handing 40 theoretically winnable seats to BXP means, then, that he needs to be looking way down the list at Labour seats for gains.
And then there's the other side of the equation. You correctly note that not all BXP voters will come to the Conservatives, irrespective of a pact. Likewise, not all Conservative voters will vote BXP in those Labour Leave seats. BigG certainly wouldn't for example. So, maybe the BXP pact makes those Labour Leave seats safer for them (see: Peterborough).
I think if Johnson wants a majority, he needs to keep the number of seats the BXP gets to stand in down to about half a dozen. Otherwise, they are going to end up with the Balace of Power, and Johnson is going to be in almost exactly the same predicament as now.0 -
-
The summary of the judgment won't load for me, but the BBC now quotes:Slackbladder said:Does that mean the Queen has also acted unlawfully?
"The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."0 -
No. Just that she received unlawful advice. However, at her age she should know better than to listen to JRM.Slackbladder said:Does that mean the Queen has also acted unlawfully?
0 -
Also fascinating to see how many on PB cannot grasp the concept that Scots law, Scots MPs, etc. are (or should be) as equally valid as the others from the other kingdom, principality and province.Dura_Ace said:
It is quite gripping to see the entire concept of a British national identity disintegrating in realtime.noneoftheabove said:If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
2 -
Fine pies will be on the menu immediately afterwards?JackW said:After the Court of Session decision I'm inviting the Prime Minister to Auchentennach Castle for a stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure and for the pleasure of the Hereditary Keeper of the Privy Tools of the Dungeon.
0 -
Emergency Hearing in SC on 17th...obvs not much of an emergency then.0
-
I had been assuming that the prorogation itself couldn't be unlawful even if the advice was.Chris said:
The summary of the judgment won't load for me, but the BBC now quotes:Slackbladder said:Does that mean the Queen has also acted unlawfully?
"The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."0 -
These are extremely badly defined in the eyes of the punter. If you back Lab & LD coalition and Plaid join in, as they probably would, presumably you lose given the precise descriptors.TGOHF said:0 -
Baker and co are at least consistent, but more than any remainer will be the reason we remain. Boris has no way out. E en the hyufd strategy requires Boris to throw Baker and co under a bus but without ruling that out he cannot win.Pulpstar said:
Brexit, and the Tory government, are done, and we are just in the messy wind down.0 -
Lock her up!Slackbladder said:Does that mean the Queen has also acted unlawfully?
Though I’ll accept the imprisonments of JRM and Boris Johnson instead.0 -
This might also lead to a demand for English independence!! Strange times.0
-
Did it say that? It seems difficult to reconcile with the statement that prorogation is "null and of no effect."Pulpstar said:
He's not correct on that - the court said parliament is still prorogued till the SC hears the matter.Gallowgate said:1 -
That is wrong because the Court made no order pending a decision by the Supreme Court next week. A surprising result. It will be interesting to see their reasoning and compare that with the reasoning of the High Court judgment refusing the application when that becomes available.Scott_P said:0 -
We'll put up a statue of him!kle4 said:
Baker and co are at least consistent, but more than any remainer will be the reason we remain. Boris has no way out. E en the hyufd strategy requires Boris to throw Baker and co under a bus but without ruling that out he cannot win.Pulpstar said:
Brexit, and the Tory government, are done, and we are just in the messy wind down.
0 -
They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.0 -
Theres nothing untoward about following advice in good faith .Slackbladder said:Does that mean the Queen has also acted unlawfully?
0 -
If any of this ends with Rees Mogg getting nicked, it will be an excellent plot twist.0
-
Does JRM get put in the stocks in a kilt and pelted with haggis?not_on_fire said:
Will the fact the prorogation order was issued in Scotland make any difference?dyedwoolie said:So prorogation was illegal under Scots law and legal under english and Welsh law. Supreme court decider!
(Not much more far-fetched than the prorogation procedure, tbf)0 -
What does this bit mean then?DavidL said:
That is wrong because the Court made no order pending a decision by the Supreme Court next week. A surprising result. It will be interesting to see their reasoning and compare that with the reasoning of the High Court judgment refusing the application when that becomes available.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1171718246963302401?s=210 -
I think that's incorrect. I think there are still people in the Conservative Party, like Mrs May, who want a Deal. And I think while she'd be prepared to go for No Deal, if the EU refused to make concessions, I don't think she (or a host of other Conservative MPs) would be happy with No Deal as the only game in town.Wulfrun_Phil said:
I think he would be quite content with 311 (the number May started with in 2017) who he could rely upon not to defy him on a vote on "no deal" that was deemed to be one of confidence. There are many Remainer Conservative MPs who still disagree with him, but none of the ones who were prepared to stick their head above the parapet would have been returned.Richard_Tyndall said:
Serious question. Why does he need 330 - 340? Surely he needs something around 321 taking Sinn Fein and Speaker into account.rcs1000 said:
I think 40 would be too many for Johnson.Wulfrun_Phil said:Johnson would I think contemplate this if he was able to negotiate Farage down to about 40 Labour voting seats of which only perhaps 5 or so the Conservatives would feel they would otherwise have had a chance of winning anyway. I would expect the combined Con/Brexit party vote to fall to no less than 40% (compared to 43%-47% in recent polls) and crucially it would be efficiently distributed.
Here's my logic. To get a deal through Parliament Johnson needs 330-340 MPs.
Whether he's in a pact with BXP or not, he will lose seats in Scotland to the SNP and he will lose seats in Remainia (like Richmond Park) to the LDs. The Alliance will also pick up from both the DUP and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, which increases the number of Anti No Deal votes.
He therefore realistically starts with about 290-300 seats and needs to gain 30-40 minimum. Handing 40 theoretically winnable seats to BXP means, then, that he needs to be looking way down the list at Labour seats for gains.
And then there's the other side of the equation. You correctly note that not all BXP voters will come to the Conservatives, irrespective of a pact. Likewise, not all Conservative voters will vote BXP in those Labour Leave seats. BigG certainly wouldn't for example. So, maybe the BXP pact makes those Labour Leave seats safer for them (see: Peterborough).
I think if Johnson wants a majority, he needs to keep the number of seats the BXP gets to stand in down to about half a dozen. Otherwise, they are going to end up with the Balace of Power, and Johnson is going to be in almost exactly the same predicament as now.
311, given Northern Ireland is likely to return some Alliance MPs, is going to be insufficient for Boris to deliver any Deal. And unless the BXP get 30 odd seats, it is likely to be insufficien to deliver No Deal.0 -
It's a pyramid system, not a separate system.Richard_Tyndall said:
Agreed. It is a very bad look having Scottish legal decisions overturned by a court in London given they are supposed to.be separate legal systems.noneoftheabove said:If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
0 -
Will the Supreme Court judge the matter on English or Scottish law? Does either take precedence?0
-
I do expect this decision to be overturned in the Supreme Court.
However it’ll be interesting if they say prorogations in the future needs to be voted for by Parliament.0 -
A Very British Emergency.dixiedean said:Emergency Hearing in SC on 17th...obvs not much of an emergency then.
"Let me finish my tea, darling, and then I'll come out and panic with you properly."1
