Cameron needs a new PR guy. He comes across as a total twit.
He comes across as needy and lacking self awareness
Agreed. I used to be a huge fan of Cameron, respecting and supporting him to the end but he has shown a different light to himself in recent days.. He just seems bitter and totally lacking in self awareness..
The timing off the book seems all wrong too, far too much has happened and he left ito too late for most people to bother reading it so I suspect it will go the way of Gordon browns book and be a total flop.. Deservingly so
I am not sure, Blair's book was gossipy and sold well as is Cameron's it seems, Brown's was a rather dull tome on the crash.
Sure, but at least it avoids the embarrassment of No.10 expecting us to believe Kwarteng attacked the judges out of the blue and not at all because that was the instruction they could them disavow.
He's completely wrong on this, but The bar looks higher in the US courts compared to the British ones to me. With regards space, I think he's going to get some version of Starship up before SLS. NASA is an organisation that's completely lost its way when it comes to rockets.
NASA is doing exactly what Congress is telling it to do. If Congress gave NASA a saner set of things to do, then I have no doubt that NASA would do it excellently.
However, I'd argue that the James Webb mess is the place where NASA (and Northrop Grumman) are utterly failing. This is the stuff they should be good at. But it's too grand, and perhaps with hindsight too much of a technological push given current launch capabilities.
What Congress (and NASA) are missing is an overall objective, something to aim for. Some presidents have had grand plans for space (e.g. Bush 1's Space Exploration Initiative in 1989 to the Moon and Mars), but Congress invariably fails to fund them. Instead, too much of NASA's funding is being spent on make-work projects for NASA divisions, rather than steaming on towards a destination.
As the documentary The Martian proved with a clear goal they can do thr impossible.
It is a lovely city on the banks of the Oder. Lots of cafes and restaurants with plenty of culture. The new concert hall is better (acoustically) than any in the UK.
It's in Silesia which became Polish after WWII. Prior to that it was German Breslau which was almost completely destroyed as part of the German retreat from the advancing Red Army at the end of the war.
From all accounts it is only in the past 20 or so years that it has fully recovered.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
May had a better sense of duty than both, that was not much help to the Tories in the 2017 election
“Day One” pledge to come from Swinson: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49720863 A Liberal Democrat government will revoke Article 50 and stop Brexit on day one, leader Jo Swinson is to vow. In her first speech to the party's conference as leader, Ms Swinson will reiterate its policy of overturning the law ensuring the UK will leave the EU....
Be interesting if they were short of a majority but clearly the largest party. Would their pledge extend to a Liberal Democrat led government not just a Liberal Democrat government?
How could it, given that they would be dependent on the cooperation of other parties ?
Having said that, a revoke backed by two or more parties representing over 50% of the electorate would without doubt be preferable to a Lib Dem solo effort (in the highly unlikely circumstance of their scraping a majority with 35% of the vote.)
The very fact people are even discussing the Lib Dems winning a majority means this policy is working as intended.
How they can discuss it without laughing is beyond me, people really are as stupid as they make out to be.
It's fun to hypothesise on very unlikely events, it means there's no emotional baggage to contemplate.
“Day One” pledge to come from Swinson: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49720863 A Liberal Democrat government will revoke Article 50 and stop Brexit on day one, leader Jo Swinson is to vow. In her first speech to the party's conference as leader, Ms Swinson will reiterate its policy of overturning the law ensuring the UK will leave the EU....
Talk about deluded halfwits
Let's see what electoral appeal it might have before making that judgment.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
May had a better sense of duty than both, that was not much help to the Tories in the 2017 election.
I do not really care about the Tories. I am much more interested in what’s best for the country.
It is a lovely city on the banks of the Oder. Lots of cafes and restaurants with plenty of culture. The new concert hall is better (acoustically) than any in the UK.
It's in Silesia which became Polish after WWII. Prior to that it was German Breslau which was almost completely destroyed as part of the German retreat from the advancing Red Army at the end of the war.
From all accounts it is only in the past 20 or so years that it has fully recovered.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
Sure, but at least it avoids the embarrassment of No.10 expecting us to believe Kwarteng attacked the judges out of the blue and not at all because that was the instruction they could them disavow.
Hostage to fortune, perhaps?
Jezza has never criticised any judge in over 40 years? Hmmm.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
Doesn't one have to read the whole book to form an opinion?
Presumably current opinions are based on the drip feed of highlights from the Times. Naturally these dwell on the more sensational aspects.
I remember reading Blair's autobiography and enjoying it, but mainly for the gossip and minutae of life in high politics. On the big issues of the day, it contributed nothing new.
I'll read Dave's book and expect something similar.
The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:
Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.
The point was that they attempted to stymie parliament not that they successfully did so.
Of course they did so, as they clearly limited Parliament's ability to respond to events in the lead up to Oct 31st, effectively emasculating any Parliamentary ability to scrutinise for much of that time, and severely narrowing down responses available to Parliament.
Whether there are any legal limits on this prerogative power, and if so, whether this is an acceptable use of the power, is for the SC to settle.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Question - what happens if Johnson (suspend your disbelief) gets a new deal (or even existing deal) through the Commons, but necessary legislation is blocked by the Lords. Will he be able to prorogue Parliament to get around the Parliament Act...? Might this SC case impact on that?
I would argue that if the SC is satisfied that the purpose of the prorogation was to limit Parliamentary scrutiny, then the Government arguing that scrutiny was still possible within the limited outstanding timeframe isn’t a hugely impressive counter.
The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:
Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.
The point was that they attempted to stymie parliament not that they successfully did so.
Of course they did so, as they clearly limited Parliament's ability to respond to events in the lead up to Oct 31st, effectively emasculating any Parliamentary ability to scrutinise for much of that time, and severely narrowing down responses available to Parliament.
Whether there are any legal limits on this prerogative power, and if so, whether this is an acceptable use of the power, is for the SC to settle.
Agreed, but the quoted section seemed to be defending on the basis theyd been unsuccessful in nullifying parliament completely, rather than that they had limited parliament but that's ok (which no doubt makes up most of the argument and may well persuade)
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:
Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.
How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
Whatever might have happened, parliament has been prorogued and is not now able to do anything.
To say that parliament might hypothetically have been able to frustrate the prorogation seems rather like saying a poisoner is not guilty of murder because the victim might hypothetically have managed to take an antidote!
The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:
Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.
Does the govt making this argument in any way legally block a second re-prorogation immediately after parliament returns? I presume not unless this argument is the only reason the court finds in the governments favour?
It is a lovely city on the banks of the Oder. Lots of cafes and restaurants with plenty of culture. The new concert hall is better (acoustically) than any in the UK....
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
He has more daggers in his back than any human being should have to bear.
It's all very well taking the blame for the three most shambolic years this country has faced since the war but it wouldn't be human not to try to explain that the fault wasn't all his.
And now the workings have been opened to public gaze we can definitively see what he's had to put up with. The Tory party is rotten from the top down. We've seen it with our own eyes anyway but it's good to have such highly placed confirmation
Why I have decided to vote Lib Dem (and you should too)
In my view we are in this great mess because the referendum in 2016 broke our constitution. I believe that electing a majority Liberal Democrat government to revoke Article 50 - and re-affirm the primacy of Parliament over referendums - would go a long way to fixing the mess we are in.
Even if this subsequently created a backlash that elected a majority government committed to a no deal exit I still believe we would be in a better position, because we would not have the split mandate that the referendum created.
Referendums should in future, if used at all, only be held to confirm a policy that the government wishes to enact and has already demonstrated that it possesses a Parliamentary majority to implement. They should never again be used to enable MPs to hide from their responsibility of making their judgement on a major issue of the day - and being held accountable by their electorate for that judgement.
This would mean that, in the event that a government is defeated in a referendum it does not create the paralysis we have seen since 2016, because defeat for the government results simply in the continuation of the status quo, and does not require the government to enact a policy that it is opposed to.
It is for this reason that I believe a second referendum is not the way forward. It would have the same defects as the first referendum. It would only be held by a government that did not want to implement Brexit and so if the result was for Leave we would be stuck in the same conflict as at present.
If we are to leave the EU let it be done properly, by a majority government elected on that platform.
To make that possible we first have to revoke Article 50, which is why I have decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats - and you should too.
That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.
Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.
Who cares if no one heard it?
The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.
Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.
The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Too complicated. This is real life, not an Agatha Christie plot full of twists and turns.
He's completely wrong on this, but The bar looks higher in the US courts compared to the British ones to me. With regards space, I think he's going to get some version of Starship up before SLS. NASA is an organisation that's completely lost its way when it comes to rockets.
NASA is doing exactly what Congress is telling it to do. If Congress gave NASA a saner set of things to do, then I have no doubt that NASA would do it excellently.
However, I'd argue that the James Webb mess is the place where NASA (and Northrop Grumman) are utterly failing. This is the stuff they should be good at. But it's too grand, and perhaps with hindsight too much of a technological push given current launch capabilities.
What Congress (and NASA) are missing is an overall objective, something to aim for. Some presidents have had grand plans for space (e.g. Bush 1's Space Exploration Initiative in 1989 to the Moon and Mars), but Congress invariably fails to fund them. Instead, too much of NASA's funding is being spent on make-work projects for NASA divisions, rather than steaming on towards a destination.
I think the days of NASA developing its own launch systems are nearly over, as they simply cannot provide the economies of scale a commercial operator like SpaceX has proved possible. Nor can they take the kind of move fast and make mistakes culture possible in the private sector; that is simply the nature of public organisations.
I agree, but the problem is that the current private constructors (e.g. Boeing, ULA) are going to get hurt. This means that some in Congress will be loathe to see NASA get out of the rocket game. Although the DoD have competitions running to potentially move to new launch providers....
The Boeings etc are going to suffer from SpaceX (and quite possibly Bezos' outfit) stealing a march on them anyway. As far a launch platforms are concerned, NASA ought to be re-invented in a similar manner to DARPA, funding novel technology concepts. That could free up a significant amount of funding for actual exploration and space science.
Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.
Ruth Davison just interviewed by Lorraine on GMTV, saying even though she campaigned for Remain, if you tell the public this problem is too big for politicians, and it’s their choice, you have to implement their decision, like it or not.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
May had a better sense of duty than both, that was not much help to the Tories in the 2017 election
Duty to their country. Not to the narrow interests of their party. No wonder you have left the Tory Party.
Ruth Davison just interviewed by Lorraine on GMTV, saying even though she campaigned for Remain, if you tell the public this problem is too big for politicians, and it’s their choice, you have to implement their decision, like it or not.
Amazing it needs to be said.
The public can’t even agree on what type of ‘leave’ they want.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.
Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.
Who cares if no one heard it?
The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.
Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.
The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
All this focus on Brexit when there are so many other more important issues across the country the Government should be addressing. This is the real tragedy of Brexit - that it has become all-consuming and nothing else is being addressed properly.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
They are both cowards.
Is this what Eton instills: a sense that if things get too tough just walk away - your privilege and wealth will ensure you survive just fine, and f*ck everyone else?
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
Why I have decided to vote Lib Dem (and you should too)
In my view we are in this great mess because the referendum in 2016 broke our constitution. I believe that electing a majority Liberal Democrat government to revoke Article 50 - and re-affirm the primacy of Parliament over referendums - would go a long way to fixing the mess we are in.
Even if this subsequently created a backlash that elected a majority government committed to a no deal exit I still believe we would be in a better position, because we would not have the split mandate that the referendum created.
Referendums should in future, if used at all, only be held to confirm a policy that the government wishes to enact and has already demonstrated that it possesses a Parliamentary majority to implement. They should never again be used to enable MPs to hide from their responsibility of making their judgement on a major issue of the day - and being held accountable by their electorate for that judgement.
This would mean that, in the event that a government is defeated in a referendum it does not create the paralysis we have seen since 2016, because defeat for the government results simply in the continuation of the status quo, and does not require the government to enact a policy that it is opposed to.
It is for this reason that I believe a second referendum is not the way forward. It would have the same defects as the first referendum. It would only be held by a government that did not want to implement Brexit and so if the result was for Leave we would be stuck in the same conflict as at present.
If we are to leave the EU let it be done properly, by a majority government elected on that platform.
To make that possible we first have to revoke Article 50, which is why I have decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats - and you should too.
UKIP campaigned for a referendum. They made it clear that their votes would go to whomever promised one. They comprised 4m/12% of the electorate and had until that point been effectively disenfranchised. David Cameron promised a referendum in order to attract those votes and form the next government.
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
All this focus on Brexit when there are so many other more important issues across the country the Government should be addressing. This is the real tragedy of Brexit - that it has become all-consuming and nothing else is being addressed properly.
“Day One” pledge to come from Swinson: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49720863 A Liberal Democrat government will revoke Article 50 and stop Brexit on day one, leader Jo Swinson is to vow. In her first speech to the party's conference as leader, Ms Swinson will reiterate its policy of overturning the law ensuring the UK will leave the EU....
I'd like to see a speech about political intentions where they say they intend to celebrate on day 1 and do x on day 2 instead.
Or just sleep, given that they have been up all night!
Whoever wrote that needs to go and look up what the word 'expat' means. Just because they are working over there doesn't make them any less expats. Nor is there some minimum age limit to be considered an expat.
Wrong. I think the minimum age for an expat in Hong Kong is around 18 because that's how old you need to be to get totally plastered in Lan Kwai Fong.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
The government submission to the Supreme Court - doesn’t pull many punches when it comes to the Scottish decision - and makes the point:
Thirdly, the claim is both academic, and untenable on the facts. Under the terms of s.3 of NIEFA and the Order in Council, Parliament was able to sit after the summer recess until 9 September 2019 and will be able to sit on and after 14 October 2019. Parliament was, and will be able to use that time for any purpose, including legislating at pace, if it wishes. Recent events could not more graphically illustrate that fact: the new Act was introduced, considered and enacted by Parliament before the prorogation even began; and it could have legislated, but did not legislate, to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation if that had been Parliament’s wish.
How is that supposed to be relevant to the question of whether prorogation is lawful?
It demonstrates that the premise on which it was deemed to be unlawful, namely that there would be insufficient time for Parliament to act, was and is nonsense. The written submission for the PM is compelling and its demolition of the Court of Session judgment is comprehensive.
Whatever might have happened, parliament has been prorogued and is not now able to do anything.
To say that parliament might hypothetically have been able to frustrate the prorogation seems rather like saying a poisoner is not guilty of murder because the victim might hypothetically have managed to take an antidote!
More like "The victim had enough time to draw up his will"
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
For once I agree with you.
It was, of course, inevitable that Cameron would have to go - but an effort to set some direction, rather than immediately announcing his intention to resign, might conceivably have improved the situation. We might even had an open discussion of the options available to the nation, rather than May's red lined, negotiated behind closed doors, take it or leave it deal. And it might at least have helped lance the boil, even were he to have been ejected.
In any event, it's hard to see how such an effort from Cameron could have made things worse.
That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.
Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.
Who cares if no one heard it?
The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.
Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.
The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
Exactly.
However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
Nobody seriously thinks this will happen. Boris will have to be VONC’d.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
The 'optics' of allowing Corbyn to become PM would be very dangerous for the Tories. He would have no legislative power but he would still be 'Prime Minister', in control of all the patronage and prerogatives that would confer. Posession is nine tenths of the law.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
How forgiving are the Tory membership? Is Boris untouchable for 12 months as was Mrs May after her vote of confidence?
All this focus on Brexit when there are so many other more important issues across the country the Government should be addressing. This is the real tragedy of Brexit - that it has become all-consuming and nothing else is being addressed properly.
Christ that's a sad story. To be honest I'm more angry with Cameron about the cuts to council funding (at the same time as giving people like me a 5% tax cut) than about the Brexit referendum.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
How forgiving are the Tory membership? Is Boris untouchable for 12 months as was Mrs May after her vote of confidence?
It will all be the fault of the diehard remainers remember. Nee bother.
Can anybody explain to me why turning the PM into The Incredible Sulk is “good news for Cummings”?
Dead cat - distracts (temporarily) from the fact that Team BoJo haven't got a feckin clue how to get out of the mess they are in.
But it's not a very good dead cat when the result is to make the prime minister look spineless and provide another viral video of ridicule watched all over Europe.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
The 'optics' of allowing Corbyn to become PM would be very dangerous for the Tories. He would have no legislative power but he would still be 'Prime Minister', in control of all the patronage and prerogatives that would confer. Posession is nine tenths of the law.
Corbyn would be a mouse PM, entirely at the mercy of cats Boris, Swinson and Sturgeon and Tory rebels like Hammond.
As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
How forgiving are the Tory membership? Is Boris untouchable for 12 months as was Mrs May after her vote of confidence?
Last time this was asked on PB, the answer came back as "no".
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
With the benefit of hindsight the Conservatives would have done best to do exactly that after the 2017 election, as @david_herdson wisely suggested at the time.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
The 'optics' of allowing Corbyn to become PM would be very dangerous for the Tories. He would have no legislative power but he would still be 'Prime Minister', in control of all the patronage and prerogatives that would confer. Posession is nine tenths of the law.
HUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is @HYUFD's and BoJo's master plan. Lead the Conservative Party victoriously into opposition. That'll show Labour. Suck on that Jezza. We'll be in opposition and that will show you because in a scant five years time you had better watch out.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Too complicated. This is real life, not an Agatha Christie plot full of twists and turns.
"Smart" schemes tend to fall apart.
Real life is very complicated at the moment, full of twists and turns!
Johnson has promised to obey the law and not to ask for an extension. He also wants to attract BXP supporters and split the opposition. That's complicated.
Resigning and getting Corbyn to ask for the extension achieves that. But LibDems probably won't support Corbyn as PM so for Johnson's strategy to work he has to abstain on the VONC in Corbyn. It will be hard for him to explain but I think it is his least worse option. I agree it might fall apart - probably will.
I have transferred some money from a December election forward to November. I'm in the enviable position of being very green on whenever the election is with a shed load on 2020 but a decent amount on this November and Corbyn as next PM.
Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.
Just one of BJ's many repellent attributes is that he has an overwhelming need to be adored. This could be observed when he got told to ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION at that tory conclave of the elderly just after he'd bladed the British ambassador. He lost his composure for a moment and pounded his flabby thighs with his hands as the sheer agony of not being liked consumed him.
That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.
Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.
Who cares if no one heard it?
The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.
Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.
The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
There were microphones. What Boris had to say would have been heard by the press and the viewers at home. This was all about not having the guts to stand up in front of protestors.
Exactly.
However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.
From what I've seen Mr Johnson is terrible at ad-libbing (unlike Mr Trump), whether or not there are hecklers there.
It is a lovely city on the banks of the Oder. Lots of cafes and restaurants with plenty of culture. The new concert hall is better (acoustically) than any in the UK.
It's in Silesia which became Polish after WWII. Prior to that it was German Breslau which was almost completely destroyed as part of the German retreat from the advancing Red Army at the end of the war.
From all accounts it is only in the past 20 or so years that it has fully recovered.
Well worth a city break.
Have you read Microcosm? If not, I recommend it.
Breslau was largely settled with Poles expelled from Western Ukraine and Belarus after its Germans were themselves expelled, I believe.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
Going into opposition rather than extending- fine. Collaborating with Labour once in opposition to allow them to remain in government and extend instead of trying to force no deal- not fine.
Why on earth do you think Leavers would give him their support after that? Why, for that matter, would you? Was Topping right about you all along?
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
The 'optics' of allowing Corbyn to become PM would be very dangerous for the Tories. He would have no legislative power but he would still be 'Prime Minister', in control of all the patronage and prerogatives that would confer. Posession is nine tenths of the law.
Corbyn would be a mouse PM, entirely at the mercy of cats Boris, Swinson and Sturgeon and Tory rebels like Hammond.
As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all
He’ll just prorogue Parliament for 6 months. He has to have a Queen’s Speech to set out a domestic legislative agenda right?
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
Going into opposition rather than extending- fine. Collaborating with Labour once in opposition to allow them to remain in government and extend instead of trying to force no deal- not fine.
Why on earth do you think Leavers would give him their support after that? Why, for that matter, would you? Was Topping right about you all along?
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
The 'optics' of allowing Corbyn to become PM would be very dangerous for the Tories. He would have no legislative power but he would still be 'Prime Minister', in control of all the patronage and prerogatives that would confer. Posession is nine tenths of the law.
Corbyn would be a mouse PM, entirely at the mercy of cats Boris, Swinson and Sturgeon and Tory rebels like Hammond.
As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all
That sounds fairly convincing. The idea that this was deliberately engineered (bearing in mind the protestors appeared to be British), is a bit odd.
Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
Boris is an idiot and coward. All he had to do was turn up, make his speech and leave.
Who cares if no one heard it?
The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.
Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.
How this kind of behaviour will play during a general election campaign is an interesting question.
That would place Johnson under a greater degree of scrutiny and pressure than he has ever experienced (like the period since he was appointed PM, but much more so). Particularly given the Brexit factor. A London mayoral campaign isn't remotely comparable.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
The 'optics' of allowing Corbyn to become PM would be very dangerous for the Tories. He would have no legislative power but he would still be 'Prime Minister', in control of all the patronage and prerogatives that would confer. Posession is nine tenths of the law.
Corbyn would be a mouse PM, entirely at the mercy of cats Boris, Swinson and Sturgeon and Tory rebels like Hammond.
As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all
That’s absolutely correct. Which is why I expect he will eventually realise that it would be safer to be one of the cats rather than one of the mice, and install someone else.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
With the benefit of hindsight the Conservatives would have done best to do exactly that after the 2017 election, as @david_herdson wisely suggested at the time.
I think had May done that, it would have been even more disasterous for the Conservatives than if Johnson does it in October. In the latter case Johnson would at least keep leaver Tories onside as people could "get the plan". If in June 2017 May had said "Yes we did win over 300 Seats but because we didnt't get 350 MPs we're going to hand power over to Labour so thatthey can make a mess of Brexit" she would have been hung drawn and quarterd by everone including brexiteers.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
The 'optics' of allowing Corbyn to become PM would be very dangerous for the Tories. He would have no legislative power but he would still be 'Prime Minister', in control of all the patronage and prerogatives that would confer. Posession is nine tenths of the law.
Corbyn would be a mouse PM, entirely at the mercy of cats Boris, Swinson and Sturgeon and Tory rebels like Hammond.
As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all
If the Tories let Corbyn in there will be a second referendum before a general election. A majority of Labour MPs support that position, as do the Tory rebels. It would be hard for the Lib Dems and SNP to oppose it and the Labour Party membership is overwhelmingly in favour.
Why I have decided to vote Lib Dem (and you should too)
In my view we are in this great mess because the referendum in 2016 broke our constitution. I believe that electing a majority Liberal Democrat government to revoke Article 50 - and re-affirm the primacy of Parliament over referendums - would go a long way to fixing the mess we are in.
Even if this subsequently created a backlash that elected a majority government committed to a no deal exit I still believe we would be in a better position, because we would not have the split mandate that the referendum created.
Referendums should in future, if used at all, only be held to confirm a policy that the government wishes to enact and has already demonstrated that it possesses a Parliamentary majority to implement. They should never again be used to enable MPs to hide from their responsibility of making their judgement on a major issue of the day - and being held accountable by their electorate for that judgement.
This would mean that, in the event that a government is defeated in a referendum it does not create the paralysis we have seen since 2016, because defeat for the government results simply in the continuation of the status quo, and does not require the government to enact a policy that it is opposed to.
It is for this reason that I believe a second referendum is not the way forward. It would have the same defects as the first referendum. It would only be held by a government that did not want to implement Brexit and so if the result was for Leave we would be stuck in the same conflict as at present.
If we are to leave the EU let it be done properly, by a majority government elected on that platform.
To make that possible we first have to revoke Article 50, which is why I have decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats - and you should too.
That's a persuasive argument. We need to unwind the Referendum. It was flawed. Our system isn't designed to cope with Referendums so we have landed a white elephant that we need to remove. Another Referendum just compounds the problem. This is perhaps the least divisive way of clearing up. Lets hope Jo manages to explain it as cogently as you have.
If a revised version of the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop has not been agreed with the EU by the end of the EU council in mid October and passed by the Commons, then I suspect Boris will resign as PM and take the Tories into opposition as a last resort and let someone else become PM to extend.
Would they abstain on a VONC in Corbyn to ensure he gets the job and carries the can for delaying Brexit?
If Boris is leader of the opposition he might be tempted to abstain to let Corbyn become PM to extend, pick up Labour Leave voters as a result, then immediately no confidence him
Why would he pick up those votes if he was so obviously helping Labour to extend?
He isn't, as he will have made clear he will go into opposition rather than extend, if Corbyn goes into Government and agrees to extend watch the Labour Leave vote fall away like skittles to the Tories and the Brexit Party
A Tory Prime Minister steps aside to let Corbyn into number 10. Can you imagine?
With the benefit of hindsight the Conservatives would have done best to do exactly that after the 2017 election, as @david_herdson wisely suggested at the time.
I think had May done that, it would have been even more disasterous for the Conservatives than if Johnson does it in October. In the latter case Johnson would at least keep leaver Tories onside as people could "get the plan". If in June 2017 May had said "Yes we did win over 300 Seats but because we didnt't get 350 MPs we're going to hand power over to Labour so thatthey can make a mess of Brexit" she would have been hung drawn and quarterd by everone including brexiteers.
That would not have been good for Theresa May. It would, however, have been good for the Conservatives. They urgently needed quiet alone time, as events have shown.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
Cameron comes across in his memoirs and interviews just as he always did. You put a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge, you get a fabulously privileged Old Etonian in charge. See, also, our current PM, who is everything Cameron was, but without any of the very limited redeeming qualities.
I can't see Cameron conspicuously walking away from a joint press conference with another head of state because there are protesters in the crowd.
Indeed. Johnson is a coward, which Cameron wasn’t. I also think that Cameron had a sense of duty, which Johnson clearly doesn’t have either.
Johnson walked away from a press conference, Cameron walked away from a constitutional crisis that he caused. Strange to see the latter as less cowardly, and having a sense of duty the former lacks
Defending Johnson by saying he is not as cowardly as Cameron walking away from a constitutional crisis really is scraping an already well scraped out barrel.
I’m not defending Johnson nor scraping a barrel. I just think it’s a strange logic that causes someone to say that the man who caused the entire mess we are in, then walked away after telling the HofC he would stay, is someone with a sense of duty.
Cameron walked away to let a Leaver run the show as was proper. Then all the Leavers quit leaving May in charge.
I think no deal is a disaster and should be avoided at all costs. Really struggling to believe this survey though! Imagine it is an incredibly self selecting sample?
All this focus on Brexit when there are so many other more important issues across the country the Government should be addressing. This is the real tragedy of Brexit - that it has become all-consuming and nothing else is being addressed properly.
These cases are absolutely tragic, and the apparent growth of homelessness on our streets is noticeable and a tragedy.
However, from the article: "Cathy is less certain Aimee could have been saved. “Was she let down? Personally I don’t think so. I think she was given the help from a young age all the way through. I think Stephen, my brother who died, was also given a lot of help.”
Homelessness is complex; if you read the article, the poor lady's problems go back to the time she was born; she was let down multiple times, and let herself down as well.
Also as the article says: "When we talk about eradicating homelessness, it’s not just about moving them out of tents, it’s not just about finding them accommodation, it’s about finding them a job, it’s about changing their lifestyle.”
And that's why it's so difficult to do. In this case, a broken kid became a broken teenagers who become a broken adult. The longer it is left, the more broken they become, and the harder it is to 'fix' them (although that does not mean we shouldn't try). But we need to try to stop the kids from being broken - and that may involve helping their parents more, and more funding for the rather inconsistent care services.
And that's only one route into homelessness.
It's not just a case of finding a roof over their heads; it's about fixing the underlying issues afflicting the homeless. Sometimes these may be simple; in other cases, such as this lady's, they are immensely complex.
Comments
It is a lovely city on the banks of the Oder. Lots of cafes and restaurants with plenty of culture. The new concert hall is better (acoustically) than any in the UK.
It's in Silesia which became Polish after WWII. Prior to that it was German Breslau which was almost completely destroyed as part of the German retreat from the advancing Red Army at the end of the war.
From all accounts it is only in the past 20 or so years that it has fully recovered.
Well worth a city break.
'No no no....the talks are picking up speed. The meetings are moving from weekly to daily as we get closer..'
'Pathetic' doesn't begin to describe this shambolic administration.
Jezza has never criticised any judge in over 40 years? Hmmm.
https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1173615806913159173?s=20
Presumably current opinions are based on the drip feed of highlights from the Times. Naturally these dwell on the more sensational aspects.
I remember reading Blair's autobiography and enjoying it, but mainly for the gossip and minutae of life in high politics. On the big issues of the day, it contributed nothing new.
I'll read Dave's book and expect something similar.
Whether there are any legal limits on this prerogative power, and if so, whether this is an acceptable use of the power, is for the SC to settle.
Both PMs had to make a decision of the spur of the moment. Neither came out of it particularly well.
https://twitter.com/nvondarza/status/1173614536160661504?s=21
https://twitter.com/mediawhizz/status/1173648159479914496?s=20
To say that parliament might hypothetically have been able to frustrate the prorogation seems rather like saying a poisoner is not guilty of murder because the victim might hypothetically have managed to take an antidote!
What are your comparators ?
It's all very well taking the blame for the three most shambolic years this country has faced since the war but it wouldn't be human not to try to explain that the fault wasn't all his.
And now the workings have been opened to public gaze we can definitively see what he's had to put up with. The Tory party is rotten from the top down. We've seen it with our own eyes anyway but it's good to have such highly placed confirmation
In my view we are in this great mess because the referendum in 2016 broke our constitution. I believe that electing a majority Liberal Democrat government to revoke Article 50 - and re-affirm the primacy of Parliament over referendums - would go a long way to fixing the mess we are in.
Even if this subsequently created a backlash that elected a majority government committed to a no deal exit I still believe we would be in a better position, because we would not have the split mandate that the referendum created.
Referendums should in future, if used at all, only be held to confirm a policy that the government wishes to enact and has already demonstrated that it possesses a Parliamentary majority to implement. They should never again be used to enable MPs to hide from their responsibility of making their judgement on a major issue of the day - and being held accountable by their electorate for that judgement.
This would mean that, in the event that a government is defeated in a referendum it does not create the paralysis we have seen since 2016, because defeat for the government results simply in the continuation of the status quo, and does not require the government to enact a policy that it is opposed to.
It is for this reason that I believe a second referendum is not the way forward. It would have the same defects as the first referendum. It would only be held by a government that did not want to implement Brexit and so if the result was for Leave we would be stuck in the same conflict as at present.
If we are to leave the EU let it be done properly, by a majority government elected on that platform.
To make that possible we first have to revoke Article 50, which is why I have decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats - and you should too.
Who cares if no one heard it?
The text would have been released to the Press and he then could have left making the Luxembourgers look like they could not organise a press conference.
Instead, he showed that broad streak of yellow I have long suspected he possesses.
The other alternative is that he had no speech and was going to wing it with bland platitudes and arming waving. I have no trouble believeing he would try that...
"Smart" schemes tend to fall apart.
As far a launch platforms are concerned, NASA ought to be re-invented in a similar manner to DARPA, funding novel technology concepts. That could free up a significant amount of funding for actual exploration and space science.
Amazing it needs to be said.
https://twitter.com/brucemcd23/status/1173865850358702080?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/17/the-homeless-death-of-aimee-teese-i-didnt-think-it-would-come-to-this-at-30
All this focus on Brexit when there are so many other more important issues across the country the Government should be addressing. This is the real tragedy of Brexit - that it has become all-consuming and nothing else is being addressed properly.
Can anybody explain to me why turning the PM into The Incredible Sulk is “good news for Cummings”?
Is this what Eton instills: a sense that if things get too tough just walk away - your privilege and wealth will ensure you survive just fine, and f*ck everyone else?
Pressure group exerts pressure on political party for political ends.
It's precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/homelessnessreduction.html
It was, of course, inevitable that Cameron would have to go - but an effort to set some direction, rather than immediately announcing his intention to resign, might conceivably have improved the situation.
We might even had an open discussion of the options available to the nation, rather than May's red lined, negotiated behind closed doors, take it or leave it deal.
And it might at least have helped lance the boil, even were he to have been ejected.
In any event, it's hard to see how such an effort from Cameron could have made things worse.
Doesn't alter the fact that Johnson is a wimp.
However, I am coming round to the view that he had no speech and felt he would be unable to "wing it" with all the yelling and shouting.
As Boris has shown being PM with no majority offers little power at all and Corbyn would lose a confidence vote straight after extending if he got in at all
This is @HYUFD's and BoJo's master plan. Lead the Conservative Party victoriously into opposition. That'll show Labour. Suck on that Jezza. We'll be in opposition and that will show you because in a scant five years time you had better watch out.
Johnson has promised to obey the law and not to ask for an extension. He also wants to attract BXP supporters and split the opposition. That's complicated.
Resigning and getting Corbyn to ask for the extension achieves that. But LibDems probably won't support Corbyn as PM so for Johnson's strategy to work he has to abstain on the VONC in Corbyn. It will be hard for him to explain but I think it is his least worse option. I agree it might fall apart - probably will.
I have transferred some money from a December election forward to November. I'm in the enviable position of being very green on whenever the election is with a shed load on 2020 but a decent amount on this November and Corbyn as next PM.
Germans were themselves expelled, I believe.
Collaborating with Labour once in opposition to allow them to remain in government and extend instead of trying to force no deal- not fine.
Why on earth do you think Leavers would give him their support after that? Why, for that matter, would you? Was Topping right about you all along?
That would place Johnson under a greater degree of scrutiny and pressure than he has ever experienced (like the period since he was appointed PM, but much more so). Particularly given the Brexit factor. A London mayoral campaign isn't remotely comparable.
https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1173779742622920704?s=20
If in June 2017 May had said "Yes we did win over 300 Seats but because we didnt't get 350 MPs we're going to hand power over to Labour so thatthey can make a mess of Brexit" she would have been hung drawn and quarterd by everone including brexiteers.
Be careful what you wish for.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1173872120620834816?s=20
However, from the article: "Cathy is less certain Aimee could have been saved. “Was she let down? Personally I don’t think so. I think she was given the help from a young age all the way through. I think Stephen, my brother who died, was also given a lot of help.”
Homelessness is complex; if you read the article, the poor lady's problems go back to the time she was born; she was let down multiple times, and let herself down as well.
Also as the article says: "When we talk about eradicating homelessness, it’s not just about moving them out of tents, it’s not just about finding them accommodation, it’s about finding them a job, it’s about changing their lifestyle.”
And that's why it's so difficult to do. In this case, a broken kid became a broken teenagers who become a broken adult. The longer it is left, the more broken they become, and the harder it is to 'fix' them (although that does not mean we shouldn't try). But we need to try to stop the kids from being broken - and that may involve helping their parents more, and more funding for the rather inconsistent care services.
And that's only one route into homelessness.
It's not just a case of finding a roof over their heads; it's about fixing the underlying issues afflicting the homeless. Sometimes these may be simple; in other cases, such as this lady's, they are immensely complex.