politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first full poll after Swinson’s Brexit gamble sees the LDs

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

mr-claypole said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Private Eye are saying Brenda was central to the idea to prorogue - the method of doing so cooked up a week earlier

Anyone but Downing Street.

Sorry, being dim - could you please amplify?

The Private Eye story that Brenda was behind the prorogation move - it’s unlikely that the Palace would leak that so cui bono?

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

CarlottaVance said:

mr-claypole said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Private Eye are saying Brenda was central to the idea to prorogue - the method of doing so cooked up a week earlier

Anyone but Downing Street.

Sorry, being dim - could you please amplify?

The Private Eye story that Brenda was behind the prorogation move - it’s unlikely that the Palace would leak that so cui bono?

Ah, blaming the Royal Court are they? Thank you.

Good point:

Dissolution transfers power to the electorate
Prorogation transfers power to the executive

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1174641310885720065?s=20

Byronic said:

TOPPING said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.

I've checked. It's not in the memoirs, he makes the appalling revelation in a TV documentary.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/sep/19/david-cameron-asked-queen-to-raise-eyebrow-during-scottish-independence-referendum-video

He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?

Stupid Man.

Rather like Blair and Iraq, he cannot admit to himself how badly he screwed up.
Admitting he tried to involve the queen is to show "I did everything I could".

Pulpstar said:

I think Cameron's revelation about the Queen is a colossal breach of trust. Anyone with half a brain can work out she'd instinctively be a strong unionist anyway.

Normally people write books to make themselves look good. Cameron is taking a, umm... novel approach based on these extracts.

Congrats on your order btw.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Beibheirli_C said:

We voted them in because we have total control of who we vote for and can vote them out any time. The EU never stopped us.

"We" have anything but total control. Parliament controls that. And against his wishes it decided that we shouldn't have an opportunity to choose whether we wanted Johnson to continue.

PS. The EU was very happy for them to stop us.

"We" as in the sense of the UK.

As for Parliament exercising its sovereignty.... well, as the old saying has it, "Be careful what you wish for - you might get it"

Nigel_Foremain said:

The LibDem opponents will try and make out it to be antidemocratic. But how could it be? We know the chances of them forming a majority govt are tiny, but if there were such an earthquake, it would be a very very clear mandate as no one can doubt the policy (unlike Labour's).

Also imagine they had a referendum policy in these circumstances.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union in a way directed by Jo "Bollocks to Brexit" Swinson?

Presumably the Leave side would boycott it, and if they did that then most of the Remain voters wouldn't show up because there was no opposition, so it would have teensy turnout.

I mean, maybe it's the right thing to do on principle, but when you think about the practicalities it doesn't exactly scream "national healing"...

Noo said:

philiph said:

Gallowgate said:

Byronic said:

TGOHF said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TGOHF said:

Think of the VAT revenue this is costing the govt. Legalise now.

https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/1174607611121025025?s=21

Any views on a minimum price, or would that cripple the nascent crack house and opium den sector?

Minimum pricing does raise revenue - but doesn’t improve health.

https://twitter.com/iealondon/status/1174603793461403648?s=21

You want to legalise smack to raise revenue, so what's your problem?

Current approaches including prohibition of drugs and minimum pricing for alcohol aren’t working - Scotland no exception.

Trying it again and again is crazy.

I was generally in favour of legalisation... until I saw, on a recent trip, the ravages of the opioid plague in America.

It should give anyone pause for thought. Opioids are basically drugs, legalised. And we can see what they do.

What do you propose we do about it? Criminalization is not a solution. Addicts will use regardless of the law.

SNIP

I agree.
It should be noted the troubling opioid epidemic in the USA is largely to do with a misperception on the part of doctors and patients that these drugs were safe. It's a failure of the commercialised approach to healthcare. Were doctors and patients better informed -- as they are now becoming -- they would have been more leery of prescribing and accepting prescriptions of these drugs.

Legalising drugs is not the same as legitimising them. Tobacco is a good case study here, since it's legal but highly regulated, with government information and programs to help wean people off it. That, to me, feels like the sensible approach.

In the USA it was all about money and greed.

Byronic said:

TOPPING said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.

I've checked. It's not in the memoirs, he makes the appalling revelation in a TV documentary.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/sep/19/david-cameron-asked-queen-to-raise-eyebrow-during-scottish-independence-referendum-video

He doesn't say he buttonholed the Queen in the pub and they had a chinwag about fixing Scotland. He comes far far closer to that than you'd expect, or than anyone of us would want. Why? Why admit this? Why break the basic and cardinal rule of British politics?

Stupid Man.

Book sales and his deflated ego at being seen as a sad loser.

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

The Queen made no comment in support of either side in the indyref whatever Cameron may have said.

However given polling always shows more rightwingers than leftwingers support the monarchy then by definition it is political to some extent already anyway

Nigelb said:

oxfordsimon said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1174639546098733056?s=20

That is hardly a shock to anyone.

The courts cannot remove the right to prorogue - as it is central to how new sessions of Parliament are brought about.

So clearly any PM is going to retain the right - unless and until new rules are agreed.

Casciani does like getting over-excited at the moment.

His job is to report - not comment.

If Parliament were to return as a result of a ruling against the government, would it be a new session, or still the old one ?

Still the old one - as prorogation would have been deemed not to have happened.

GIN1138 said:

Lost complete control of our borders and argueably sowed the seeds for Brexit.

Surely that's a good thing from your perspective, though? Brexiteers4Blair

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

The Queen made no comment in support of either side in the indyref whatever Cameron may have said.

However given polling always shows more rightwingers than leftwingers support the monarchy then by definition it is political to some extent already anyway

Oh come now, even the BBC is admitting that HM most certainly did, and discussing it in some detail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

FF43 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1174641392011943937

I thought Oct 31 was the artificial deadline. Hard keeping up with what the Cummings government is doing now.

Yes, very confusing all these Cummings and Goveings.

One thing that needs to happen now is a Constitutional Convention - something serious and thorough that looks at the current rules of the Commons, Lords, Government and State and makes recommendations for reform.

Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.

This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.

Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.

Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.

Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1174646860566466561

oxfordsimon said:

Nigelb said:

oxfordsimon said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1174639546098733056?s=20

That is hardly a shock to anyone.

The courts cannot remove the right to prorogue - as it is central to how new sessions of Parliament are brought about.

So clearly any PM is going to retain the right - unless and until new rules are agreed.

Casciani does like getting over-excited at the moment.

His job is to report - not comment.

If Parliament were to return as a result of a ruling against the government, would it be a new session, or still the old one ?

Still the old one - as prorogation would have been deemed not to have happened.

That's what I thought.

As the government's own submission seems to confirm:
In the documents Sir James Eadie QC, for the prime minister, writes that if the justices quash the original formal order to prorogue Parliament, taken on 28 August, that would mean that Parliament would remain “in session”....

Nigelb said:

Gallowgate said:

Gallowgate said:

Anecdote alert. There’s an old Geordie man wearing a ‘don’t blame me, I voted remain’ badge on the bus I’m on, going through North Tyneside.

I also note that he hasn’t been viscously attacked, as @Byronic suggested might happen.

On the contrary, there has been an abundance of treacly commentary.

It's a sticky situation. One would wish to pour oil upon troubled waters...

slade said:

Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.

Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.

Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised

oxfordsimon said:

One thing that needs to happen now is a Constitutional Convention - something serious and thorough that looks at the current rules of the Commons, Lords, Government and State and makes recommendations for reform.

Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.

This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.

Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.

Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.

Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.

Ah yes the FTPA another Cameron triumph

HYUFD said:

slade said:

Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.

Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.

Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised

He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?

slade said:

Photo going round on Twitter showing Jo Swinson in a SS uniform. Why?

Yoon ultras got there a long time ago.

https://twitter.com/dww_994/status/1046845138142736384?s=20

Byronic said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.

Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?

In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.

Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?

In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.

The Labour Party going on the latest evidence which is no more than Corbyn deserves after rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement

dyedwoolie said:

HYUFD said:

slade said:

Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.

Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.

Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised

and singing the banana boat song

Das ist verbotten jetzt auch ?

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.

Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?

In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.

The Labour Party going on the latest evidence which is no more than Corbyn deserves after rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement

Like the ERG?

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1174639546098733056?s=20

Well yes, until the prorogation we were in the midst of a parliamentary session that had lasted twice as long as the norm and the longest of any in post war history. At some point it will need to be brought to an end, unless there is never ever going to be another prorogation or indeed there is never ever going to be another Queen's speech.

And if the courts have the ability to rule prorogation illegal, do they also have the ability to rule a failure to prorogue illegal?

I can't imagine HMQ is all that delighted with Cameron over the Indyref allegations. He could easily have just said he doesn't discuss his communications with the Queen.

Quite apart from the awks of being seen to act in favour of the UK govt against one of 'her' other govts, it adds another dent to the alleged magical sanctity of 'prerogative' power, given the current unpleasantness at the Supreme Court.

dyedwoolie said:

HYUFD said:

slade said:

Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.

Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.

Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised

He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?

He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really

Gallowgate said:

BoZo uniting the house.

https://twitter.com/nickboles/status/1174243881552175105?s=21

The mood music from the EU seems to be if a deal is offered it will be take it or leave it, no extension, hence the opposition will wear the blame for no deal if they refuse what is on offer at the 11th hour.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.

Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?

In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.

The Labour Party going on the latest evidence which is no more than Corbyn deserves after rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement

Like the ERG?

Much of the ERG wanted No Deal Brexit not Deal Brexit like Corbyn, karma has got him now

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

The Queen made no comment in support of either side in the indyref whatever Cameron may have said.

However given polling always shows more rightwingers than leftwingers support the monarchy then by definition it is political to some extent already anyway

Yes she did, a blatant one made in Scotland

That’ll be a “yes” then......

https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/1174648470571028480?s=21

Theuniondivvie said:

slade said:

Photo going round on Twitter showing Jo Swinson in a SS uniform. Why?

Yoon ultras got there a long time ago.

https://twitter.com/dww_994/status/1046845138142736384?s=20

Lovely people your unionists

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?

Initially yes according to the SNP given the Queens ancestry includes Mary Queen of Scots etc

Oh yes, there's that too. In any case it is a primarily Scots royal family. The extension of the franchise to E&W came later ...

oxfordsimon said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1174639546098733056?s=20

That is hardly a shock to anyone.

The courts cannot remove the right to prorogue - as it is central to how new sessions of Parliament are brought about.

So clearly any PM is going to retain the right - unless and until new rules are agreed.

Casciani does like getting over-excited at the moment.

His job is to report - not comment.

Also I don't think it was the prorogation per se that is being objected to, but it's length of five weeks.

If the government wants a new session and schedules a prorogation over a long weekend then there wouldn't be any objection. Or at least not so much. I fear for some people "prorogation" has now become a four-syllable word.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?

Initially yes according to the SNP given the Queens ancestry includes Mary Queen of Scots etc

Oh yes, there's that too. In any case it is a primarily Scots royal family. The extension of the franchise to E&W came later ...

Primarily German.

Anabobazina said:

Pulpstar said:

If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?

I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.

I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1174652226276679681?s=21

Blimey LDs are level with Labour and they still only have 41% of Remainers!

Plenty of scope for further advance there it would seem.

Nigelb said:

oxfordsimon said:

One thing that needs to happen now is a Constitutional Convention - something serious and thorough that looks at the current rules of the Commons, Lords, Government and State and makes recommendations for reform.

Standing orders, conventions - everything should be up for investigation and reform. Nothing should be untouchable.

This is not about wanting to create a written constitution - it is about looking at the current ways of working and seeing whether they are fit for purpose or place too much power in the hands of individuals to interpret things in their own interests.

Whether that is a PM wanting to push things through or a Speaker reinventing the rules to block something he doesn't like.

Of course this should be independent of Government, The Speaker of both Houses and be a broad-based and balanced review. But we cannot continue as we have been doing.

Oh, and the FTPA has to go. We wouldn't be where we are now if that had never happened.

Though would we necessarily be in a better place ?

I do agree that a constitutional convention would be a very sensible idea (though unlikely to be of any help for a fair amount of time).

We would be in a place of clarity where one individual didn't have the right to rewrite the rules on a whim. That is a better place

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1174629934314196993?s=21

It’s getting worse....”Don’t abuse our politeness and don’t abuse Lady Hale’s patience”....

Oh my. I feel ill on his behalf at that. He’ll have waking nightmares about that for the rest of his life.

Benpointer said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1174652226276679681?s=21

Blimey LDs are level with Labour and they still only have 41% of Remainers!

Plenty of scope for further advance there it would seem.

3% swing from the YouGov poll lab to LD would implode labour at westminister to under 100 seats

Byronic said:

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.

Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?

In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.

Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.

But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.

Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.

it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.

Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.

Does that make Revoke the escape podule?

No....asking Mother to self-destruct is the only way. The Alien found its way into the escape shuttle.

Byronic said:

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.

Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?

In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.

Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.

But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.

Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.

it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.

Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.

Does that make Revoke the escape podule?

It was only a matter of time before your next volte-face.

Welcome back!

dyedwoolie said:

Gallowgate said:

BoZo uniting the house.

https://twitter.com/nickboles/status/1174243881552175105?s=21

The mood music from the EU seems to be if a deal is offered it will be take it or leave it, no extension, hence the opposition will wear the blame for no deal if they refuse what is on offer at the 11th hour.

Rule No1.

The government is always to blame.

Byronic said:

Benpointer said:

Byronic said:

148grss said:

Byronic said:

The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"

"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.

"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49733588

I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.

Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.

It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.

Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?

In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.

Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.

But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.

The future of the EU still rests with Germany and its attitude to the weaker members of the Eurozone. Will they create a banking and fiscal union in time to handle the next big crisis?

Brexit is just a sideshow - which is one reason the EU are so frustrated with it.

Noo said:

HYUFD said:

Noo said:

HYUFD said:

Despite your hard left rant

I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.

As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist

I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism.
And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.

I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.

You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition

Noo said:

HYUFD said:

Noo said:

HYUFD said:

Despite your hard left rant

I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.

As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist

I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism.
And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.

Do you espouse such divisive views on the doorstep in Epping Hemnall @HYUFD? I feel you are probably a very different guy IRL?