Tories would be on 346 seats in the latter scenario on UNS, the highest number of Tory MPs won by a Tory leader since Thatcher in 1987 and after tonight's vote I suspect you can count the LD tactical votes for Corbyn Labour on one hand
Most LDs are anti-Brexit and therefore anti-Tory and many will vote tactically for Lab, The YouGov poll indicates 35% will (and 65% won't). That's what I've used.
The Labour party position on Brexit hasn't changed, It is still equivocal but it does include a second referendum. I don't think it will change LibDem tactical voting behaviour much, but I think it will cause some more Labour supporters to defect to the LibDems.
Labour is doing its level best to deter LDs voting for them tactically. 32 hr working weeks and confiscation of private property etc. They obviously only want 1st choice voters......
It looks like that doesn't it. I wonder when the tipping point comes?
I am the only person I know who genuinely liked Neil Kinnock. I have defended the Premierships of Blair and Brown. I have pointed out that Denis Healey and James Callaghan were the highly patriotic defence-orientated left-wingers that the Right refuses to believe exists....
...And I have no idea how to fix Labour, I really don't. Where in the name of Clement Attlee do they go from here?
The answer, I suspect, is to the LDs, leaving the Labour Party to a small band of cultists.
That being the case Johnson has a free pass for an awfully long time.
Less than ten years since they left government the Labour Party is now no more relevant than a student debating society.
Labour will always get 200 seats in Tory free zones. What we need is for Jo to get 100 and the job is done. I just hope the Libs get their pitch right. They'll never have a better chance
Not so sure Roger. ITV Wales were interviewing lifelong Labour (and Leaver) voters in the Gower constituency last week. They were going straight to Boris to get Brexit done.
But by the time we get to an election, either Boris will have failed to get Brexit done, or else he will already have done it.
Did these lifelong Labour voters say what they'd do then?
I suspect they - and many others - will reward him for having delivered Brexit/made the madness stop......
Tories would be on 346 seats in the latter scenario on UNS, the highest number of Tory MPs won by a Tory leader since Thatcher in 1987 and after tonight's vote I suspect you can count the LD tactical votes for Corbyn Labour on one hand
Most LDs are anti-Brexit and therefore anti-Tory and many will vote tactically for Lab, The YouGov poll indicates 35% will (and 65% won't). That's what I've used.
The Labour party position on Brexit hasn't changed, It is still equivocal but it does include a second referendum. I don't think it will change LibDem tactical voting behaviour much, but I think it will cause some more Labour supporters to defect to the LibDems.
Labour is doing its level best to deter LDs voting for them tactically. 32 hr working weeks and confiscation of private property etc. They obviously only want 1st choice voters......
It looks like that doesn't it. I wonder when the tipping point comes?
I am the only person I know who genuinely liked Neil Kinnock. I have defended the Premierships of Blair and Brown. I have pointed out that Denis Healey and James Callaghan were the highly patriotic defence-orientated left-wingers that the Right refuses to believe exists....
...And I have no idea how to fix Labour, I really don't. Where in the name of Clement Attlee do they go from here?
The answer, I suspect, is to the LDs, leaving the Labour Party to a small band of cultists.
That being the case Johnson has a free pass for an awfully long time.
Less than ten years since they left government the Labour Party is now no more relevant than a student debating society.
Labour will always get 200 seats in Tory free zones. What we need is for Jo to get 100 and the job is done. I just hope the Libs get their pitch right. They'll never have a better chance
Not so sure Roger. ITV Wales were interviewing lifelong Labour (and Leaver) voters in the Gower constituency last week. They were going straight to Boris to get Brexit done.
But by the time we get to an election, either Boris will have failed to get Brexit done, or else he will already have done it.
Did these lifelong Labour voters say what they'd do then?
He won't have failed to get it done. He will have failed to get it done by the proposed deadline. He will be blaming that on Remainers and then going to the public to finish the job.
If we are as a nation going to get to know the Justices of the Supreme Court more as things get increasingly political, then it seems like Lord Reed and Lord Sales will be the key figures - with mandatory retirements and the kind of age you'd expect most justices to be on appointment, their 14 and 13 year terms extending into the late 2020s and early 2030s will be critical, and near double the length of most of the justices.
It’s been the source of much twitter conjecture as to what might happen with the Supreme Court .
The judges are really quite good at never giving the game away.
I think whatever side of the debate you’re on it’s important that they at least find the matter justiciable.
This will send a message that any future PM won’t get a free pass.
I think if they find reserved prerogative powers justiciable then they are most of the way to being a constitutional court. The downsides to that outweighs the upsides, and it's not even close. If we get the courts into politics it is only a matter of time before we get politics into the courts and the Supreme Court is rather closer to being SCOTUS than the 2005CRA envisaged.
It’s been the source of much twitter conjecture as to what might happen with the Supreme Court .
The judges are really quite good at never giving the game away.
I think whatever side of the debate you’re on it’s important that they at least find the matter justiciable.
This will send a message that any future PM won’t get a free pass.
I think if they find reserved prerogative powers justiciable then they are most of the way to being a constitutional court. The downsides to that outweighs the upsides, and it's not even close. If we get the courts into politics it is only a matter of time before we get politics into the courts and the Supreme Court is rather closer to being SCOTUS than the 2005CRA envisaged.
The Supreme Court is already a constitutional court. If Boris doesn’t like what the court decides he can legislate to change the law.
No Mike. If Labour can’t take apart Jo Swinson and her policies at the next GE they shouldn’t even be in politics.
It will be easy.
Does revoke and ignoring 2016 bring the needed closure from the crisis allowing the country to move on?
No.
Is the Lib Dem position just more politics, just exploiting the crisis for their own self interest, not offfering any closure or bringing the country together.
Yes.
Labour’s brexit policy is the only one of the major parties that can stand up to the scrutiny of a General Election campaign.
Add to that focus on the right wing Jo Swinsons voting record and her responsibility for 9 years of Austerity Britain.
It’s been the source of much twitter conjecture as to what might happen with the Supreme Court .
The judges are really quite good at never giving the game away.
I think whatever side of the debate you’re on it’s important that they at least find the matter justiciable.
This will send a message that any future PM won’t get a free pass.
I think if they find reserved prerogative powers justiciable then they are most of the way to being a constitutional court. The downsides to that outweighs the upsides, and it's not even close. If we get the courts into politics it is only a matter of time before we get politics into the courts and the Supreme Court is rather closer to being SCOTUS than the 2005CRA envisaged.
I don't think it's the prerogative powers that would be justicable, but the minister's advice to use it and I believe there have been judicial reviews of ministerial advice to the Crown before, so it wouldn't be particularly new ground.
Tories would be on 346 seats in the latter scenario on UNS, the highest number of Tory MPs won by a Tory leader since Thatcher in 1987 and after tonight's vote I suspect you can count the LD tactical votes for Corbyn Labour on one hand
Most LDs are anti-Brexit and therefore anti-Tory and many will vote tactically for Lab, The YouGov poll indicates 35% will (and 65% won't). That's what I've used.
The Labour party position on Brexit hasn't changed, It is still equivocal but it does include a second referendum. I don't think it will change LibDem tactical voting behaviour much, but I think it will cause some more Labour supporters to defect to the LibDems.
Labour is doing its level best to deter LDs voting for them tactically. 32 hr working weeks and confiscation of private property etc. They obviously only want 1st choice voters......
It looks like that doesn't it. I wonder when the tipping point comes?
I am the only person I know who genuinely liked Neil Kinnock. I have defended the Premierships of Blair and Brown. I have pointed out that Denis Healey and James Callaghan were the highly patriotic defence-orientated left-wingers that the Right refuses to believe exists....
...And I have no idea how to fix Labour, I really don't. Where in the name of Clement Attlee do they go from here?
The answer, I suspect, is to the LDs, leaving the Labour Party to a small band of cultists.
That being the case Johnson has a free pass for an awfully long time.
Less than ten years since they left government the Labour Party is now no more relevant than a student debating society.
Labour will always get 200 seats in Tory free zones. What we need is for Jo to get 100 and the job is done. I just hope the Libs get their pitch right. They'll never have a better chance
Not so sure Roger. ITV Wales were interviewing lifelong Labour (and Leaver) voters in the Gower constituency last week. They were going straight to Boris to get Brexit done.
But by the time we get to an election, either Boris will have failed to get Brexit done, or else he will already have done it.
Did these lifelong Labour voters say what they'd do then?
I suspect they - and many others - will reward him for having delivered Brexit/made the madness stop......
I suspect they will, even from the back of the Jobseekers' queue.
No Mike. If Labour can’t take apart Jo Swinson and her policies at the next GE they shouldn’t even be in politics.
It will be easy.
Does revoke and ignoring 2016 bring the needed closure from the crisis allowing the country to move on?
No.
Is the Lib Dem position just more politics, just exploiting the crisis for their own self interest, not offfering any closure or bringing the country together.
Yes.
Labour’s brexit policy is the only one of the major parties that can stand up to the scrutiny of a General Election campaign.
Add to that focus on the right wing Jo Swinsons voting record and her responsibility for 9 years of Austerity Britain.
It’s been the source of much twitter conjecture as to what might happen with the Supreme Court .
The judges are really quite good at never giving the game away.
I think whatever side of the debate you’re on it’s important that they at least find the matter justiciable.
This will send a message that any future PM won’t get a free pass.
I think if they find reserved prerogative powers justiciable then they are most of the way to being a constitutional court. The downsides to that outweighs the upsides, and it's not even close. If we get the courts into politics it is only a matter of time before we get politics into the courts and the Supreme Court is rather closer to being SCOTUS than the 2005CRA envisaged.
The Supreme Court is already a constitutional court. If Boris doesn’t like what the court decides he can legislate to change the law.
I mean constitutional court in the mould of BVerfG or SCOTUS.
If we are as a nation going to get to know the Justices of the Supreme Court more as things get increasingly political, then it seems like Lord Reed and Lord Sales will be the key figures - with mandatory retirements and the kind of age you'd expect most justices to be on appointment, their 14 and 13 year terms extending into the late 2020s and early 2030s will be critical, and near double the length of most of the justices.
In 2050 Lord Sales will be the Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the UK Supreme Court. Probably battling against Boris Johnson's nano-clones or something.
It’s been the source of much twitter conjecture as to what might happen with the Supreme Court .
The judges are really quite good at never giving the game away.
I think whatever side of the debate you’re on it’s important that they at least find the matter justiciable.
This will send a message that any future PM won’t get a free pass.
I think if they find reserved prerogative powers justiciable then they are most of the way to being a constitutional court. The downsides to that outweighs the upsides, and it's not even close. If we get the courts into politics it is only a matter of time before we get politics into the courts and the Supreme Court is rather closer to being SCOTUS than the 2005CRA envisaged.
The Supreme Court is already a constitutional court. If Boris doesn’t like what the court decides he can legislate to change the law.
I mean constitutional court in the mould of BVerfG or SCOTUS.
But it wont ever be that as we don’t have a ‘higher law’.
As I said. Boris can legislate to overrule the Supreme Court if he so wishes. Statute overrides Case Law.
It's going to be hellish to see the howls of rage if he does lose the case. The vitriol poured on the court will be immense, and he's already had sources fan the flames though no doubt he will make some mealy mouthed comment about respecting our fine judges tally ho what for.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
The Arcuri business alone would have finished any other politician (Adam Werritty anyone?) but the BBC can barely be arsed to ask the question. They and we have seen it all before. Boris will be Boris!
I was idly looking at the biographies of the justices, as you do. I see Lord Hodge's first names are Patrick Stewart, while Lord Briggs is Michael Townley Featherstone Briggs. How quaint.
It's going to be hellish to see the howls of rage if he does lose the case. The vitrol poured on the court will be immense, and he's already had sources fan the flames though no doubt he will make some mealy mouthed comment about respecting our fine judges tally ho what for.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
If parliament is recalled, would the Conservative party conference have to be cancelled?
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, politics, confidence games, or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means.
I think a certain BBC Political Editor is a shill.
It’s been the source of much twitter conjecture as to what might happen with the Supreme Court .
The judges are really quite good at never giving the game away.
I think whatever side of the debate you’re on it’s important that they at least find the matter justiciable.
This will send a message that any future PM won’t get a free pass.
I think if they find reserved prerogative powers justiciable then they are most of the way to being a constitutional court. The downsides to that outweighs the upsides, and it's not even close. If we get the courts into politics it is only a matter of time before we get politics into the courts and the Supreme Court is rather closer to being SCOTUS than the 2005CRA envisaged.
I don't think it's the prerogative powers that would be justicable, but the minister's advice to use it and I believe there have been judicial reviews of ministerial advice to the Crown before, so it wouldn't be particularly new ground.
We're talking about the justiciability of the prerogation prerogative presumably.
No Mike. If Labour can’t take apart Jo Swinson and her policies at the next GE they shouldn’t even be in politics.
It will be easy.
Does revoke and ignoring 2016 bring the needed closure from the crisis allowing the country to move on?
No.
Is the Lib Dem position just more politics, just exploiting the crisis for their own self interest, not offfering any closure or bringing the country together.
Yes.
Labour’s brexit policy is the only one of the major parties that can stand up to the scrutiny of a General Election campaign.
Add to that focus on the right wing Jo Swinsons voting record and her responsibility for 9 years of Austerity Britain.
Bring it on. 🤗
...but today just looked like a clown show!
Then probably Labour won't feature today in their election material, though you never know.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
Gods forbid it is a 6:5 decision - it won't matter a jot, but you can bet the losing side will be certain Lord Briggs would have voted their way.
An 8-3, or more decisive, judgement either way would be better than a close decision.
A shame there's been turnover since the A50 case, might have been interesting to see if the same ones dissented or not.
Of the 6 judges still on the court from then .
It’s currently 4 to 2 in favour of the original Gina Miller case . The newest judge Lord Sales would be a 5 as he ruled in the original high court case .
So that’s 5 amenable to restricting the powers of the executive , not saying they’ll rule in favour this time though .
Of the four remaining I haven’t read enough of their previous writings and opinions although a fun fact .
Lady Arden is married to the previous SC judge Lord Mance , he in the GM case supported Gina Miller .
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, politics, confidence games, or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means.
I think a certain BBC Political Editor is a shill.
That being so, she only needs to let today's shambles play out without commentary and the Labour Party has done her work for her.
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, politics, confidence games, or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means.
I think a certain BBC Political Editor is a shill.
Are they working for the Zionists?
Asking for a friend....
Oh your going off the deep end - you might want to take a break
How watertight is the system of tellers for Commons votes?
Generally probably OK but The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 passed because the teller on one side counted a very fat colleague as 10 as a joke, then realized the other teller hadn't noticed, and decided to roll with it.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
No Ms. Formby intervened on behalf of our heroic Leader and it looked awful.
"On what basis Jeremy Corbyn edges out, say, Michael Foot, Keir Hardie, Neil Kinnock, Clement Attlee and the rest is not immediately clear, not least as none of them have been accused of active complicity in racism,"
Well, whoever wrote that for The Independent is clearly a grade-one know-nothing.
No less than Henry McLeish has provided compelling evidence that Keir Hardie was an intolerant xenophobe who indulged in crude racial stereotyping and castigated foreigners for taking Scottish jobs.
Do we add Gordon Brown then for his "British jobs for British workers" pitch?
Personally I can't see any outcome other than the entire government resigning tomorrow if SC rules the mislead the Queen..
I'm curious, why do you see that happening? Sources are already laying the groundwork to blame the judges for siding with remainiacs to overturn the democratic vote of the people, so why would they not just carry on, complying with the ruling through gritted teeth? It's not as though anyone still remaining in the Cabinet or party will consider this a bridge too far.
I can see him resigning as a ploy later, maybe, but resigning right away in disgrace? That hurts his brand too much. Oddly, more than losing the case alone would.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Personally I can't see any outcome other than the entire government resigning tomorrow if SC rules the mislead the Queen..
Prime Minister Corbyn by Wednesday? Christ. I need to replenish my stockpile.
Only if he command the confidence of the House...
That’s not true though is it? There’s no vote of confidence if the government has resigned. It’s just who is most likely to command confidence of the house. Evidence? Boris Johnson. There would have to be a Prime Minister even if we headed for an election.
Personally I can't see any outcome other than the entire government resigning tomorrow if SC rules the mislead the Queen..
I'm curious, why do you see that happening? Sources are already laying the groundwork to blame the judges for siding with remainiacs to overturn the democratic vote of the people, so why would they not just carry on, complying with the ruling through gritted teeth? It's not as though anyone still remaining in the Cabinet or party will consider this a bridge too far.
Just a hunch that they'll try to use this to force the issue of a general election...
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
Yeah - Look the other way
Bit like when the anti semitism started piling up - but no - nothing to see.....
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Isn’t she on sick leave anyway? Genuine question. Shouldn’t someone else be discharging her duties currently?
How watertight is the system of tellers for Commons votes?
Generally probably OK but The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 passed because the teller on one side counted a very fat colleague as 10 as a joke, then realized the other teller hadn't noticed, and decided to roll with it.
So you could have a situation where the tellers don't agree on the count and call each other liars?
I wouldn't like to be the Speaker who had to deal with that.
A future Labour government would take equity stakes in car producers in return for a £3bn capital investment in new electric models and machinery.
Announcing the new plans, Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long Bailey said the state should "not be afraid to intervene" to ensure the success of the automotive sector in light of the huge technological and economic challenges it faced.
Len McCluskey's speech just replayed on BBC2 'what divides us is not whether we are Leavers or Remainers but our class, we are not a party of Leave or Remain but of Socialism' etc
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Isn’t she on sick leave anyway? Genuine question. Shouldn’t someone else be discharging her duties currently?
No idea. I could see conference being the sort of thing you'd make a special effort for, even if it meant you suffered for it the weeks afterwards.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Dont know if there could be a legal challenge. If the chair is supposed to ask for a card vote if the show of hands is close surely the two people involved having different opinions mandates a card vote. At best it suggests incompetence, alternatively it is corrupt or a mix of the two.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Isn’t she on sick leave anyway? Genuine question. Shouldn’t someone else be discharging her duties currently?
No idea. I could see conference being the sort of thing you'd make a special effort for, even if it meant you suffered for it the weeks afterwards.
Of course but normally HR would be having none of it on duty of care grounds.
Len McCluskey's speech just replayed on BBC2 'what divides us is not whether we are Leavers or Remainers but our class, we are not a party of Leave or Remain but of Socialism' etc
A class where everyone wears Italian suits, lives in grace and favour homes and allegedly keeps trophy mistresses? Sign me up!
Gods forbid it is a 6:5 decision - it won't matter a jot, but you can bet the losing side will be certain Lord Briggs would have voted their way.
An 8-3, or more decisive, judgement either way would be better than a close decision.
A shame there's been turnover since the A50 case, might have been interesting to see if the same ones dissented or not.
Of the 6 judges still on the court from then .
It’s currently 4 to 2 in favour of the original Gina Miller case . The newest judge Lord Sales would be a 5 as he ruled in the original high court case .
So that’s 5 amenable to restricting the powers of the executive , not saying they’ll rule in favour this time though .
Of the four remaining I haven’t read enough of their previous writings and opinions although a fun fact .
Lady Arden is married to the previous SC judge Lord Mance , he in the GM case supported Gina Miller .
But I keep coming back to the original Queen's Bench decision - a panel of very illustrious judges that was effectively the Court of Appeal sitting - ruling for the Govt. Over-ruling them is of course possible, but it will require some interesting explanation of how they got it so wrong....
Gods forbid it is a 6:5 decision - it won't matter a jot, but you can bet the losing side will be certain Lord Briggs would have voted their way.
An 8-3, or more decisive, judgement either way would be better than a close decision.
A shame there's been turnover since the A50 case, might have been interesting to see if the same ones dissented or not.
Of the 6 judges still on the court from then .
It’s currently 4 to 2 in favour of the original Gina Miller case . The newest judge Lord Sales would be a 5 as he ruled in the original high court case .
So that’s 5 amenable to restricting the powers of the executive , not saying they’ll rule in favour this time though .
Of the four remaining I haven’t read enough of their previous writings and opinions although a fun fact .
Lady Arden is married to the previous SC judge Lord Mance , he in the GM case supported Gina Miller .
But I keep coming back to the original Queen's Bench decision - a panel of very illustrious judges that was effectively the Court of Appeal sitting - ruling for the Govt. Over-ruling them is of course possible, but it will require some interesting explanation of how they got it so wrong....
Are they giving 2 judgements, 1 using Scottish law and another using English law?
Gods forbid it is a 6:5 decision - it won't matter a jot, but you can bet the losing side will be certain Lord Briggs would have voted their way.
An 8-3, or more decisive, judgement either way would be better than a close decision.
A shame there's been turnover since the A50 case, might have been interesting to see if the same ones dissented or not.
Of the 6 judges still on the court from then .
It’s currently 4 to 2 in favour of the original Gina Miller case . The newest judge Lord Sales would be a 5 as he ruled in the original high court case .
So that’s 5 amenable to restricting the powers of the executive , not saying they’ll rule in favour this time though .
Of the four remaining I haven’t read enough of their previous writings and opinions although a fun fact .
Lady Arden is married to the previous SC judge Lord Mance , he in the GM case supported Gina Miller .
But I keep coming back to the original Queen's Bench decision - a panel of very illustrious judges that was effectively the Court of Appeal sitting - ruling for the Govt. Over-ruling them is of course possible, but it will require some interesting explanation of how they got it so wrong....
Cannot be that hard - the Court of Session found it easy enough to explain how Lord Doherty had gotten it wrong.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Dont know if there could be a legal challenge. If the chair is supposed to ask for a card vote if the show of hands is close surely the two people involved having different opinions mandates a card vote. At best it suggests incompetence, alternatively it is corrupt or a mix of the two.
I think in this sort of situation it's normally a bit like cricket (before DRS) - the [Umpire's] Chair's decision is final.
But, wow. If you're going to nobble the Chair at least do it properly so they call it the right way without you having to correct them in front of everyone.
Gods forbid it is a 6:5 decision - it won't matter a jot, but you can bet the losing side will be certain Lord Briggs would have voted their way.
An 8-3, or more decisive, judgement either way would be better than a close decision.
A shame there's been turnover since the A50 case, might have been interesting to see if the same ones dissented or not.
Of the 6 judges still on the court from then .
It’s currently 4 to 2 in favour of the original Gina Miller case . The newest judge Lord Sales would be a 5 as he ruled in the original high court case .
So that’s 5 amenable to restricting the powers of the executive , not saying they’ll rule in favour this time though .
Of the four remaining I haven’t read enough of their previous writings and opinions although a fun fact .
Lady Arden is married to the previous SC judge Lord Mance , he in the GM case supported Gina Miller .
But I keep coming back to the original Queen's Bench decision - a panel of very illustrious judges that was effectively the Court of Appeal sitting - ruling for the Govt. Over-ruling them is of course possible, but it will require some interesting explanation of how they got it so wrong....
Are they giving 2 judgements, 1 using Scottish law and another using English law?
They are giving a response to each, but my understanding is that the Court of Session ruling was not under Scottish law.
It's going to be hellish to see the howls of rage if he does lose the case. The vitriol poured on the court will be immense, and he's already had sources fan the flames though no doubt he will make some mealy mouthed comment about respecting our fine judges tally ho what for.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
It is largely a pointless ruling now anyway, the No Deal Bill has been passed so it really means little in comparison to say Parliament being prorogued past October 31st with no anti No Deal legislation in place.
If the Court sides with the Government Remainers will be angry, if the Court decides against the Government Leavers will be angry but in reality it changes zilch other than in theoretical terms and I expect the Court will come down somewhere in the middle anyway
Len McCluskey's speech just replayed on BBC2 'what divides us is not whether we are Leavers or Remainers but our class, we are not a party of Leave or Remain but of Socialism' etc
It's going to be hellish to see the howls of rage if he does lose the case. The vitrol poured on the court will be immense, and he's already had sources fan the flames though no doubt he will make some mealy mouthed comment about respecting our fine judges tally ho what for.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
If parliament is recalled, would the Conservative party conference have to be cancelled?
Don't think so. Most MPs don't go to the conferences. Obviously senior Cabinet members do for their day in the sun, but that's 2 per day.
It's going to be hellish to see the howls of rage if he does lose the case. The vitriol poured on the court will be immense, and he's already had sources fan the flames though no doubt he will make some mealy mouthed comment about respecting our fine judges tally ho what for.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
It is largely a pointless ruling now anyway, the No Deal Bill has been passed so it really means little in comparison to say Parliament being prorogued past October 31st with no anti No Deal legislation in place.
If the Court sides with the Government Remainers will be angry, if the Court decides against the Government Leavers will be angry but in reality it changes zilch other than in theoretical terms and I expect the Court will come down somewhere in the middle anyway
If it is not justiciable at all we could see a re prorogation of parliament immediately on its return. It would also suggest that the executive is more sovereign than parliament (as the executive can shut parliament down when it suits) which is a big shift in the constitution as most understand it.
As long as they clarify it is justiciable, roughly the confirm the scope of whats legal or not then parliament will have the chance to make the rules around future prorogations clearer. I would be content with that, agree whether the current one is legal or not is not particularly important but justiciability is key.
It's going to be hellish to see the howls of rage if he does lose the case. The vitriol poured on the court will be immense, and he's already had sources fan the flames though no doubt he will make some mealy mouthed comment about respecting our fine judges tally ho what for.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
It is largely a pointless ruling now anyway, the No Deal Bill has been passed so it really means little in comparison to say Parliament being prorogued past October 31st with no anti No Deal legislation in place.
If the Court sides with the Government Remainers will be angry, if the Court decides against the Government Leavers will be angry but in reality it changes zilch other than in theoretical terms and I expect the Court will come down somewhere in the middle anyway
If it is not justiciable at all we could see a re prorogation of parliament immediately on its return. It would also suggest that the executive is more sovereign than parliament (as the executive can shut parliament down when it suits) which is a big shift in the constitution as most understand it.
As long as they clarify it is justiciable, roughly the confirm the scope of whats legal or not then parliament will have the chance to make the rules around future prorogations clearer. I would be content with that, agree whether the current one is legal or not is not particularly important but justiciability is key.
It's going to be hellish to see the howls of rage if he does lose the case. The vitriol poured on the court will be immense, and he's already had sources fan the flames though no doubt he will make some mealy mouthed comment about respecting our fine judges tally ho what for.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
It is largely a pointless ruling now anyway, the No Deal Bill has been passed so it really means little in comparison to say Parliament being prorogued past October 31st with no anti No Deal legislation in place.
If the Court sides with the Government Remainers will be angry, if the Court decides against the Government Leavers will be angry but in reality it changes zilch other than in theoretical terms and I expect the Court will come down somewhere in the middle anyway
If it is not justiciable at all we could see a re prorogation of parliament immediately on its return. It would also suggest that the executive is more sovereign than parliament (as the executive can shut parliament down when it suits) which is a big shift in the constitution as most understand it.
As long as they clarify it is justiciable, roughly the confirm the scope of whats legal or not then parliament will have the chance to make the rules around future prorogations clearer. I would be content with that, agree whether the current one is legal or not is not particularly important but justiciability is key.
I agree . I think the court might be mindful of what an out of control executive could do left to their own devices .
The judges will have seen the behaviour of Bozo and others and surely must be concerned if they give a free pass to them !
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Dont know if there could be a legal challenge. If the chair is supposed to ask for a card vote if the show of hands is close surely the two people involved having different opinions mandates a card vote. At best it suggests incompetence, alternatively it is corrupt or a mix of the two.
Seriously, who cares? Headlines tomorrow will be set by the SC verdict. The rest is just noise.
Yes - but in the hall the majority for the Corbyn motion was overwhelming. The majority against the Remain commitment was less so, though still clear.
What strikes me about the conferences - as someone who goes to all of them every year - is how distinctively cultural they are in different ways. The Labour conference is often irritating, but never less than heart-warming for people like me - warm, engaged, generous, passionate and often funny, with a strong sense of fair play. There was one elderly delegate who lost her place in her speech and frantically hunted for ir - the Chair said she was sorry, but her 4 minutes were up, and the whole hall erupted in sympathy - LET HER SPEAK! It's a bubble, but a bubble I'm glad to be part of.
The other parties have their own cultures too. The LibDem one was still a fraction of the size of the Labour one (and I suspect the Tories will be larger still), but a distinctive sense of optimistic middle-class centrist goodwill - a convention of Independent readers to Labour's Guardian/Mirror mix. It'll be interesting to see the Tory one this year - last year was intense about Brexit, but with an underlying note of cheerful self-confidence. A big difference is that the Labour conference is thoroughly mixe ethnically - the LibDems were 95% white, as were the Conservatives last year.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Dont know if there could be a legal challenge. If the chair is supposed to ask for a card vote if the show of hands is close surely the two people involved having different opinions mandates a card vote. At best it suggests incompetence, alternatively it is corrupt or a mix of the two.
Seriously, who cares? Headlines tomorrow will be set by the SC verdict. The rest is just noise.
The Supreme Court judgement will speak to the suitability of the government to hold office. In a smaller way so does today's shenanigans at conference.
No advance copies of the judgement have been made available to either side ahead of the SC ruling tomorrow .
This is very unusual .
Two thoughts. One: this is not justiciable. HMG will likely prorogue again if in its interests. Chances of no-deal higher. Decision embargoed because of effect on GBP.
Two: this is justiciable, and Boris has crossed the line. PM must accordingly resign on behalf of all HMG. No idea what comes next (Corbyn PM, no PM, PM who is not a leader of a party, election, Bercow abolishes time, cities rise up on legs and compete with humanity for resources), but difficult to see how it's not a market- sensitive event.
No advance copies of the judgement have been made available to either side ahead of the SC ruling tomorrow .
This is very unusual .
Two thoughts. One: this is not justiciable. HMG will likely prorogue again if in its interests. Chances of no-deal higher. Decision embargoed because of effect on GBP.
Two: this is justiciable, and Boris has crossed the line. PM must accordingly resign on behalf of all HMG. No idea what comes next (Corbyn PM, no PM, PM who is not a leader of a party, election, Bercow abolishes time, cities rise up on legs and compete with humanity for resources), but difficult to see how it's not a market- sensitive event.
Can the courts force him to resign? I wouldn't have thought so.
Len McCluskey's speech just replayed on BBC2 'what divides us is not whether we are Leavers or Remainers but our class, we are not a party of Leave or Remain but of Socialism' etc
A class where everyone wears Italian suits, lives in grace and favour homes and allegedly keeps trophy mistresses? Sign me up!
You forgot the very nice pay packet - 140K plus in 2014 I think I read.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Dont know if there could be a legal challenge. If the chair is supposed to ask for a card vote if the show of hands is close surely the two people involved having different opinions mandates a card vote. At best it suggests incompetence, alternatively it is corrupt or a mix of the two.
Seriously, who cares? Headlines tomorrow will be set by the SC verdict. The rest is just noise.
The Supreme Court judgement will speak to the suitability of the government to hold office. In a smaller way so does today's shenanigans at conference.
One's a legal judgement from the highest court in the land over whether the government acted unlawfully. The other was at worst a procedural cock-up over a vote that probably does not matter very much anyway.
Yes - but in the hall the majority for the Corbyn motion was overwhelming. The majority against the Remain commitment was less so, though still clear.
What strikes me about the conferences - as someone who goes to all of them every year - is how distinctively cultural they are in different ways. The Labour conference is often irritating, but never less than heart-warming for people like me - warm, engaged, generous, passionate and often funny, with a strong sense of fair play. There was one elderly delegate who lost her place in her speech and frantically hunted for ir - the Chair said she was sorry, but her 4 minutes were up, and the whole hall erupted in sympathy - LET HER SPEAK! It's a bubble, but a bubble I'm glad to be part of.
The other parties have their own cultures too. The LibDem one was still a fraction of the size of the Labour one (and I suspect the Tories will be larger still), but a distinctive sense of optimistic middle-class centrist goodwill - a convention of Independent readers to Labour's Guardian/Mirror mix. It'll be interesting to see the Tory one this year - last year was intense about Brexit, but with an underlying note of cheerful self-confidence. A big difference is that the Labour conference is thoroughly mixe ethnically - the LibDems were 95% white, as were the Conservatives last year.
I thougght the same. The elderly Jewish lady who lost her notes and was shaking with nerves as she tried to find her place was quite moving. What's more she was one of the most interesting speakers before she lost her place. Intelligent and full of facts and figures. The chair appeared unsympathetic and it was pleasing to hear the hall give her short shrift. You did get a sense of a real social consciece throughout the hall which was nice. I found the 'Jeremy' chanting far too zombie like for my taste and even a bit chilling
No advance copies of the judgement have been made available to either side ahead of the SC ruling tomorrow .
This is very unusual .
Two thoughts. One: this is not justiciable. HMG will likely prorogue again if in its interests. Chances of no-deal higher. Decision embargoed because of effect on GBP.
Two: this is justiciable, and Boris has crossed the line. PM must accordingly resign on behalf of all HMG. No idea what comes next (Corbyn PM, no PM, PM who is not a leader of a party, election, Bercow abolishes time, cities rise up on legs and compete with humanity for resources), but difficult to see how it's not a market- sensitive event.
Can the courts force him to resign? I wouldn't have thought so.
No, but the sentence 'you lied to Her Maj, Prime Minister' kinda has to end with 'so you're going to the palace for a meeting without coffee and you need to polish your CV'
No, but the sentence 'you lied to Her Maj, Prime Minister' kinda has to end with 'so you're going to the palace for a meeting without coffee and you need to polish your CV'
The complication here is that the lie may be something he was instructed to tell by some too-clever-by-half representative of Her Majesty, who may have cooked up the whole idea of proroguing, but letting parliament have a few days here and there and pretending it's for a Queen's speech, as a compromise designed to keep the Queen out of politics...
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Dont know if there could be a legal challenge. If the chair is supposed to ask for a card vote if the show of hands is close surely the two people involved having different opinions mandates a card vote. At best it suggests incompetence, alternatively it is corrupt or a mix of the two.
Seriously, who cares? Headlines tomorrow will be set by the SC verdict. The rest is just noise.
The Supreme Court judgement will speak to the suitability of the government to hold office. In a smaller way so does today's shenanigans at conference.
One's a legal judgement from the highest court in the land over whether the government acted unlawfully. The other was at worst a procedural cock-up over a vote that probably does not matter very much anyway.
Hmm. Maybe I'm letting my outrage at "things not being done properly" cloud my sense of perspective.
You have to give it to Labour for comedy values. Crucial vote. CHAIR: Motion carried Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried Mics cut again. More agitated conversation. CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT EJECT EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
The Chair misspoke
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
She did not misspeak.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Dont know if there could be a legal challenge. If the chair is supposed to ask for a card vote if the show of hands is close surely the two people involved having different opinions mandates a card vote. At best it suggests incompetence, alternatively it is corrupt or a mix of the two.
Seriously, who cares? Headlines tomorrow will be set by the SC verdict. The rest is just noise.
The Supreme Court judgement will speak to the suitability of the government to hold office. In a smaller way so does today's shenanigans at conference.
One's a legal judgement from the highest court in the land over whether the government acted unlawfully. The other was at worst a procedural cock-up over a vote that probably does not matter very much anyway.
Hmm. Maybe I'm letting my outrage at "things not being done properly" cloud my sense of perspective.
Most things that ought to matter turn out not to, in the end.
It seems to me that one of the things that happens when politics gets very tribal is that people start saying and doing things that are more designed to annoy their opponents than to positively support their own cause, (assuming there's a difference between the two). It's what you might call the RIchie Benaud attitude: he always said that when captaining a cricket team you should continuously try to do what the opposing team would like least.
Newspaper front pages -- most lead on Thomas Cook, including huge bonuses paid to bosses. Only the Guardian and Telegraph have the Labour vote as the main story. The Times has dug up something on Kim Philby, apparently. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49805304
It seems to me that one of the things that happens when politics gets very tribal is that people start saying and doing things that are more designed to annoy their opponents than to positively support their own cause, (assuming there's a difference between the two). It's what you might call the RIchie Benaud attitude: he always said that when captaining a cricket team you should continuously try to do what the opposing team would like least.
It seems to me that one of the things that happens when politics gets very tribal is that people start saying and doing things that are more designed to annoy their opponents than to positively support their own cause, (assuming there's a difference between the two). It's what you might call the RIchie Benaud attitude: he always said that when captaining a cricket team you should continuously try to do what the opposing team would like least.
Comments
No Mike. If Labour can’t take apart Jo Swinson and her policies at the next GE they shouldn’t even be in politics.
It will be easy.
Does revoke and ignoring 2016 bring the needed closure from the crisis allowing the country to move on?
No.
Is the Lib Dem position just more politics, just exploiting the crisis for their own self interest, not offfering any closure or bringing the country together.
Yes.
Labour’s brexit policy is the only one of the major parties that can stand up to the scrutiny of a General Election campaign.
Add to that focus on the right wing Jo Swinsons voting record and her responsibility for 9 years of Austerity Britain.
Bring it on. 🤗
As I said. Boris can legislate to overrule the Supreme Court if he so wishes. Statute overrides Case Law.
He hasn’t got a majority you say? Tough sh*t.
If he wins I'd expect a lot more bitterness than rage, and talk of establishment stitch ups.
The chair clearly says that in her view it was carried. How does that become lost?
If there's doubt why would you not do a card vote?
Wow.
How watertight is the system of tellers for Commons votes?
The Arcuri business alone would have finished any other politician (Adam Werritty anyone?) but the BBC can barely be arsed to ask the question. They and we have seen it all before. Boris will be Boris!
CHAIR: Motion carried
Mics cut off. Frantic conversation between chair and Gen Sec
CHAIR: I thought one thing, Jennie thinks the other. Motion lost
Howls of disbelief from the floor calling for a card vote
CHAIR: whatever I do all lot of you will be upset. In my view it was carried
Mics cut again. More agitated conversation.
CHAIR: for clarification the motion was lost
EJECT
EJECT
EJECT
What a fucking shambles.
I think a certain BBC Political Editor is a shill.
(And not of the prerogation itself)
It’s currently 4 to 2 in favour of the original Gina Miller case . The newest judge Lord Sales would be a 5 as he ruled in the original high court case .
So that’s 5 amenable to restricting the powers of the executive , not saying they’ll rule in favour this time though .
Of the four remaining I haven’t read enough of their previous writings and opinions although a fun fact .
Lady Arden is married to the previous SC judge Lord Mance , he in the GM case supported Gina Miller .
Asking for a friend....
Oh your going off the deep end - you might want to take a break
TBF she looked out of her depth all afternoon
Personally I can't see any outcome other than the entire government resigning tomorrow if SC rules they mislead the Queen..
So much for the moral crusade then....
I can see him resigning as a ploy later, maybe, but resigning right away in disgrace? That hurts his brand too much. Oddly, more than losing the case alone would.
She very clearly said that she saw it as being carried, twice, but that Jenny had seen it otherwise and she went with that instead.
Amazing.
Bit like when the anti semitism started piling up - but no - nothing to see.....
Even the Independent thinks it smells
I wouldn't like to be the Speaker who had to deal with that.
Announcing the new plans, Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long Bailey said the state should "not be afraid to intervene" to ensure the success of the automotive sector in light of the huge technological and economic challenges it faced.
Yet Boris is so desperate for a trade deal he is likely to offer Trump everything he asks for before he realises his mistake.
But, wow. If you're going to nobble the Chair at least do it properly so they call it the right way without you having to correct them in front of everyone.
Unless the house prefers to VONC him in which case we will see if Jezza can command confidence which I doubt.
So into a GE in the meantime Boris won’t fear not writing a letter so the GE will be after Brexit.
If the Court sides with the Government Remainers will be angry, if the Court decides against the Government Leavers will be angry but in reality it changes zilch other than in theoretical terms and I expect the Court will come down somewhere in the middle anyway
This is very unusual .
As long as they clarify it is justiciable, roughly the confirm the scope of whats legal or not then parliament will have the chance to make the rules around future prorogations clearer. I would be content with that, agree whether the current one is legal or not is not particularly important but justiciability is key.
I've no idea which way the vote went, but it's clear that if the Chair did she ended up going against her view.
Absolutely crackers.
The judges will have seen the behaviour of Bozo and others and surely must be concerned if they give a free pass to them !
What strikes me about the conferences - as someone who goes to all of them every year - is how distinctively cultural they are in different ways. The Labour conference is often irritating, but never less than heart-warming for people like me - warm, engaged, generous, passionate and often funny, with a strong sense of fair play. There was one elderly delegate who lost her place in her speech and frantically hunted for ir - the Chair said she was sorry, but her 4 minutes were up, and the whole hall erupted in sympathy - LET HER SPEAK! It's a bubble, but a bubble I'm glad to be part of.
The other parties have their own cultures too. The LibDem one was still a fraction of the size of the Labour one (and I suspect the Tories will be larger still), but a distinctive sense of optimistic middle-class centrist goodwill - a convention of Independent readers to Labour's Guardian/Mirror mix. It'll be interesting to see the Tory one this year - last year was intense about Brexit, but with an underlying note of cheerful self-confidence. A big difference is that the Labour conference is thoroughly mixe ethnically - the LibDems were 95% white, as were the Conservatives last year.
Two: this is justiciable, and Boris has crossed the line. PM must accordingly resign on behalf of all HMG. No idea what comes next (Corbyn PM, no PM, PM who is not a leader of a party, election, Bercow abolishes time, cities rise up on legs and compete with humanity for resources), but difficult to see how it's not a market- sensitive event.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49805304