politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Compared with the 2016 “Enemies of the People” Mail coverage t
Comments
-
Extension is the end of Boris. Raab? He would just be the latest Cons leader promising earnestly what everyone realises cannot be delivered and therefore will be unsuccessful.HYUFD said:
Edit: in becoming leader.0 -
LOL perhaps he realised that after the six minute editing window.MikeSmithson said:0 -
So wont happen. Anything that predicts a major split in labour has either never happened or been minor in effectHYUFD said:
It would split Labour down the middle and probably break it in 2YBarddCwsc said:
He'd be a fool. That is likely to also create maximum problems for himself if Watson makes a success of it.HYUFD said:
Boris might recommend Tom Watson just to create maximum problems for Corbynozymandias said:
Neither Johnson nor Corbyn want to go anywhere near signing that letter. To both leaders it’s kryptonite. Tories obviously destroyed by BXP, Labour destroyed by both Tories and BXP in subsequent election. The optics of doing it are awful and how it can be used as ammunition by their opponents is just too great a danger.Paristonda said:The prorogation being cancelled does complicate the plan of the opposition somewhat, harder now to just sit tight until the deadline arises for passing an extension. There's no chance of an election being called before an extension is requested, so what will happen for the next couple of weeks? Boris will keep trying to submit requests for an election that won't pass. He may try and force a vonc on himself, and in any case it will be difficult for Labour to continually avoid one.
A situation where there is desparate scrambling and horse trading to agree on a Gonu caretaker candidate seems likely. Corbyn will not get the votes but he won't want to vote down a potential Gonu candidate when push comes to shove, because that would lead to an election too soon, which would be in Boris' interests, not Corbyn's. For all the opposition parties, the safest way out of this now would be to have a Gonu figure pass legislation for May's deal vs Remain, before an election. Certainly having Brexit resolved would be great for Corbyn, and while it may take the wind out of the LD sails, they wouldn't be able to refuse an opportunity for a second referendum if one presented itself.
The only person(s) who can sign without fear are Swinson or AN other as temp caretaker.
Surprises me that no one has suggested Boris could recommend Swinson to HMQ.0 -
That was before Remainers sensed victory. They won’t settle for any Brexit now.edmundintokyo said:
Customs Union and Confirmatory Referendum both came very close in the indicative votes. Put them together in a package and they'll probably pass.HYUFD said:There is no majority in Parliament for anything at the moment anyway beyond extension of Article 50 so who cares
0 -
You think Labour MPs will give on going support to a temporary government led by a former Tory?edmundintokyo said:
They've easily got the numbers, since Boris helpfully amputated a chunk of his own majority and gave it to them.
Beyond Brexit all they really need to agree on is a budget, and the Tories have helpfully gifted them a huge, unfunded pre-election spending splurge, so just do that and take the credit.
Or that former (or present) Tories or LD's will support a temporary Labour led government?
There is no benefit to doing so for ANY of the leaderships.
A temporary PM will be there to request the extension and call a GE...nothing more permanent is remotely plausible.
The question is who blows themselves, and their party, up.0 -
It is time for the return of the PB tag, “unspoofable”.HYUFD said:
Still no Labour lead though and Comres is the most pro Labour pollster now, all the movement Tory and LD to Brexit Party with Labour unchanged confirming Boris must stick to his guns and even harden his Brexit stance further, he must under no circumstances whatsoever extend and go into opposition insteadwilliamglenn said:The Boris bounce seems to be over.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176744281970749441?s=210 -
Labour has seen more defections from the party over the last few months than at any time since WW2, mind you the Tories are not much better on that frontkle4 said:
So wont happen. Anything that predicts a major split in labour has either never happened or been minor in effectHYUFD said:
It would split Labour down the middle and probably break it in 2YBarddCwsc said:
He'd be a fool. That is likely to also create maximum problems for himself if Watson makes a success of it.HYUFD said:
Boris might recommend Tom Watson just to create maximum problems for Corbynozymandias said:
Neither Johnson nor Corbyn want to go anywhere near signing that letter. To both leaders it’s kryptonite. Tories obviously destroyed by BXP, Labour destroyed by both Tories and BXP in subsequent election. The optics of doing it are awful and how it can be used as ammunition by their opponents is just too great a danger.Paristonda said:The prorogation being cancelled does complicate the plan of the opposition somewhat, harder now to just sit tight until the deadline arises for passing an extension. There's no chance of an election being called before an extension is requested, so what will happen for the next couple of weeks? Boris will keep trying to submit requests for an election that won't pass. He may try and force a vonc on himself, and in any case it will be difficult for Labour to continually avoid one.
A situation where there is desparate scrambling and horse trading to agree on a Gonu caretaker candidate seems likely. Corbyn will not get the votes but he won't want to vote down a potential Gonu candidate when push comes to shove, because that would lead to an election too soon, which would be in Boris' interests, not Corbyn's. For all the opposition parties, the safest way out of this now would be to have a Gonu figure pass legislation for May's deal vs Remain, before an election. Certainly having Brexit resolved would be great for Corbyn, and while it may take the wind out of the LD sails, they wouldn't be able to refuse an opportunity for a second referendum if one presented itself.
The only person(s) who can sign without fear are Swinson or AN other as temp caretaker.
Surprises me that no one has suggested Boris could recommend Swinson to HMQ.0 -
I don’t think @HYUFD has thought this plan through...0
-
...theres no majority for anything because of all the participants. If tories arent thrte there would be.HYUFD said:
Considering you dont seem to care what the party stands for you just support it like a football team no matter the leader or policy I'm amazed you get more fanatical than any Tory politician in these matters.0 -
I haven't flown for 18 months. You can have my flight for the year...Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
48% no flights in a year is quite an interesting statistic.0 -
Calling HYUFD....Nigel Farage says there is now no chance Brexit will happen on October 31st. Are you still confident your man will still be around in November?
(My own guess is that Farage will sell out for the position of British Ambassador to Washington so no need to panic)0 -
Corbyn would not be PM so could not propose anythingwilliamglenn said:
If none of the Tories turn up, Corbyn would have a majority for whatever he liked.HYUFD said:0 -
Both failed to pass the Commons only the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop passed the Commons and that is what Boris is still aiming foredmundintokyo said:
Customs Union and Confirmatory Referendum both came very close in the indicative votes. Put them together in a package and they'll probably pass.HYUFD said:There is no majority in Parliament for anything at the moment anyway beyond extension of Article 50 so who cares
0 -
Raab would likely agree a formal pact with the Brexit Party on a No Deal ticket having ousted Boris if Boris extended having failed to get a Deal through but of course Boris would take the Tories into opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend so will stayTOPPING said:
Extension is the end of Boris. Raab? He would just be the latest Cons leader promising earnestly what everyone realises cannot be delivered and therefore will be unsuccessful.HYUFD said:
Edit: in becoming leader.0 -
The most suitable temporary prime minister won't get the job but step forward Theresa May who at least won't need to spend the first day learning where the Downing Street loos are.0
-
Over recent years, flying seems to have become more and more difficult. It reached the poinbt some years ago were I just decided not to fly any more. I cannot be bothered with the hoops I have to jump through or the attitude of many airport/airline staff.Byronic said:As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
0 -
Yes, I have been assuming that Farage was to be “tapped” after the Tory conference. Slightly less sure since Farage, shark-like, seems to smell Johnson’s blood in the water.Roger said:Calling HYUFD....Nigel Farage says there is now no chance Brexit will happen on October 31st. Are you still confident your man will still be around in November?
(My own guess is that Farage will sell out for the position of British Ambassador to Washington so no need to panic)0 -
Brexit happening on the 31st October would be a disaster for Farage. I am sure he is hoping Brexit is cancelled via a 2nd referendum, allowing him a long and lucrative career as an outraged right wing pundit.Roger said:Calling HYUFD....Nigel Farage says there is now no chance Brexit will happen on October 31st. Are you still confident your man will still be around in November?
(My own guess is that Farage will sell out for the position of British Ambassador to Washington so no need to panic)0 -
Has the last few months just passed you by completely?HYUFD said:
Corbyn would not be PM so could not propose anythingwilliamglenn said:
If none of the Tories turn up, Corbyn would have a majority for whatever he liked.HYUFD said:
1 -
Surely, as a loyal Labour MP, the first thing Watson will say to HMQ when invited by her to become PM is to advise her that she should call for Corbyn instead. I really don't think he would play along with Johnson's game by becoming PM himself, rather than showing Johnson to be a fool.kle4 said:
So wont happen. Anything that predicts a major split in labour has either never happened or been minor in effectHYUFD said:
It would split Labour down the middle and probably break it in 2YBarddCwsc said:
He'd be a fool. That is likely to also create maximum problems for himself if Watson makes a success of it.HYUFD said:
Boris might recommend Tom Watson just to create maximum problems for Corbynozymandias said:
Neither Johnson nor Corbyn want to go anywhere near signing that letter. To both leaders it’s kryptonite. Tories obviously destroyed by BXP, Labour destroyed by both Tories and BXP in subsequent election. The optics of doing it are awful and how it can be used as ammunition by their opponents is just too great a danger.Paristonda said:The prorogation being cancelled does complicate the plan of the opposition somewhat, harder now to just sit tight until the deadline arises for passing an extension. There's no chance of an election being called before an extension is requested, so what will happen for the next couple of weeks? Boris will keep trying to submit requests for an election that won't pass. He may try and force a vonc on himself, and in any case it will be difficult for Labour to continually avoid one.
A situation where there is desparate scrambling and horse trading to agree on a Gonu caretaker candidate seems likely. Corbyn will not get the votes but he won't want to vote down a potential Gonu candidate when push comes to shove, because that would lead to an election too soon, which would be in Boris' interests, not Corbyn's. For all the opposition parties, the safest way out of this now would be to have a Gonu figure pass legislation for May's deal vs Remain, before an election. Certainly having Brexit resolved would be great for Corbyn, and while it may take the wind out of the LD sails, they wouldn't be able to refuse an opportunity for a second referendum if one presented itself.
The only person(s) who can sign without fear are Swinson or AN other as temp caretaker.
Surprises me that no one has suggested Boris could recommend Swinson to HMQ.0 -
I would imagine the Palace don't want get involved in this nasty quagmire of the politicians' making. Both Remainers and Leavers are just playing political games.HYUFD said:
It would split Labour down the middle and probably break it in 2
At this critical juncture, the Palace will surely do the uncontroversial thing (especially after Cameron's indiscretion, and Boris' blundering).
If the PM can't command the confidence of the House, then the uncontroversial thing is to send for the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
If they do anything else (like parachute in some great & good figure), then they are in an incredibly dangerous position (especially if it goes wrong!)
Corbyn will be sent for.
Maybe Corbyn does not have the confidence of the House, but that has not yet been demonstrated.0 -
And when that inevitably fails, will the Tories then recover their senses?HYUFD said:
Raab would likely agree a formal pact with the Brexit Party on a No Deal ticket having ousted Boris if Boris extended having failed to get a Deal through but of course Boris would take the Tories into opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend so will stayTOPPING said:
Extension is the end of Boris. Raab? He would just be the latest Cons leader promising earnestly what everyone realises cannot be delivered and therefore will be unsuccessful.HYUFD said:
Edit: in becoming leader.0 -
Schiphol have new scanning machines which mean you don’t need to remove your liquids from your bag.Beibheirli_C said:
Over recent years, flying seems to have become more and more difficult. It reached the poinbt some years ago were I just decided not to fly any more. I cannot be bothered with the hoops I have to jump through or the attitude of many airport/airline staff.Byronic said:As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
Sounds like a small thing but makes the whole process appreciably less irritating.0 -
Sorry, my apologies.Beibheirli_C said:
Please don't. I know some trans people and the mental health issues caused by their condition can be horrendous. Whatever else it is, trans is not "fashionable".Foxy said:
He was Trans before it was fashionable?AlastairMeeks said:My main recollection of Dick Emery was that he had a very complicated love life.
Cross dressing is a venerable theatrical tradition, and not generally to do with gender identity.
A poor taste quip.
0 -
Has he told Nigel? Raab will be seen as part of Team Failure. Although I appreciate and so does he that he can count on your support. Until the one after him.HYUFD said:
Raab would likely agree a formal pact with the Brexit Party on a No Deal ticket having ousted Boris if Boris extended having failed to get a Deal through but of course Boris would take the Tories into opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend so will stayTOPPING said:
Extension is the end of Boris. Raab? He would just be the latest Cons leader promising earnestly what everyone realises cannot be delivered and therefore will be unsuccessful.HYUFD said:
Edit: in becoming leader.0 -
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdfTOPPING said:
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.AlastairMeeks said:
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.kle4 said:
Boris is all about doing things in good faith.
"2.9 Historically, the Sovereign has made use of reserve powers to dismiss a Prime Minister or to make a personal choice of successor, although this was last used in 1834 and was regarded as having undermined the Sovereign.11 In modern times the convention has been that the Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.
2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
0 -
No, they will try Mogg or Baker next.Jonathan said:
And when that inevitably fails, will the Tories then recover their senses?HYUFD said:
Raab would likely agree a formal pact with the Brexit Party on a No Deal ticket having ousted Boris if Boris extended having failed to get a Deal through but of course Boris would take the Tories into opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend so will stayTOPPING said:
Extension is the end of Boris. Raab? He would just be the latest Cons leader promising earnestly what everyone realises cannot be delivered and therefore will be unsuccessful.HYUFD said:
Edit: in becoming leader.0 -
You still have to walk miles though.Gardenwalker said:
Schiphol have new scanning machines which mean you don’t need to remove your liquids from your bag.Beibheirli_C said:
Over recent years, flying seems to have become more and more difficult. It reached the poinbt some years ago were I just decided not to fly any more. I cannot be bothered with the hoops I have to jump through or the attitude of many airport/airline staff.Byronic said:As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
Sounds like a small thing but makes the whole process appreciably less irritating.0 -
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.AlastairMeeks said:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdfTOPPING said:
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.AlastairMeeks said:
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.kle4 said:
Boris is all about doing things in good faith.
"2.9 Historically, the Sovereign has made use of reserve powers to dismiss a Prime Minister or to make a personal choice of successor, although this was last used in 1834 and was regarded as having undermined the Sovereign.11 In modern times the convention has been that the Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.
2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.0 -
And this really is the problem with what the Commons has doneeek said:
Why would attacking our legal system do anything to reduce the BXP vote share - if anything Nigel is now the saner Brexiter option.kle4 said:
I honestly cannot see another move for Johnson unless the EU for some reason decide to cave in, and by his own logic it wont because parliament has taken no deal off the table.CaptainBuzzkill said:
If the government resigns the only acceptable replacement would be one whose only purpose would be to extend and then call a GE.kle4 said:
For the country the problem is theres no grouping with sufficient support to run the country and it looks like no election will be permitted to try to change that for several months. Again, Boris going doesnt change thst much.
He cannot stop the Commons doing whatever it wants anymore, he cannot take action other than resignation. But that's such a nuclear option.
Seriously, what can he try next? He and the Tories will be petrified of that BXP rating, even attacking the judges is not getting the share down, what more can he do?
They can not negotiate a Treaty themselves, but refused the Executive’s proposal. They are refusing to replace the government and won’t call an election.
We are in stasis because of parliament overreaching1 -
Nigel could not become PM without a Tory pact so he would need it too, there would likely be Tory candidates only in the South Brexit Party candidates only in the NorthTOPPING said:
Has he told Nigel? Raab will be seen as part of Team Failure. Although I appreciate and so does he that he can count on your support. Until the one after him.HYUFD said:
Raab would likely agree a formal pact with the Brexit Party on a No Deal ticket having ousted Boris if Boris extended having failed to get a Deal through but of course Boris would take the Tories into opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend so will stayTOPPING said:
Extension is the end of Boris. Raab? He would just be the latest Cons leader promising earnestly what everyone realises cannot be delivered and therefore will be unsuccessful.HYUFD said:
Edit: in becoming leader.0 -
Geoffrey Cox has the ability to be profoundly stupid as only clever people can be.Foxy said:Cox is having A Grand Day Out:
https://twitter.com/Geoffrey_Cox/status/1176629018382295041?s=190 -
Boris will go into opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extendRoger said:Calling HYUFD....Nigel Farage says there is now no chance Brexit will happen on October 31st. Are you still confident your man will still be around in November?
(My own guess is that Farage will sell out for the position of British Ambassador to Washington so no need to panic)0 -
A former Tory would be a tough psychological jump for them, I reckon they should go with Sylvia Hermon, as she's not a Tory, not a threat to Jeremy Corbyn, and has a good "people setting aside their differences for PEACE" angle.CaptainBuzzkill said:
You think Labour MPs will give on going support to a temporary government led by a former Tory?
Or that former (or present) Tories or LD's will support a temporary Labour led government?
There is no benefit to doing so for ANY of the leaderships.
A temporary PM will be there to request the extension and call a GE...nothing more permanent is remotely plausible.
The question is who blows themselves, and their party, up.
Why is this good for the various players?
* Ex-Con: Get a good Brexit outcome, hang onto their jobs for a bit longer, hilariously screw Boris
* Lab: Avoid an election until things perk up, get Brexit out of the way since it's not going well for them, make Corbyn look statesmanlike and unthreatening, hilariously screw Boris
* LibDem: Get a shot at cancelling Brexit, possibly leads to political realignment, hilariously screw Boris
* SNP: Get a shot at cancelling Brexit, hilariously screw Boris
0 -
What campaign will we have seen you in?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.0 -
The problem is that this is almost completely untested since the passing of the FTPA.AlastairMeeks said:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdfTOPPING said:
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.AlastairMeeks said:
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.kle4 said:
Boris is all about doing things in good faith.
"2.9 Historically, the Sovereign has made use of reserve powers to dismiss a Prime Minister or to make a personal choice of successor, although this was last used in 1834 and was regarded as having undermined the Sovereign.11 In modern times the convention has been that the Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.
2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.0 -
It is perfectly reasonable for parliament to flex its muscles. But with power comes responsibility. Do they want it? If they cannot find a majority the public will not thank them.
After an era of government by fiat I wonder if they understand that?0 -
You think he might be aiming higher than Ambssador? Sir Nige...Baron Von Nigel..Could Boris give him Cornwall?Gardenwalker said:
Yes, I have been assuming that Farage was to be “tapped” after the Tory conference. Slightly less sure since Farage, shark-like, seems to smell Johnson’s blood in the water.Roger said:Calling HYUFD....Nigel Farage says there is now no chance Brexit will happen on October 31st. Are you still confident your man will still be around in November?
(My own guess is that Farage will sell out for the position of British Ambassador to Washington so no need to panic)0 -
Not Nigel's style.HYUFD said:
Nigel could not become PM without a Tory pact so he would need it too, there would likely be Tory candidates only in the South Brexit Party candidates only in the NorthTOPPING said:
Has he told Nigel? Raab will be seen as part of Team Failure. Although I appreciate and so does he that he can count on your support. Until the one after him.HYUFD said:
Raab would likely agree a formal pact with the Brexit Party on a No Deal ticket having ousted Boris if Boris extended having failed to get a Deal through but of course Boris would take the Tories into opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend so will stayTOPPING said:
Extension is the end of Boris. Raab? He would just be the latest Cons leader promising earnestly what everyone realises cannot be delivered and therefore will be unsuccessful.HYUFD said:
Edit: in becoming leader.0 -
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.TOPPING said:
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.AlastairMeeks said:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdfTOPPING said:
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.AlastairMeeks said:
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.kle4 said:
Boris is all about doing things in good faith.
"2.9 Historically, the Sovereign has made use of reserve powers to dismiss a Prime Minister or to make a personal choice of successor, although this was last used in 1834 and was regarded as having undermined the Sovereign.11 In modern times the convention has been that the Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.
2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.0 -
The PM has been replaced by one of the people who rejected the WA.Charles said:
And this really is the problem with what the Commons has doneeek said:
Why would attacking our legal system do anything to reduce the BXP vote share - if anything Nigel is now the saner Brexiter option.kle4 said:
I honestly cannot see another move for Johnson unless the EU for some reason decide to cave in, and by his own logic it wont because parliament has taken no deal off the table.CaptainBuzzkill said:
If the government resigns the only acceptable replacement would be one whose only purpose would be to extend and then call a GE.kle4 said:
For the country the problem is theres no grouping with sufficient support to run the country and it looks like no election will be permitted to try to change that for several months. Again, Boris going doesnt change thst much.
He cannot stop the Commons doing whatever it wants anymore, he cannot take action other than resignation. But that's such a nuclear option.
Seriously, what can he try next? He and the Tories will be petrified of that BXP rating, even attacking the judges is not getting the share down, what more can he do?
They can not negotiate a Treaty themselves, but refused the Executive’s proposal. They are refusing to replace the government and won’t call an election.
We are in stasis because of parliament overreaching0 -
He has nothing to worry about , he has won round one and pocketed £500K, will the hapless crew do any better in a stitch up against him in round 2 compared to round 1.CarlottaVance said:
Bet Salmond wishes his trial was underway!StuartDickson said:A cowardly Prime Minister lying to a monarch and unlawfully suspending parliamentary democracy.
A bullying POTUS facing impeachment.
Spain digging up the stinking corpse of Franco.
A Prime Minister who thinks he is above the law being investigated for not being able to keep his pants on, and using taxpayers’ cash to treat his girlfriend.
A vulnerable Swedish teenager having a very public mental breakdown, live on all global media.
The Dutch government losing its parliamentary majority.
The monarch’s pervie second son promoting himself as “Pitch@Palace” (boke).
That must have been the perfect day to bury bad news (come back Jo Moore, all is forgiven). What did I miss?0 -
Do we think that "going into opposition" counts as "dying" to the BXP inclined. Surely they demand he break the law, refuse to extend, refuse to obey unjust, wicked laws, poo on the table at the EU summit. Or something.Gardenwalker said:
It is time for the return of the PB tag, “unspoofable”.HYUFD said:
Still no Labour lead though and Comres is the most pro Labour pollster now, all the movement Tory and LD to Brexit Party with Labour unchanged confirming Boris must stick to his guns and even harden his Brexit stance further, he must under no circumstances whatsoever extend and go into opposition insteadwilliamglenn said:The Boris bounce seems to be over.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176744281970749441?s=21
Going meekly into opposition without being bodily removed is not dying.
The worry should be the CON-BXP swing in this poll.0 -
Foxy said:
Sorry, my apologies.Beibheirli_C said:
Please don't. I know some trans people and the mental health issues caused by their condition can be horrendous. Whatever else it is, trans is not "fashionable".Foxy said:
He was Trans before it was fashionable?AlastairMeeks said:My main recollection of Dick Emery was that he had a very complicated love life.
Cross dressing is a venerable theatrical tradition, and not generally to do with gender identity.
A poor taste quip.
0 -
The Sun headline is the dog that didn't bark. It chose not to attack the prime minister for obvious incompetence. The front page is weak for a purposeChris said:
Could the Sun just have been poking fun at Lady Hale's appearance? Amazing as it seems that such a thing could happen in the 21st century.SandraMc said:
I am so old that not only did I get the reference and know who Dick Emery was but I knew people who knew him. He once invited a reporter friend who had interviewed him to dinner and when she turned him down, he turned up at her newspaper office declaring he was in love with her (she had only met him the once). Another friend went to one of his many weddings where he spent most of the wedding reception smooching an ex-wife and ignoring his bride.AlastairMeeks said:My main recollection of Dick Emery was that he had a very complicated love life.
I wonder what made the Sun think of a priapic comedian in connection with Boris?
Not that she really resembles either of Dick Emery's female personae - particularly the one who used that catchphrase.0 -
He was awfulAlastairMeeks said:My main recollection of Dick Emery was that he had a very complicated love life.
0 -
Followed by the even more demented IE6, which for some reason every large company decided to write an intranet for - despite the fact that it was utterly incompatible with any other browser before or since. Must have consumed billions of $currencyunit over the years to put that all right.Beibheirli_C said:
Yes - Mosaic inspired Netscape and the rest was history and we all used Netscape because Bill Gates said the Internet was a waste of time and Micro$oft were not wasting any time on it. Then came the mother of all backtracks and life for webpage builders more then doubled in complexity when the deformed, evil troll that was IE5 was foisted on us all.eristdoof said:
There were text based internet "browsers", but AFAI remember Mosaic was a really big step forward in making the internet usable.Beibheirli_C said:
Slashdot! Dear heavens... a blast from the past. I never liked it all that much because of some of the "theological" arguments on programming style or the GPL, etc. I preferred reading Pamela Jones's Groklaw at the time.JosiasJessop said:I used to read Slashdot regularly fifteen to twenty years ago. Now, when I pop in every so often, it seems a little dead. ISTR there was a takeover that changed it slightly?
And this tells me that I'm getting old - and so is t'Internet and t'web. We're seeing a second generation born of people who have lived whilst the web has existed in a popular, commercial sense. Their world growing up is massively different to the one I grew up in - and much of that is down to the web.
As for the internet, I can remember lying in the bath reading a computer mag of the time that had two interesting stories about new technologies. One about a new graphical interface for the internet and a tool call Mosaic to access it, and the other about the hottest new language of the day - Java.
I used to have to access the internet via WAIS, ftp and telnet via CIX. Then Demon;s dial-up set me free at a sizzling 33.6K
I had no such problems with download speeds as my online access was at uni, it was a good time to be a postgraduate student.0 -
How do you think the Benn Bill was passed?HYUFD said:
Corbyn would not be PM so could not propose anythingwilliamglenn said:
If none of the Tories turn up, Corbyn would have a majority for whatever he liked.HYUFD said:0 -
Anecdotally, I think Mike is right about unanimity making a difference. My uncle, a longstanding UKIP voter (former member in Cornwall) and keenly pro-Brexit, said regretfully this morning "Well, it's hard to argue when they were unanimous".2
-
LOL, easy to say when you are a nobody that will ever be in that position.Scott_P said:0 -
Boris's speech at the UN was relaxed and witty. He didn't come across to me as someone clinging on for dear life.
The court judgement clearly wasn't part of the plan but beyond the ability to cause some embarrassment and giving MPs a longer platform to out compete each other with outrage, it's still not clear to me what's really changed from Monday.
Get a sellable deal and pass it, stumps up, beers all round in the pavillion. Don't get a sellable deal before 19 Oct and, well no one's quite sure. But we weren't quite sure on Monday either.0 -
After this week it you could forgive the Palace for playing the straightest of bats and calling for Corbyn.YBarddCwsc said:
Corbyn will be sent for.
Maybe Corbyn does not have the confidence of the House, but that has not yet been demonstrated.
And who would be against?
The Tories would love Corbyn to be the one to pull the trigger on an extension thereby finishing Labour's chances at the GE.
Corbyn would love the (probably only) chance of being PM even if it is for the shortest period on record.
The SNP are desperate for an election.
And the LD's will probably be looking positively at their momentum knowing that they will hack chunks off Labour at a GE.
Everybody wins.
Except Labour MPs.0 -
I cannot understand why people are impressed with him. His main claim to fame seems to be his shouty Brian Blessed type of pronouncement. He strikes me as a bombastic ass.FF43 said:
Geoffrey Cox has the ability to be profoundly stupid as only clever people can be.Foxy said:Cox is having A Grand Day Out:
https://twitter.com/Geoffrey_Cox/status/1176629018382295041?s=190 -
They also chose not to do a stronger front page supporting Johnson: “Oh you aren’t lawful.... But we do like you”FF43 said:
The Sun headline is the dog that didn't bark. It chose not to attack the prime minister for obvious incompetence. The front page is weak for a purposeChris said:
Could the Sun just have been poking fun at Lady Hale's appearance? Amazing as it seems that such a thing could happen in the 21st century.SandraMc said:
I am so old that not only did I get the reference and know who Dick Emery was but I knew people who knew him. He once invited a reporter friend who had interviewed him to dinner and when she turned him down, he turned up at her newspaper office declaring he was in love with her (she had only met him the once). Another friend went to one of his many weddings where he spent most of the wedding reception smooching an ex-wife and ignoring his bride.AlastairMeeks said:My main recollection of Dick Emery was that he had a very complicated love life.
I wonder what made the Sun think of a priapic comedian in connection with Boris?
Not that she really resembles either of Dick Emery's female personae - particularly the one who used that catchphrase.0 -
If it's alright with PB, I prefer to remain anonymous. Like yourself.TOPPING said:
What campaign will we have seen you in?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.0 -
Is that the uncontroversial thing? Has a PM been replaced by the Leader of the Opposition in any circumstance other than following a general election? That seems quite controversial, particularly as the LotO is nominally 79 seats short of a majority.YBarddCwsc said:
I would imagine the Palace don't want get involved in this nasty quagmire of the politicians' making. Both Remainers and Leavers are just playing political games.HYUFD said:
It would split Labour down the middle and probably break it in 2
At this critical juncture, the Palace will surely do the uncontroversial thing (especially after Cameron's indiscretion, and Boris' blundering).
If the PM can't command the confidence of the House, then the uncontroversial thing is to send for the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
If they do anything else (like parachute in some great & good figure), then they are in an incredibly dangerous position (especially if it goes wrong!)
Corbyn will be sent for.
Maybe Corbyn does not have the confidence of the House, but that has not yet been demonstrated.
The conventional thing to do would be to find out which member of the Cabinet was best placed to command the confidence of the House - but I suppose if Johnson manages to keep everyone in line HMQ will be forced to do something controversial for want of any other option.0 -
Dr Fox,
"A poor taste quip."
They're often the best, but I was concerned that you young 'uns were misremembering how awful the Dick Emery Show was. Les Dawson did something similar but his portrayal was accurate.
0 -
Given that you’re an exceptionally eloquent writer for someone who trades primarily on their looks, you should definitely think about starting up a travel blog or vlog about the places you visit.Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.0 -
No.HYUFD said:
Boris is not in trouble and if he goes Dominic Raab is certain to replace him on a pact with the Brexit Party ticket for ultra hard BrexitRoger said:If Laura K thinks Johnson is n trouble with his own side HYUFD will need some pretty powerful polls before I'd bet on him surviving
Mr J Hunt MP will have most Tory support, the MPs would select him and hope to regain 18 or 20 missing members of Parliament.0 -
Preparation HTOPPING said:
What campaign will we have seen you in?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.0 -
That must be a first for an international male model to be so shy and inhibited.Byronic said:
If it's alright with PB, I prefer to remain anonymous. Like yourself.TOPPING said:
What campaign will we have seen you in?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.1 -
I agree with all that. The Palace is already exposed. They will do the cautious, uncontroversial thing.CaptainBuzzkill said:
After this week it you could forgive the Palace for playing the straightest of bats and calling for Corbyn.YBarddCwsc said:
Corbyn will be sent for.
Maybe Corbyn does not have the confidence of the House, but that has not yet been demonstrated.
And who would be against?
The Tories would love Corbyn to be the one to pull the trigger on an extension thereby finishing Labour's chances at the GE.
Corbyn would love the (probably only) chance of being PM even if it is for the shortest period on record.
The SNP are desperate for an election.
And the LD's will probably be looking positively at their momentum knowing that they will hack chunks off Labour at a GE.
Everybody wins.
Except Labour MPs.
The Palace will send for Corbyn, as leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. If MPs don't like it, then let them VNOC him.
It is not the Palace's job to find a favourite childminder for 650 infants.1 -
This is incorrect.YBarddCwsc said:
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.TOPPING said:
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.AlastairMeeks said:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdfTOPPING said:
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.AlastairMeeks said:
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.kle4 said:
Boris is all about doing things in good faith.
"2.9 Historically, the Sovereign has made use of reserve powers to dismiss a Prime Minister or to make a personal choice of successor, although this was last used in 1834 and was regarded as having undermined the Sovereign.11 In modern times the convention has been that the Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.
2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.0 -
Yes. It is 48% in a single year, though.Foxy said:
I haven't flown for 18 months. You can have my flight for the year...Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
48% no flights in a year is quite an interesting statistic.
There will be people who took flights in the year before, and the year after, but just happened to go a year without doing so.
At a guess I'd guess that the proportion who hadn't taken a flight in the last five years was down around 25%.0 -
-
Yes he was . Strangely, Harry Enfield modeled his act on him.malcolmg said:
He was awfulAlastairMeeks said:My main recollection of Dick Emery was that he had a very complicated love life.
Enfield was a lot better though.0 -
Have you developed some sort of alter ego or are you seriously expecting us to believe this?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
Perhaps there may be certain things that can be done for those who are self employed or who's work is travel dependent.0 -
Massive Popcorn Alert.
JRM first up in the HoC shortly after 11:30am.0 -
I am known throughout the industry for my intense modesty. And amazing pecs.TOPPING said:
That must be a first for an international male model to be so shy and inhibited.Byronic said:
If it's alright with PB, I prefer to remain anonymous. Like yourself.TOPPING said:
What campaign will we have seen you in?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.2 -
I just said the Palace don't want to be sucked into the quagmire.JackW said:
This is incorrect.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.
I am sure that is correct.1 -
Some stick you would need to turn the old knobs, that was what children were for.edmundintokyo said:
It's not true, you could change the channel with a stickRecidivist said:
You tell youngsters that today and they don't believe you.Foxy said:
It passed as comedy in the Seventies and early Eighties, but was blown away by alternative comedy.ydoethur said:
Who or what was the Dick Emery show?CarlottaVance said:
The Dick Emery show ended in 1982 when today’s 40 year olds would have been 3 - I’d add at least a decade (and a bit) to that!not_on_fire said:The Sun headline is weird. Just unfunny and probably completely over the heads of anyone under 40.
When there were only 3 channels, few video recorders, and no t'internet, people would watch any old rot. Though in those days news and current affairs were very well done. People had longer attention spans then, and channel hopping was less common without a remote control. You actually had to get off the sofa to change channel.0 -
-
It sounds a great idea, avoiding penalising families who want to take a single break but escalating so that even businesses shift faster into teleconferencing etc. But I missed it altogether - who's suggested that?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.0 -
All the 4s?DecrepitJohnL said:How old would you need to be to get the Dick Emery reference in the Sun headline? Mid-50s, 60s?
0 -
Also Tena for MenTOPPING said:
That must be a first for an international male model to be so shy and inhibited.Byronic said:
If it's alright with PB, I prefer to remain anonymous. Like yourself.TOPPING said:
What campaign will we have seen you in?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.0 -
Today is the twelfth anniversary of this magnificent and prescient article.
We cannot be killed.
‘Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority’.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase1 -
Sozza Jack no one respects your finger on the pulse of the monarchy (since inception?) more than me. But the palace is going to do nothing active. It will at all times be advised by and follow the instructions of/agree to the politicians.JackW said:
This is incorrect.YBarddCwsc said:
Agreed. It is incredibly dangerous for the Monarch to be sucked in to this quagmire.TOPPING said:
You'll have to trust me that the Queen is not about to take any kind of an active part in the political process.AlastairMeeks said:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdfTOPPING said:
Not correct. They remain passengers in this. They are not going to become actors.AlastairMeeks said:
Note the final sentence. I very much doubt the Palace feels obliged to take his word as sacrosanct now. They presumably have already been actively consulting the great and the good about who might fill his shoes if necessary.kle4 said:
Boris is all about doing things in good faith.
"2.9 command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.
2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remaon in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
So the Prime Minister has a special responsibility but not a sole responsibility. Others can and should be contacting the Palace to give their views in times of uncertainty. So presumably they are.
The Sovereign, through the Crown in Parliament and prerogative powers, takes a huge part in the constitutional political process. The seismic difference is that it is not party political.0 -
And speak of the devil I am about to take a flight right now so will wish you all a good morning.0
-
Any sign of a contempt of parliament motion in Johnson or Rees Mogg?0
-
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.TOPPING said:
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.0 -
Finishing 2nd to the team supported by the Scousers.Scott_P said:0 -
It cannot get worse surely, Raab is the King of the Donkeys.HYUFD said:
Boris is not in trouble and if he goes Dominic Raab is certain to replace him on a pact with the Brexit Party ticket for ultra hard BrexitRoger said:If Laura K thinks Johnson is n trouble with his own side HYUFD will need some pretty powerful polls before I'd bet on him surviving
0 -
They failed but only barely, and they weren't tested as a package.HYUFD said:
Both failed to pass the Commons only the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop passed the Commons and that is what Boris is still aiming foredmundintokyo said:
Customs Union and Confirmatory Referendum both came very close in the indicative votes. Put them together in a package and they'll probably pass.HYUFD said:There is no majority in Parliament for anything at the moment anyway beyond extension of Article 50 so who cares
So the LDs mostly voted down CU, and the moderate (many now ex-) Cons voted down Referendum.
I'm sure the LDs don't have anything non-tactical against adding CU to the stew, and I expect most of the ex-Cons would suck up the referendum to get the thing done now Boris has burned their bridges.0 -
-
Not much has happened since then, has it?TheScreamingEagles said:Today is the twelfth anniversary of this magnificent and prescient article.
We cannot be killed.
‘Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority’.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
0 -
0
-
I suspect everyone knew Boris was playing silly buggers, but hasn't Parliament been doing the same? Now it's holding up its skirt and screaming like a Victorian spinster at the sight of a mouse.
Telling Parliament an obvious lie is terrible, but telling obvious porkies to the electorate is fine.
And they wonder why no one trusts politicians.0 -
-
It's in the Guardian article. Drill down. The idea seems to be a Green/Greenpeace thingy.NickPalmer said:
It sounds a great idea, avoiding penalising families who want to take a single break but escalating so that even businesses shift faster into teleconferencing etc. But I missed it altogether - who's suggested that?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
We are coming to the end of the golden age of travel. In future, it will be rationed. Only the rich will go to Tuscany in summer, because you will need a very expensive ticket to get in.0 -
I never noticed. Enfield was dire IMO...Peter_the_Punter said:
Yes he was . Strangely, Harry Enfield modeled his act on him.malcolmg said:
He was awfulAlastairMeeks said:My main recollection of Dick Emery was that he had a very complicated love life.
Enfield was a lot better though.
Looking back at 70s/80s comedy on YT, Morecombe and Wise still stand out for some of their stuff and Marty Feldman had sparks of brilliance. But nobody came close to Kenny Everett...0 -
Damn, where did I put the ROFLcopter...CaptainBuzzkill said:The government resigning is checkmate.
0 -
Before Brexit is finalised there is more chance of me being leader than Hunt.philiph said:No.
Mr J Hunt MP will have most Tory support, the MPs would select him and hope to regain 18 or 20 missing members of Parliament.
0 -
Hard to believe apart from maybe toddlers that they have not.OblitusSumMe said:
Everyone should eat peas fresh from the pod at least once.SquareRoot said:
There was a survey quoted on here where a significant no of our young people thought Hitler was a good guy.. Some people don't realise peas are grown, they think they are manufactured... they walk amongst us...Recidivist said:
You tell youngsters that today and they don't believe you.Foxy said:
It passed as comedy in the Seventies and early Eighties, but was blown away by alternative comedy.ydoethur said:
Who or what was the Dick Emery show?CarlottaVance said:
The Dick Emery show ended in 1982 when today’s 40 year olds would have been 3 - I’d add at least a decade (and a bit) to that!not_on_fire said:The Sun headline is weird. Just unfunny and probably completely over the heads of anyone under 40.
When there were only 3 channels, few video recorders, and no t'internet, people would watch any old rot. Though in those days news and current affairs were very well done. People had longer attention spans then, and channel hopping was less common without a remote control. You actually had to get off the sofa to change channel.0 -
"The whole book was heavily over punctuated, with commas here, there and everywhere. Give this one a wide berth. You're missing nothing."Dura_Ace said:
I once saw a copy of The Ice Twins at a petrol station near East Midlands Airport. I moved it to behind all the other shite books to impede its sale.TOPPING said:
Yes I remember him. Poor thing confused being a good writer (which he undoubtedly was) with having any kind of a discerning or superior palate.OblitusSumMe said:
It's a shame they don't say how many flights it takes to put you into the top 1%/10%/20%/etcByronic said:Curious statistics in this Guardian article.
52% of Britons take 100% of international flights. 48% take no flights at all.
*innocent face*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm sure seanT, late of this parish, would have delighted in telling us that he was in the top 0.1%, or something. He was a travel writer, you know.
(Amazon Review)0 -
We still have a disastrous mandateless/unelected Prime Minister.tlg86 said:
Not much has happened since then, has it?TheScreamingEagles said:Today is the twelfth anniversary of this magnificent and prescient article.
We cannot be killed.
‘Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority’.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase0 -
Thanks!Byronic said:
It's in the Guardian article. Drill down. The idea seems to be a Green/Greenpeace thingy.NickPalmer said:
It sounds a great idea, avoiding penalising families who want to take a single break but escalating so that even businesses shift faster into teleconferencing etc. But I missed it altogether - who's suggested that?Byronic said:
As an international male model, I must take 50 flights a year minimum. I’m not delighted by the idea of a “progressive flight tax” - where you pay more and more for each ticket, though you get one cheap, untaxed flight a year.
It’s a terrible, communistic, North Korean device. 99% of people would have the travel equivalent of a Trabant. One return flight a year. That’s your lot. The super rich 1%, who can afford the most stringent taxes, would have endless flights, the equivalent of a BMW.
It’s such a bad idea that, in this present age of madness, it will probably be tried.
We are coming to the end of the golden age of travel. In future, it will be rationed. Only the rich will go to Tuscany in summer, because you will need a very expensive ticket to get in.0 -
To be fair to Boris, he has twice had his MPs vote for an election. Unlike scaredy-cat Gordon.TheScreamingEagles said:
We still have a disastrous mandateless/unelected Prime Minister.tlg86 said:
Not much has happened since then, has it?TheScreamingEagles said:Today is the twelfth anniversary of this magnificent and prescient article.
We cannot be killed.
‘Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority’.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase0
