Undefined discussion subject.

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

FrancisUrquhart said:

ReggieCide said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Chris said:

Noo said:

Gallowgate said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/lewis_baston/status/1176914850079002625?s=21

I am scared about where we are going I really am.

I'm really glad other people are saying this. Cox's statement today made my blood run cold.

Absolutely.

"It couldn't happen here?" Don't you believe it.

Thread:

https://twitter.com/ivanka/status/1090519840903884800?s=21

I just don't buy that about Yugoslavia. They were ruled by Tito for what 25-30 years. He was a brutal dictator that kept all the tensions between factions at bay under fear of the gun. When he died, within what 10 years, there was civil war.

Could be she's a Serb?

I have no idea, but anybody trying to tell the world there was no long standing major problems in Yugoslavia in the previous 50 years leading up to the war is talking the sort of boulder-dash and piffle Boris usually comes out with.

I thought he was Turkish

ERG/Brexit - Baker and Tice
Cabinet leavers - Leadsom, Fox, Barclay
Remainers trying to mediate/leave with a deal - Stewart, Clarke, Morgan, Kinnock, Benn, Letwin, Boles
Remainers trying to remain - Grieve, Swinson, Sturgeon

Pud said:

Good evening.I detect a similar zeitgeist happening in the Labour party to 2017.One of the effects of conference was to sharpen Labours goals and that process has been entirely positive in developing unity.The love bubble is back.Those outside want in and the love bubble spreads and it's climate change,not Brexit or anything else,that's clearly the no 1 priority-Survation's polling agrees.Will we still be arguing over Brexit when we're all under-water?
I think Nick Robinson was right to warn his fellow Tories not to underestimate Jeremy Corbyn.There is an alternative to the Tories and people like it and agree with it.
Worth noting in the GE betting.The enthusiam and energy of a good groung game of motivated people can be the deciding factor in a close election.

Superbly amusing first post. Shows great promise. Welcome.

Barnesian said:

TGOHF2 said:

Noo said:

Byronic said:

I’m extending my test. Can any PB-er think of any figure, from politics, whose reputation has been enhanced by the Brexit process?

Try not to be too partisan. It’s boring. If you can’t find anyone in politics you are allowed to trawl the worlds of journalism, law and academe.

Joanna Cherry

She was starting from a very very low base.

https://twitter.com/agentp22/status/842515167904759809?s=21

Anyone watching "The Capture"?

Yes we all know what happens when the big red bus comes past

ydoethur said:

Pud said:

Good evening.I detect a similar zeitgeist happening in the Labour party to 2017.One of the effects of conference was to sharpen Labours goals and that process has been entirely positive in developing unity.The love bubble is back.Those outside want in and the love bubble spreads and it's climate change,not Brexit or anything else,that's clearly the no 1 priority-Survation's polling agrees.Will we still be arguing over Brexit when we're all under-water?
I think Nick Robinson was right to warn his fellow Tories not to underestimate Jeremy Corbyn.There is an alternative to the Tories and people like it and agree with it.
Worth noting in the GE betting.The enthusiam and energy of a good groung game of motivated people can be the deciding factor in a close election.

Blimey.

I had no idea such strong drugs were available in Brighton.

You obviously don't know Brighton

ReggieCide said:

ydoethur said:

Pud said:

Good evening.I detect a similar zeitgeist happening in the Labour party to 2017.One of the effects of conference was to sharpen Labours goals and that process has been entirely positive in developing unity.The love bubble is back.Those outside want in and the love bubble spreads and it's climate change,not Brexit or anything else,that's clearly the no 1 priority-Survation's polling agrees.Will we still be arguing over Brexit when we're all under-water?
I think Nick Robinson was right to warn his fellow Tories not to underestimate Jeremy Corbyn.There is an alternative to the Tories and people like it and agree with it.
Worth noting in the GE betting.The enthusiam and energy of a good groung game of motivated people can be the deciding factor in a close election.

Blimey.

I had no idea such strong drugs were available in Brighton.

You obviously don't know Brighton

Well, I don't, not very well.

Perhaps to be clearer I should have said, even in Brighton.

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

I will assume that if she doesn't text me a firm refusal in the next five minutes Margot Robbie will be around my place tomorrow night.

ydoethur said:

ReggieCide said:

ydoethur said:

Pud said:

Good evening.I detect a similar zeitgeist happening in the Labour party to 2017.One of the effects of conference was to sharpen Labours goals and that process has been entirely positive in developing unity.The love bubble is back.Those outside want in and the love bubble spreads and it's climate change,not Brexit or anything else,that's clearly the no 1 priority-Survation's polling agrees.Will we still be arguing over Brexit when we're all under-water?
I think Nick Robinson was right to warn his fellow Tories not to underestimate Jeremy Corbyn.There is an alternative to the Tories and people like it and agree with it.
Worth noting in the GE betting.The enthusiam and energy of a good groung game of motivated people can be the deciding factor in a close election.

Blimey.

I had no idea such strong drugs were available in Brighton.

You obviously don't know Brighton

Well, I don't, not very well.

Perhaps to be clearer I should have said, even in Brighton.

As my Mum would have said (but not about Brighton in her time), Brighton is a very racy place.

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

Surely a prorogation before Oct 31 is still fine if for the usual length of time? Have I missed something?

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

Presumably if it was only 5-6 days that would be fine.

Regarding the "surrender bill", there is no doubt it is unfair but then were the "dementia tax" and "spare room tax" fair?

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

It was elected on a promise to enact Brexit. It has betrayed that promise is now afraidbof facing the electorate. Hence the bizzare spectacle of preventing a General Election and keeping a party with no majority in office and refusing to let it govern.

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

Utterly desperate from the Bozo clown show.

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

Presumably there is a length of prorogation that is legally acceptable. Some time between 5 days and 5 weeks. How long was Major's?

https://twitter.com/OliDugmore/status/1176951583701131264

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/nickboles/status/1176948825061285888?s=21

Happy to add Phillips to my list of politicians who have enhanced their reputations. A very different MP and the house is better for her presence.

ReggieCide said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ReggieCide said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Gallowgate said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/lewis_baston/status/1176914850079002625?s=21

I am scared about where we are going I really am.

The referendum was an inflexion point. Britain is the 21st century Argentina.

Oh catch yourself on, we have a minority government and a restless parliament that large parts of disagree with the manifesto commitments of the two main parties, which followed naturally from a referendum victory.

Meanwhile we have a booming economy.

The inability of so many of those who are not used to losing to come to terms with losing is remarkable.

Booming economy? You’re quite unhinged.

More employed than ever before (as a percentage).

Low inflation.

Rising wages.

How many years since a recession? 10 years?

AM doesn't do contrary opinions

I do facts. I realise that they are unpopular among the death cult but a booming economy requires an economy to be growing rapidly. Right now, Britain’s is being strangled by Brexit.

God, you're death culting again - you really should get help

He is far beyond help. Like Gollum. Rare flashes of normality cannot hide the obsessive madness beneath.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

It was elected on a promise to enact Brexit. It has betrayed that promise is now afraidbof facing the electorate. Hence the bizzare spectacle of preventing a General Election and keeping a party with no majority in office and refusing to let it govern.

First it was not elected, there was a hung parliament. And secondly they promised to enact an orderly Brexit.

Other than that good post.

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

I will assume that if she doesn't text me a firm refusal in the next five minutes Margot Robbie will be around my place tomorrow night.

I'm also assuming that Alexis Georgoulis (Spiro in The Durrells) will be round shortly to ferry me around London, make eyes at me and then s*** me on the beach (that's enough! - Ed.)

The five minutes are up and the lovely lady hasn't texted.

It's on, according to Downing Street Logic...

Well, I'm off to get myself ready for the time of my life, too ......

https://twitter.com/brigid_fowler/status/1176951980419375104?s=21

AlastairMeeks said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

Presumably if it was only 5-6 days that would be fine.

Regarding the "surrender bill", there is no doubt it is unfair but then were the "dementia tax" and "spare room tax" fair?

Were people receiving death threats about them?

If Boris stopped using the word surrender, would the death threats go away? In my view, the way to make the death threats go away is to resolve Brexit. Even if Brexit is not resolved as Brexiteers would like, the anger will subside over time. The longer Brexit is unresolved the more the anger will grow on both sides.

And as Bercow said it is not just remain MPs being threatened.

Mr Bercow says: "Members must say what they think - and they do and that's right - on both sides of the House and on different sides of this argument, but I would like to emphasise that I am keenly conscious of the fact that there are members on both sides of the House and indeed on both side of the argument that have been threatened.

"And I have stated very publicly my revulsion at such behaviour, whether it has affected members on one side or the other, people who are anti-Brexit, or members are pro-Brexit whose families have been wrongly threatened or whose parents have been abused in their presence.

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1176953411750809601

Long may Jester carry on like tonight.

It will focus the minds of all those who dont want him back in power

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

It was elected on a promise to enact Brexit. It has betrayed that promise is now afraidbof facing the electorate. Hence the bizzare spectacle of preventing a General Election and keeping a party with no majority in office and refusing to let it govern.

First it was not elected, there was a hung parliament. And secondly they promised to enact an orderly Brexit.

Other than that good post.

Parliament was elected. The government was just about elected - with the DUP's support. And yes I know about the manifesto. It's a point I've repeatedly made. An orderly withdrawal. But apparently that promise no longer matters.

Apparently only a disorderly withdrawal is implementing the referendum result. The dishonesty is breathtaking. Still, what can you expect from a government whose leader thinks that it is humbug to be concerned about violent words leading to violence against female MPs.

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/gathara/status/1176555327338274816?s=21

Oh no the Commenwealth games will be another Aussie Triumph.

Hopefully Scotland and Wales will still be allowed to compete.

AlastairMeeks said:

Symptomatic of their desperation:

https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/1176930666094702592?s=21

A second prorogation to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny would be struck down far quicker than the first. It is the emptiest of threats. This is a government out of options and, soon, out of office.

I thought prorogation for 5 days in order to have a Queens Speech has been allowed by Their Lord and Ladyships?

bigjohnowls said:

Long may Jester carry on like tonight.

It will focus the minds of all those who dont want him back in power

Why? What has he said? This thread has mostly been about Johnson so I was assuming Jester Corbyn was keeping schtum.

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, Johnson's criticism of the Commons is not entirely without merit. The vast bulk of them were elected on manifestos that promised to deliver Brexit (and most of those were also amongst the cohort in the 2015 Parliament that voted to hold a referendum with a Leave option in the first place.) They have then failed to do so and, just as many voters believe that Johnson lied about the real reasons behind the lengthy prorogation, many others doubtless believe that those self-same MPs were and are lying through their teeth about their commitment to deliver Brexit. Both the widespread agitation for a second plebiscite, and the decision of the Liberal Democrats to go outright for revocation (whatever the merits of that position might or might not be,) can only have helped to reinforce this impression.

The Commons was offered a compromise settlement by Theresa May. It rejected it, did not vote for anything else in its place, the EU27 aren't offering any other alternative form of agreement anyway, and therefore the compelling logic of the Government's position actually holds. Most MPs were re-elected on manifestos that promised to respect the result of the referendum and, if they can't agree to back any form of Withdrawal Agreement, then the only alternative available which respects that promise is Hard Brexit. The current impasse is not, in fact, the product of the policy of the minority Government, but that of the inertia of the majority Opposition: if Parliament won't back the Government then it should sling it out and install an alternative or, if it can't agree on an alternative, it should dissolve itself and allow the people to elect a replacement that might be able to do better.

Of course, almost everyone's at fault to some degree in this mess. Johnson should arguably have resigned immediately and gone into Opposition when MPs passed the Benn Act against his wishes, and certainly should've done so once they also vetoed their own dissolution.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

It was elected on a promise to enact Brexit. It has betrayed that promise is now afraidbof facing the electorate. Hence the bizzare spectacle of preventing a General Election and keeping a party with no majority in office and refusing to let it govern.

First it was not elected, there was a hung parliament. And secondly they promised to enact an orderly Brexit.

Other than that good post.

Parliament is elected as a body whether there is a majority or not.

So you are saying that the SNP were elected on a promise to enact brexit?

Given they were elected in a platform of independence - which would require Scotland to leave the EU at least temporarily- the answer could conceivably be yes.

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

It was elected on a promise to enact Brexit. It has betrayed that promise is now afraidbof facing the electorate. Hence the bizzare spectacle of preventing a General Election and keeping a party with no majority in office and refusing to let it govern.

First it was not elected, there was a hung parliament. And secondly they promised to enact an orderly Brexit.

Other than that good post.

Parliament was elected. The government was just about elected - with the DUP's support. And yes I know about the manifesto. It's a point I've repeatedly made. An orderly withdrawal. But apparently that promise no longer matters.

Apparently only a disorderly withdrawal is implementing the referendum result. The dishonesty is breathtaking. Still, what can you expect from a government whose leader thinks that it is humbug to be concerned about violent words leading to violence against female MPs.

As per my reply to Tyndall, parliament may well have been elected but not to enact Brexit as he suggests. Not all of it and not in a disorderly manner.

Byronic said:

Boris is doing very well here. Two hours of bravura bluster.

"There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Davey D, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus Corn Syrup or GM Soya or Chlorinated Chicken, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old No Deal Brexit."

Black_Rook said:

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parles.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, Johnson's criticism of the Commons is not entirely without merit. The vast bulk of them were elected on manifestos that promised to deliver Brexit (and most of those were also amongst the cohort in the 2015 Parliament that voted to hold a referendum with a Leave option in the first place.) They have then failed to do so and, just as many voters believe that Johnson lied about the real reasons behind the lengthy prorogation, many others doubtless believe that those self-same MPs were and are lying through their teeth about their commitment to deliver Brexit. Both the widespread agitation for a second plebiscite, and the decision of the Liberal Democrats to go outright for revocation (whatever the merits of that position might or might not be,) can only have helped to reinforce this impression.

The Commons was offered a compromise settlement by Theresa May. It rejected it, did not vote for anything else in its place, the EU27 aren't offering any other alternative form of agreement anyway, and therefore the compelling logic of the Government's position actually holds. Most MPs were re-elected on manifestos that promised to respect the result of the referendum and, if they can't agree to back any form of Withdrawal Agreement, then the only alternative available which respects that promise is Hard Brexit. The current impasse is not, in fact, the product of the policy of the minority Government, but that of the inertia of the majority Opposition: if Parliament won't back the Government then it should sling it out and install an alternative or, if it can't agree on an alternative, it should dissolve itself and allow the people to elect a replacement that might be able to do better.

Of course, almost everyone's at fault to some degree in this mess. Johnson should arguably have resigned immediately and gone into Opposition when MPs passed the Benn Act against his wishes, and certainly should've done so once they also vetoed their own dissolution.

Johnson is making a bad situation even worse because he doesn't care about institutions or the law. Parliament has behaved disgracefully, but his criticism of them not being without merit does not force him to take action to escalate things even further. That's his personal choice, and one taken purely because he is afraid of BXP.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Pud said:

Good evening.I detect a similar zeitgeist happening in the Labour party to 2017.One of the effects of conference was to sharpen Labours goals and that process has been entirely positive in developing unity.The love bubble is back.Those outside want in and the love bubble spreads and it's climate change,not Brexit or anything else,that's clearly the no 1 priority-Survation's polling agrees.Will we still be arguing over Brexit when we're all under-water?
I think Nick Robinson was right to warn his fellow Tories not to underestimate Jeremy Corbyn.There is an alternative to the Tories and people like it and agree with it.
Worth noting in the GE betting.The enthusiam and energy of a good groung game of motivated people can be the deciding factor in a close election.

Blimey.

I had no idea such strong drugs were available in Brighton.

Strong drugs are available absolutely everywhere and are killing a lot of people. If our politicians could just do what they were told about Brexit we might actually have time to consider some solutions.

I'm amazed you hadn't noticed, but they've spent the last couple of years trying to do what they were told about Brexit.

Unfortunately one lot of people said Brexit was a soft-EEA style thing, and another lot of people said it was a hard, no-deal gig.

In the meantime, the 48% of people who said they didn't want Brexit have been ignored.

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

Mortimer said:

The mention of ‘ground game’ reminded me of IOS.

DavidL said:

Pud said:

Good evening.I detect a similar zeitgeist happening in the Labour party to 2017.One of the effects of conference was to sharpen Labours goals and that process has been entirely positive in developing unity.The love bubble is back.Those outside want in and the love bubble spreads and it's climate change,not Brexit or anything else,that's clearly the no 1 priority-Survation's polling agrees.Will we still be arguing over Brexit when we're all under-water?
I think Nick Robinson was right to warn his fellow Tories not to underestimate Jeremy Corbyn.There is an alternative to the Tories and people like it and agree with it.
Worth noting in the GE betting.The enthusiam and energy of a good groung game of motivated people can be the deciding factor in a close election.

Superbly amusing first post. Shows great promise. Welcome.

IOS was right.

The lack of a ground game turned a landslide into a hung Parliament

Erhhh....IOS was about and making those claims when Cameron won the GE.

Was he.

Time flies

The Halcyon pre Brexit days when only the disabled and the poor were being targeted rather than the 48% whilst millionaires were getting tax cuts

Noo said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I would suggest Nicola Sturgeon.

Hellava shout, and in most ways I agree. What's been really remarkable has been her firm commitment to trying to, in her eyes, save the UK from itself. But she's hurt in reputation in the eyes of the diehard nats who welcome the sheer terrifying stupidity of what's been happening down here. After all, we've been giving Scots all the arguments they could ever need about the sclerosis, the baying cretins in the Commons, and the sinister authoritarian bent of this current Conservative & Unionist Party.
Some of those who want independence look on gobsmacked that Sturgeon is trying to stop exactly the kind of chaos that /could/ help the nat cause. Certainly that notorious transphobic blogger whose name I will not mention and who represents sadly far too many of that cohort is adamant that Sturgeon is using bad tactics.
But for me, I think she's playing a magnificent Brexit, and has somehow found herself alone in the moral uplands. But her reputation is certainly up for grabs depending on how urgently and blinkeredly folk want independence.

Yes Nicola Sturgeon has ignored the obvious boost for Independence which Boris and No Deal represent, and put all her effort into trying to keep the UK from self harm. She has put the larger country, the UK, and the smaller country which is presently bound up in the UK, Scotland, above her narrow party interests.

This is to be commended and if despite all her efforts the UK leaves with No Deal she can say with a clear conscience she tried to prevent it. This is statesmanship, or perhaps stateswomanship.

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

It was elected on a promise to enact Brexit. It has betrayed that promise is now afraidbof facing the electorate. Hence the bizzare spectacle of preventing a General Election and keeping a party with no majority in office and refusing to let it govern.

First it was not elected, there was a hung parliament. And secondly they promised to enact an orderly Brexit.

Other than that good post.

Parliament is elected as a body whether there is a majority or not.

So you are saying that the SNP were elected on a promise to enact brexit?

Given they were elected in a platform of independence - which would require Scotland to leave the EU at least temporarily- the answer could conceivably be yes.

Not 100% sure they would see it like that.

Oh hallelujah. A goal.

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cyclefree said:

In a Parliamentary democracy trying to run an election on a "People vs Parliament" basis is a dangerous and destructive act.

This Parliament was elected by the people. Its legitimacy comes from the voters. The Tory party asked for a mandate for a hard Brexit. It was denied it. It did not have a majority and is now a minority government. It needs to try and govern in light of that fact. Instead of which it is behaving as if it had a majority. The fact that it is a minority is somehow seen as a sort of Parliamentary impertinence and not a reflection of the voters' wishes.

As another girly swot put it:

"We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts."

(Para. 55 of the judgment, if anyone's interested.)

It was elected on a promise to enact Brexit. It has betrayed that promise is now afraidbof facing the electorate. Hence the bizzare spectacle of preventing a General Election and keeping a party with no majority in office and refusing to let it govern.

First it was not elected, there was a hung parliament. And secondly they promised to enact an orderly Brexit.

Other than that good post.

Parliament is elected as a body whether there is a majority or not.

So you are saying that the SNP were elected on a promise to enact brexit?

Given they were elected in a platform of independence - which would require Scotland to leave the EU at least temporarily- the answer could conceivably be yes.

Not 100% sure they would see it like that.

I'm 100% sure they wouldn't. In the same way that Mark Francois refusing three times to pass legislation that would let us leave the EU doesn't see this makes him a Remainer, although it does.

TOPPING said:

ozymandias said:

tyson said:

How the fuck did we manage to end up with Boris Johnson?

Discuss

tyson said:

How the fuck did we manage to end up with Boris Johnson?

Discuss

Labour not whipping to support WA irrespective of ERG nuts.

If that had passed we would have been in the transition period and we would be talking about pasty taxes like the old days.

Why would the opposition be convinced of the government's argument if their own party was not? Why should they on any case support the government? It's not their job.

Ah, the preposterous 'opposition's oppose' fallacy bt a different name, I wondered when it would arise again. No one, not even on the government side, was obliged to follow government policy on this or any other issue. However rare it actually is, it is for each member on each vote to decide what they think is best. In his defence, someone like Corbyn has always understood that and been prepared to vote whichever way he thinks best, rather than his support or opposition being taken for granted.

ozymandias said:

Cyclefree said:

tyson said:

How the fuck did we manage to end up with Boris Johnson?

Discuss

He was inflicted on us by 92000 mostly elderly, mostly male Tory members and some Tory MPs without the sense they were born with.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/09/03/the-dangers-of-polite-demagogues/

"Or Johnson with his messy hair, ill-fitting clothes, classical aphorisms, rather-too-pleased-with-itself wit and carefully crafted bumbling persona. That either of them should be viewed as serious contenders for the highest office suggests a failure to listen to what they say, to see that they mostly talk nonsense, sometimes dangerous, ill thought-out and harmful nonsense. It is a measure of how out of ideas and talent the Tories seem to be that amateurish eccentricity, incompetence in office and Boys Own enthusiasm are even thought of as serious contenders."

He was born from a parliament who ruthlessly defenestrated and crucified a well meaning honest hard working but ultimately weak woman who had negotiated a deal in good faith and presented it to them for agreement.

He was the one who led the ruthless defenestration and crucification! Not because he thought she was wrong, but because he wanted her job and couldnt wait a couple of years.

Black_Rook said:

Cyclefree said:

To play devil's advocate for a moment, Johnson's criticism of the Commons is not entirely without merit. The vast bulk of them were elected on manifestos that promised to deliver Brexit (and most of those were also amongst the cohort in the 2015 Parliament that voted to hold a referendum with a Leave option in the first place.) They have then failed to do so and, just as many voters believe that Johnson lied about the real reasons behind the lengthy prorogation, many others doubtless believe that those self-same MPs were and are lying through their teeth about their commitment to deliver Brexit. Both the widespread agitation for a second plebiscite, and the decision of the Liberal Democrats to go outright for revocation (whatever the merits of that position might or might not be,) can only have helped to reinforce this impression.

The Commons was offered a compromise settlement by Theresa May. It rejected it, did not vote for anything else in its place, the EU27 aren't offering any other alternative form of agreement anyway, and therefore the compelling logic of the Government's position actually holds. Most MPs were re-elected on manifestos that promised to respect the result of the referendum and, if they can't agree to back any form of Withdrawal Agreement, then the only alternative available which respects that promise is Hard Brexit. The current impasse is not, in fact, the product of the policy of the minority Government, but that of the inertia of the majority Opposition: if Parliament won't back the Government then it should sling it out and install an alternative or, if it can't agree on an alternative, it should dissolve itself and allow the people to elect a replacement that might be able to do better.

Of course, almost everyone's at fault to some degree in this mess. Johnson should arguably have resigned immediately and gone into Opposition when MPs passed the Benn Act against his wishes, and certainly should've done so once they also vetoed their own dissolution.

Or he could have sought his own mandate when first elected as Tory party leader instead of playing silly games.

The EU are only not offering an alternative agreement because Britain has not changed its red lines. If it did, an alternative agreement would be available.

The government is trapped because it has no negotiation strategy at all - none. And the PM has prioritised a date above all else. The mess it is in is largely of its own making. MPs from other parties have also behaved stupidly and irresponsibly. But it is not for the PM to lecture Parliament but for the PM to work within the constraints which the voters have laid down when they voted this Parliament into office.

Byronic said:

This parliamentary swithering is just pointless. Every time an opposition MP stands up to hurl the same boring rant at Boris, the viewer is left to think; well then just call an election??

Labour’s refusal to demand a GE is gonna hurt them.

I think a lot of the public might now be wishing the SC had just decided the case wasn't justificable to save us from all this. And this is just day one of the unlimited time Test Match.

Byronic said:

This parliamentary swithering is just pointless. Every time an opposition MP stands up to hurl the same boring rant at Boris, the viewer is left to think; well then just call an election??

Labour’s refusal to demand a GE is gonna hurt them.

What they need is an election date that cannot be postponed or changed to allow a no deal Brexit to slip through when Parliament is dissolved. Its really not hard to do and it is bewildering that even these incompetents haven't done it yet.

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

ozymandias said:

tyson said:

How the fuck did we manage to end up with Boris Johnson?

Discuss

tyson said:

How the fuck did we manage to end up with Boris Johnson?

Discuss

Labour not whipping to support WA irrespective of ERG nuts.

If that had passed we would have been in the transition period and we would be talking about pasty taxes like the old days.

Why would the opposition be convinced of the government's argument if their own party was not? Why should they on any case support the government? It's not their job.

Ah, the preposterous 'opposition's oppose' fallacy, I wondered when it would arise again. No one, not even on the government side, was obliged to follow government policy on this or any other issue. However rare it actually is, it is for each member on each vote to decide what they think is best. In his defence, someone like Corbyn has always understood that and been prepared to vote whichever way he thinks best, rather than his support or opposition being taken for granted.

Nah. Oppositions oppose is not a fallacy. It's what their supporters support them for. Had they voted it through that would have been years more of a Conservative government. Not I'm sure what Labour voters want. Amazingly some might see the end of a Tory government as more important than Brexit.

So on November 5th how many people will be wishing for a more successful Guy Fawkes ?

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Byronic said:

This parliamentary swithering is just pointless. Every time an opposition MP stands up to hurl the same boring rant at Boris, the viewer is left to think; well then just call an election??

Labour’s refusal to demand a GE is gonna hurt them.

I think a lot of the public might be wishing the SC had just decided it wasn't justificable to save us from all this. And this is just day one of the unlimited time Test Match.

If it wasnt justiciable the PM would have reprorogued immediately on parliaments return to deliver no deal expressly against the will of parliamentary sovereignty. That would be a coup d'etat.

God you can't even make a joke these days.

Oh FFS. This is totally embarrassing.