politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » These perceptions of Johnson could be critical in an election

RochdalePioneers said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I've joined the Liberal Democrats

Well done. I am teetering, but I still have good friends in the Conservative Party so I think it might need to be a closet membership

Their " Registered Supporter " scheme ( which I sign up for 6 weeks ago ) is a useful taster. It precludes you from being a member of another party and confers no voting rights. But equally the responsibilities you sign up for don't exclude voting for or donating to other parties.

I considered that. And most of my political friends remain (extremely unhappy) members of the Labour Party. To quit didn't feel that bad - that I should go hit me like an epiphany in the middle of a CLP meeting having just given my report as the new CLP Treasurer.

To now join the LibDems feels odd. A bit like coming out. Had to happen eventually (and I nearly did in 2003). But still very new.

"that I should go hit me like an epiphany in the middle of a CLP meeting having just given my report as the new CLP Treasurer"

Wonderful! Did you announce it there and then or walk slowly to the door...?

Johnson and friends are behaving as you would expect from membrs of the Bulligdon Club. Like the Milwall supporters club for posh boys. I was speaking to an English girl earlier and she thought it looked laddish and horrible. She wondered how it would look if Theresa May turned up in Downing St with a toy-boy? It would be interesting to see whether a gender divide has shown in the polls yet?

CatMan said:

Expect to hear "Outside the M25" a lot during an election campaign (even if it's not true of course)

Why do people say that rather than "outside London"? There is not too much difference between the two, and not many poeple would use the expression in other contexts "I've got a meeting inside the M25 tomorrow".

Is there supposed to be some resonance with non Londoners for this term?

algarkirk said:

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1177213881913139201

The problem here is the implication that the approach was aggressive by use of the word 'confronted'

If you 'confront' someone you won't always get the answer you want.

I am a huge fan of Jess Phillips and wish she was my MP, and hope one day she will be PM; and I 100% support MPs and others who get death threats from extremists of every sort; but actually I think she is wrong here. You cannot hold every politician accountable for the use of every hackneyed metaphor ' 'pulling the trigger', 'dead in a ditch' etc.

Especially when it will be TBP who hang his "dead in a ditch" comment round his neck for time immemorial.

How many days of this do we need before people start to question the wisdom of the SC?

It's a long way to 17th October when the next thing of any moment whatsoever is going to occur or not occur. Two more weeks of this and the question will not be whether to have another election but whether we just burn the bloody place down and start again.

Roger said:

Johnson and friends are behaving as you would expect from membrs of the Bulligdon Club. Like the Milwall supporters club for posh boys. I was speaking to an English girl earlier and she thought it looked laddish and horrible. She wondered how it would look if Theresa May turned up in Downing St with a toy-boy? It would be interesting to see whether a gender divide has shown in the polls yet?

You're very familiar with the behaviour of Millwall supporters are you, Rog? Don't suppose a huge number of them end up at the Cinquante Cinq.

DavidL said:

How many days of this do we need before people start to question the wisdom of the SC?

It's a long way to 17th October when the next thing of any moment whatsoever is going to occur or not occur. Two more weeks of this and the question will not be whether to have another election but whether we just burn the bloody place down and start again.

It's starting to fall apart anyway. No tears.

TOPPING said:

algarkirk said:

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1177213881913139201

The problem here is the implication that the approach was aggressive by use of the word 'confronted'

If you 'confront' someone you won't always get the answer you want.

I am a huge fan of Jess Phillips and wish she was my MP, and hope one day she will be PM; and I 100% support MPs and others who get death threats from extremists of every sort; but actually I think she is wrong here. You cannot hold every politician accountable for the use of every hackneyed metaphor ' 'pulling the trigger', 'dead in a ditch' etc.

Especially when it will be TBP who hang his "dead in a ditch" comment round his neck for time immemorial.

Jess Phillips said she would stab Corbyn in the front and told Dianne Abbott to Fuck Off

DavidL said:

How many days of this do we need before people start to question the wisdom of the SC?

It's a long way to 17th October when the next thing of any moment whatsoever is going to occur or not occur. Two more weeks of this and the question will not be whether to have another election but whether we just burn the bloody place down and start again.

Just checking in, are there any elements or components of the UK for which you would now feel comfortable cheerleading?

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

How many days of this do we need before people start to question the wisdom of the SC?

It's a long way to 17th October when the next thing of any moment whatsoever is going to occur or not occur. Two more weeks of this and the question will not be whether to have another election but whether we just burn the bloody place down and start again.

It's starting to fall apart anyway. No tears.

Spending several billion doing up the Houses of Parliament at the moment makes Hinkley C look like a good investment. Well, almost.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

This is the point I was making on here last night. Johnson has been saying he wants to leave with a deal on 31 Oct but also calling for an election in the meantime. It's literally impossible to have both.

It would certainly appear now that all of the 'going for a deal' talk was mere cover - this having the particular meaning here of 'lying' - for the strategy of engineering a Brexit election in a crisis atmosphere which could be fought on a Hard Leave populist ticket.

I was one of those who fell for it too. Feel foolish. Feel small.

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

How many days of this do we need before people start to question the wisdom of the SC?

It's a long way to 17th October when the next thing of any moment whatsoever is going to occur or not occur. Two more weeks of this and the question will not be whether to have another election but whether we just burn the bloody place down and start again.

It's starting to fall apart anyway. No tears.

Spending several billion doing up the Houses of Parliament at the moment makes Hinkley C look like a good investment. Well, almost.

Force them to hold parliament in various towns and cities around the country, outside, standing, in the rain.

RochdalePioneers said:

I've joined the Liberal Democrats

Auchentennach Fine Pies thanks you ....

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

How many days of this do we need before people start to question the wisdom of the SC?

It's a long way to 17th October when the next thing of any moment whatsoever is going to occur or not occur. Two more weeks of this and the question will not be whether to have another election but whether we just burn the bloody place down and start again.

Just checking in, are there any elements or components of the UK for which you would now feel comfortable cheerleading?

The UK itself as an integrated political and economic unity. But I am sickened by our political classes of all persuasions. Absolutely all of them. Boris has behaved appallingly but it is almost unfair to pick him out. So has everyone else.

When Nicola starts to sound like a voice of reason (independence apart) you really have to wonder what the hell is going on.

YBarddCwsc said:

bigjohnowls said:

TOPPING said:

algarkirk said:

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1177213881913139201

The problem here is the implication that the approach was aggressive by use of the word 'confronted'

If you 'confront' someone you won't always get the answer you want.

I am a huge fan of Jess Phillips and wish she was my MP, and hope one day she will be PM; and I 100% support MPs and others who get death threats from extremists of every sort; but actually I think she is wrong here. You cannot hold every politician accountable for the use of every hackneyed metaphor ' 'pulling the trigger', 'dead in a ditch' etc.

Especially when it will be TBP who hang his "dead in a ditch" comment round his neck for time immemorial.

Jess Phillips said she would stab Corbyn in the front and told Dianne Abbott to Fuck Off

She said she would KNIFE Corbyn in the front.

Not stab, she would knife him.

I think that was clearly metaphoric, meaning she would not politically assassinate from behind. I don't think Mr. Thicky had to take on an extra bodyguard

FrancisUrquhart said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

From Guido:

9 of the former 21 rebel Tories voted against the [recess]…

Guto Bebb
Nick Boles
Ken Clarke
David Gauke
Justine Greening
Dominic Grieve
Anne Milton
Amber Rudd
Antoinette Sandbach

On this I think they were very petty and very wrong.

The opposition should have taken the moral high ground on this. Its just looks petty and also hard to squeal about people being anti-democratic.

While I tend to agree with you on this (though I think they ought have proposed an amendment to make the recess two days, if only to get the vote through), this could be a tactical move, rather than simple pettiness ?

The leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has now had to lay out what is going to happen when the Conservative party conference is going on. They're announcing things which aren't too controversial because they don't want Tory MPs to have to come all the way back from Manchester every couple of hours to do votes.

They have announced some statutory instruments which will probably go through maybe even without a vote, and then, very interestingly on Wednesday, the Domestic Abuse Bill's second reading.

The government is hoping that can be debated on Wednesday - it's uncontentious in the sense that it would get through the House of Commons without too much whipping on either side. Wednesday, of course, is the day that Boris Johnson should be addressing the Conservative Party conference.

The unknown in all of this is whether backbench MPs try again to take over the order paper - to take over what happens in the House of Commons. And because Tory MPs may not be here, as many of them, could they do that and bring in some other kind of bill or legislation.

Just out of Machiavellian interest on the provisions of the Benn Bill.

I understand BJ has to deliver a letter requesting extra time (with penalties to his chances in an election, in his view).

If the extra time is offered he has to accept the offer.

Having done so, and reported to Parliament and accepted the extra time is there any restriction on him sending another letter after acceptance and before 31st October saying:

'Sorry, Old Bean, we have changed our mind and withdraw our acceptance of the extension you offered to us, Love and kisses Boris'

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

This is the point I was making on here last night. Johnson has been saying he wants to leave with a deal on 31 Oct but also calling for an election in the meantime. It's literally impossible to have both.

It would certainly appear now that all of the 'going for a deal' talk was mere cover - this having the particular meaning here of 'lying' - for the strategy of engineering a Brexit election in a crisis atmosphere which could be fought on a Hard Leave populist ticket.

I was one of those who fell for it too. Feel foolish. Feel small.

Perhaps he thinks if he asks for both he might get one of them. BTW I still think it is likely he is going for a late deal; and that the chance that ultimately we will remain is now a bit over 50%. I wonder if part of the confected and bogus row over language is cover and excuse for not supporting a Tory deal in October.

From a news letter I get at work:

"A former judge has said the Supreme Court moved the boundaries of the law because of a "particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse" by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Lord Sumption said that the advice given to the UK government in the recent Miller prorogation case was "in line with the orthodox view of the law as it was before the Supreme Court pronounced" and that it is the advice he himself would have given.

He added that the government's lawyers had no reason to "feel embarrassed".

"It was the line which was accepted as correct by three experienced judges of the Divisional Court in England," he said, adding "actually, I think it's the advice that I would've given".

He explained that the law had to step in to right Mr Johnson's wrong.

"What has happened is that in the face of a particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse the courts have now moved the boundaries – and that's what happens if you have a power and you abuse it, you find that the system steps in to curtail it.

"This is how our constitution, which is famously flexible, ought to work," he said."

Admittedly a lot more long winded than @alastair_meeks@s brilliant summary of "don't take the piss" but interesting for all that.

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

From Guido:

9 of the former 21 rebel Tories voted against the [recess]…

Guto Bebb
Nick Boles
Ken Clarke
David Gauke
Justine Greening
Dominic Grieve
Anne Milton
Amber Rudd
Antoinette Sandbach

On this I think they were very petty and very wrong.

The opposition should have taken the moral high ground on this. Its just looks petty and also hard to squeal about people being anti-democratic.

While I tend to agree with you on this (though I think they ought have proposed an amendment to make the recess two days, if only to get the vote through), this could be a tactical move, rather than simple pettiness ?

The leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has now had to lay out what is going to happen when the Conservative party conference is going on. They're announcing things which aren't too controversial because they don't want Tory MPs to have to come all the way back from Manchester every couple of hours to do votes.

They have announced some statutory instruments which will probably go through maybe even without a vote, and then, very interestingly on Wednesday, the Domestic Abuse Bill's second reading.

The government is hoping that can be debated on Wednesday - it's uncontentious in the sense that it would get through the House of Commons without too much whipping on either side. Wednesday, of course, is the day that Boris Johnson should be addressing the Conservative Party conference.

The unknown in all of this is whether backbench MPs try again to take over the order paper - to take over what happens in the House of Commons. And because Tory MPs may not be here, as many of them, could they do that and bring in some other kind of bill or legislation.

And that will look even worse....and rather undemocratic. Playing the same silly games they accuse Boris of.

philiph said:

Just out of Machiavellian interest on the provisions of the Benn Bill.

I understand BJ has to deliver a letter requesting extra time (with penalties to his chances in an election, in his view).

If the extra time is offered he has to accept the offer.

Having done so, and reported to Parliament and accepted the extra time is there any restriction on him sending another letter after acceptance and before 31st October saying:

'Sorry, Old Bean, we have changed our mind and withdraw our acceptance of the extension you offered to us, Love and kisses Boris'

Yeah, that would probably come under frustrating the intent of the legislation, which would also be illegal.

Same reason he can't send a letter asking for an extension and then send another one saying "not really"

YBarddCwsc said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

YBarddCwsc said:

bigjohnowls said:

TOPPING said:

algarkirk said:

philiph said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1177213881913139201

The problem here is the implication that the approach was aggressive by use of the word 'confronted'

If you 'confront' someone you won't always get the answer you want.

I am a huge fan of Jess Phillips and wish she was my MP, and hope one day she will be PM; and I 100% support MPs and others who get death threats from extremists of every sort; but actually I think she is wrong here. You cannot hold every politician accountable for the use of every hackneyed metaphor ' 'pulling the trigger', 'dead in a ditch' etc.

Especially when it will be TBP who hang his "dead in a ditch" comment round his neck for time immemorial.

Jess Phillips said she would stab Corbyn in the front and told Dianne Abbott to Fuck Off

She said she would KNIFE Corbyn in the front.

Not stab, she would knife him.

I think that was clearly metaphoric, meaning she would not politically assassinate from behind. I don't think Mr. Thicky had to take on an extra bodyguard

The metaphor is stab in the back. Jess said she would knife him in the back, not stab him.

I am in favour of high standards in public life. Boris' comment was crass & unpleasant. But ...err ... so is Jess' comment on Corbyn.

I find it oddly amusing to find myself defending her (altho she does grow on me) I think what Johnson is doing is using language that he knows is inflammatory, and it is quite deliberate. It is xenophobic and sectarian posturing deliberately designed to appeal to the lowest possible denominator . Hers is a poorly chosen metaphor

DavidL said:

From a news letter I get at work:

"A former judge has said the Supreme Court moved the boundaries of the law because of a "particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse" by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Lord Sumption said that the advice given to the UK government in the recent Miller prorogation case was "in line with the orthodox view of the law as it was before the Supreme Court pronounced" and that it is the advice he himself would have given.

He added that the government's lawyers had no reason to "feel embarrassed".

"It was the line which was accepted as correct by three experienced judges of the Divisional Court in England," he said, adding "actually, I think it's the advice that I would've given".

He explained that the law had to step in to right Mr Johnson's wrong.

"What has happened is that in the face of a particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse the courts have now moved the boundaries – and that's what happens if you have a power and you abuse it, you find that the system steps in to curtail it.

"This is how our constitution, which is famously flexible, ought to work," he said."

Admittedly a lot more long winded than @alastair_meeks@s brilliant summary of "don't take the piss" but interesting for all that.

Well yes, the law wasn't ruled on as it is.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

From Guido:

9 of the former 21 rebel Tories voted against the [recess]…

Guto Bebb
Nick Boles
Ken Clarke
David Gauke
Justine Greening
Dominic Grieve
Anne Milton
Amber Rudd
Antoinette Sandbach

On this I think they were very petty and very wrong.

The opposition should have taken the moral high ground on this. Its just looks petty and also hard to squeal about people being anti-democratic.

While I tend to agree with you on this (though I think they ought have proposed an amendment to make the recess two days, if only to get the vote through), this could be a tactical move, rather than simple pettiness ?

The leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has now had to lay out what is going to happen when the Conservative party conference is going on. They're announcing things which aren't too controversial because they don't want Tory MPs to have to come all the way back from Manchester every couple of hours to do votes.

They have announced some statutory instruments which will probably go through maybe even without a vote, and then, very interestingly on Wednesday, the Domestic Abuse Bill's second reading.

The government is hoping that can be debated on Wednesday - it's uncontentious in the sense that it would get through the House of Commons without too much whipping on either side. Wednesday, of course, is the day that Boris Johnson should be addressing the Conservative Party conference.

The unknown in all of this is whether backbench MPs try again to take over the order paper - to take over what happens in the House of Commons. And because Tory MPs may not be here, as many of them, could they do that and bring in some other kind of bill or legislation.

And that will look even worse....and rather undemocratic. Playing the same silly games they accuse Boris of.

I'm not arguing in favour of it - just posting the BBC report.
Raising the possibility makes it a little less likely to happen, I think.

DavidL said:

From a news letter I get at work:

"A former judge has said the Supreme Court moved the boundaries of the law because of a "particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse" by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Lord Sumption said that the advice given to the UK government in the recent Miller prorogation case was "in line with the orthodox view of the law as it was before the Supreme Court pronounced" and that it is the advice he himself would have given.

He added that the government's lawyers had no reason to "feel embarrassed".

"It was the line which was accepted as correct by three experienced judges of the Divisional Court in England," he said, adding "actually, I think it's the advice that I would've given".

He explained that the law had to step in to right Mr Johnson's wrong.

"What has happened is that in the face of a particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse the courts have now moved the boundaries – and that's what happens if you have a power and you abuse it, you find that the system steps in to curtail it.

"This is how our constitution, which is famously flexible, ought to work," he said."

Admittedly a lot more long winded than @alastair_meeks@s brilliant summary of "don't take the piss" but interesting for all that.

I don't think emeritus Supreme Court judges are allowed to say "don't take the piss". But I feel that we are concurring.

Sadly, the Einsteins in Number 10 don't seem to have absorbed that lesson, given the noises coming out of it.

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RochdalePioneers said:

logical_song said:

"that I should go hit me like an epiphany in the middle of a CLP meeting having just given my report as the new CLP Treasurer"

Wonderful! Did you announce it there and then or walk slowly to the door...?

We'd moved onto the (repeated) Anti-Semitism training. I read the document issued with a JC quote on it making clear what is anti-semitism. I looked at the images of Jezbollah posing behind the "Gaza is a Concentration Camp" banner at a 2009 rally, then at the text stipulating that comparisons of Israeli to Nazis is AS. I then listened to the arguments on another table where my mate angrily brought up JC's inaction and had cultists turn on him. Then he walked out.

And I sat there for another minute listening to members feed back that they'd never seen any AS (the session called as my branch chair had set up a "Labour Gentiles" Facebook group in response to "Jewish Zealots").

And a had a moment of absolute clarity that I was done here. Picked up my coat, and left.

I should have gone in 2016.

Bravo.

It seems that you and I will be voting for the same party if there's a GE soon. I don't think either of us would have expected that 18 months ago!

It really is a funny old world.

Me too - in Lewisham east - to get rid of Labour. Most other places I'd still vote Tory against Labour or LD. Un fortunately for me the LDs are better than Labour by a country mile but too left-wing and statist for a permanent switch.

The new paradigm is leave vs remain. I am happier to associate with Richard than with many of the pond scum in my local Constituency Labour Party

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think emeritus Supreme Court judges are allowed to say "don't take the piss". But I feel that we are concurring.

Sadly, the Einsteins in Number 10 don't seem to have absorbed that lesson, given the noises coming out of it.

Do you think that the case might have gone the other way (or at least not been decided unanimously) if the government had bothered to provide some justification for the long period of prorogation?

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

From a news letter I get at work:

"A former judge has said the Supreme Court moved the boundaries of the law because of a "particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse" by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Lord Sumption said that the advice given to the UK government in the recent Miller prorogation case was "in line with the orthodox view of the law as it was before the Supreme Court pronounced" and that it is the advice he himself would have given.

He added that the government's lawyers had no reason to "feel embarrassed".

"It was the line which was accepted as correct by three experienced judges of the Divisional Court in England," he said, adding "actually, I think it's the advice that I would've given".

He explained that the law had to step in to right Mr Johnson's wrong.

"What has happened is that in the face of a particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse the courts have now moved the boundaries – and that's what happens if you have a power and you abuse it, you find that the system steps in to curtail it.

"This is how our constitution, which is famously flexible, ought to work," he said."

Admittedly a lot more long winded than @alastair_meeks@s brilliant summary of "don't take the piss" but interesting for all that.

Well yes, the law wasn't ruled on as it is.

That's something of a philosophical question since the law on this simply wasn't clear before the ruling.
You could call it moving the boundaries, but it would be equally accurate to argue they have established where the boundaries are.

eristdoof said:

philiph said:

Just out of Machiavellian interest on the provisions of the Benn Bill.

I understand BJ has to deliver a letter requesting extra time (with penalties to his chances in an election, in his view).

If the extra time is offered he has to accept the offer.

Having done so, and reported to Parliament and accepted the extra time is there any restriction on him sending another letter after acceptance and before 31st October saying:

'Sorry, Old Bean, we have changed our mind and withdraw our acceptance of the extension you offered to us, Love and kisses Boris'

It has been established that two letters, fingers crossed behind his back, or crying "didn't mean it" is contra to the Benn Law and would be illegal.

It also beggars belief that the EU will un-extend an extension, after it has been agreed.

He’s trying to piss them off so much that refuse an extension.

CaptainBuzzkill said:

Perhaps the EU is their single greatest allegiance in life, who knows.

We know perfectly well - that is utter, off-the-wall, green-ink-bonkers nonsense.

CatMan said:

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1177228717296369664?s=20

So much for that supposed angry meltdown.

felix said:

OllyT said:

Pulpstar said:

OllyT said:

Pulpstar said:

Lucy Powell votes against Tory recess :!
Bryant, Hillier and Harman do too.
Strange way to boost the Manc economy and get the speaker job.

Missing a few drunken Tory MPs for a couple of days is going to make sod all difference to the Manchester economy. No Deal Brexit on the other hand...

Lucy Powell last night:

"As the Member of Parliament for Manchester Central, I want the Conservative conference to go ahead—not because I want to welcome the Conservatives to our city, but because livelihoods depend on it, and I think that it is an important part of our democracy. "

The Tory Conference hasn't been cancelled as far as I am aware. It will go ahead minus about 100 MPs on any particular day. Hardly the end of the world as we know it.

And the precedent is now set for future years - Parliament can sit through all party conferences except the Tory one. It'll look really clever if that was to happen.

Or perhaps the precedent is 'Parliament can sit through all party conferences in situations where the government has no majority in the house and has recently unlawfully sought to prevent Parliament from scrutinising its activities at a time of massive political and constitutional upheaval.' Doesn't seem such a bad precedent.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think emeritus Supreme Court judges are allowed to say "don't take the piss". But I feel that we are concurring.

Sadly, the Einsteins in Number 10 don't seem to have absorbed that lesson, given the noises coming out of it.

Do you think that the case might have gone the other way (or at least not been decided unanimously) if the government had bothered to provide some justification for the long period of prorogation?

Yes I do. I found that an extraordinary display of arrogance.

It reminded me of a pensions case, actually, called Imperial Tobacco. That was the first case which introduced the implied duty of trust and confidence into pensions law. The employer was asked to give a reason for its actions and it refused point blank. Off the back of that, the judge held that its actions were improper. If they had given any view, they would probably have won the case.

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

CaptainBuzzkill said:

Perhaps the EU is their single greatest allegiance in life, who knows.

We know perfectly well - that is utter, off-the-wall, green-ink-bonkers nonsense.

Why? There was no reason for them to vote against on this occasion except utter pettiness. You sadi more or less the same thing yesterday.

Yes, on balance I disagree with them on this (although I'd be interested in their reasons, and generally they are an excellent group). You have to be raving bonkers, though, to jump from that to concluding that 'the EU is their single greatest allegiance in life', just because they voted for parliament not to be in recess for a couple of days.

CatMan said:

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1177228717296369664?s=20

Nominative case malfunction creeping in. Grammar School girls should know better. (But Jess Phillips is still tremendous.)

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RochdalePioneers said:

logical_song said:

"that I should go hit me like an epiphany in the middle of a CLP meeting having just given my report as the new CLP Treasurer"

Wonderful! Did you announce it there and then or walk slowly to the door...?

We'd moved onto the (repeated) Anti-Semitism training. I read the document issued with a JC quote on it making clear what is anti-semitism. I looked at the images of Jezbollah posing behind the "Gaza is a Concentration Camp" banner at a 2009 rally, then at the text stipulating that comparisons of Israeli to Nazis is AS. I then listened to the arguments on another table where my mate angrily brought up JC's inaction and had cultists turn on him. Then he walked out.

And I sat there for another minute listening to members feed back that they'd never seen any AS (the session called as my branch chair had set up a "Labour Gentiles" Facebook group in response to "Jewish Zealots").

And a had a moment of absolute clarity that I was done here. Picked up my coat, and left.

I should have gone in 2016.

Bravo.

It seems that you and I will be voting for the same party if there's a GE soon. I don't think either of us would have expected that 18 months ago!

It really is a funny old world.

Me too - in Lewisham east - to get rid of Labour. Most other places I'd still vote Tory against Labour or LD. Un fortunately for me the LDs are better than Labour by a country mile but too left-wing and statist for a permanent switch.

The new paradigm is leave vs remain. I am happier to associate with Richard than with many of the pond scum in my local Constituency Labour Party

Hope you enjoy your new Party Ian

Like you said you should have done it earlier.

You do realise the "pond scum" will think they have won and that you have given them proof they were right about you all along.

I genuinely wish you well in your new adventures.

Mate I don't care what they think. One of them insisted that my membership of the Co-op party proved I was a right winger. I pointed out that the Coop believe in employee owned companies. Or "the workers control the means of production". He still didn't see the problem.

I'm still a Co-operator! Have already googled LibDems and Co-op - there used to be a group trying to marry the two before stalling. So I'm not the only one

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think emeritus Supreme Court judges are allowed to say "don't take the piss". But I feel that we are concurring.

Sadly, the Einsteins in Number 10 don't seem to have absorbed that lesson, given the noises coming out of it.

Do you think that the case might have gone the other way (or at least not been decided unanimously) if the government had bothered to provide some justification for the long period of prorogation?

This bit of the judgment suggests that they would, at the very least, have considered the arguments in a different manner:
...The Prime Minister’s wish to end one session of Parliament and to begin another will normally be enough in itself to justify the short period of prorogation which has been normal in modern practice. It could only be in unusual circumstances that any further justification might be necessary. Even in such a case, when considering the justification put forward, the court would have to bear in mind that the decision whether to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament falls within the area of responsibility of the Prime Minister, and that it may in some circumstances involve a range of considerations, including matters of political judgment. The court would therefore have to consider any justification that might be advanced with sensitivity to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister, and with a corresponding degree of caution…

The court didn't have to concern itself with political motive and/or judgment, since the government offered no justification beyond the bare need for a recess, which do nothing to explain the highly unusual length of the prorogation.

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

felix said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RochdalePioneers said:

logical_song said:

"that I should go hit me like an epiphany in the middle of a CLP meeting having just given my report as the new CLP Treasurer"

Wonderful! Did you announce it there and then or walk slowly to the door...?

We'd moved onto the (repeated) Anti-Semitism training. I read the document issued with a JC quote on it making clear what is anti-semitism. I looked at the images of Jezbollah posing behind the "Gaza is a Concentration Camp" banner at a 2009 rally, then at the text stipulating that comparisons of Israeli to Nazis is AS. I then listened to the arguments on another table where my mate angrily brought up JC's inaction and had cultists turn on him. Then he walked out.

And I sat there for another minute listening to members feed back that they'd never seen any AS (the session called as my branch chair had set up a "Labour Gentiles" Facebook group in response to "Jewish Zealots").

And a had a moment of absolute clarity that I was done here. Picked up my coat, and left.

I should have gone in 2016.

Bravo.

It seems that you and I will be voting for the same party if there's a GE soon. I don't think either of us would have expected that 18 months ago!

It really is a funny old world.

Me too - in Lewisham east - to get rid of Labour. Most other places I'd still vote Tory against Labour or LD. Un fortunately for me the LDs are better than Labour by a country mile but too left-wing and statist for a permanent switch.

The new paradigm is leave vs remain. I am happier to associate with Richard than with many of the pond scum in my local Constituency Labour Party

Hope you enjoy your new Party Ian

Like you said you should have done it earlier.

You do realise the "pond scum" will think they have won and that you have given them proof they were right about you all along.

I genuinely wish you well in your new adventures.

Mate I don't care what they think. One of them insisted that my membership of the Co-op party proved I was a right winger. I pointed out that the Coop believe in employee owned companies. Or "the workers control the means of production". He still didn't see the problem.

I'm still a Co-operator! Have already googled LibDems and Co-op - there used to be a group trying to marry the two before stalling. So I'm not the only one

The Co-Op movement hitched it's wagon to Labour, rather than being ditched by the Liberals. Plenty of Lib Dems support co-operative principles as part of diverse ownership of business and dispersion of power.

CaptainBuzzkill said:

OllyT said:

The Tory Conference hasn't been cancelled as far as I am aware. It will go ahead minus about 100 MPs on any particular day. Hardly the end of the world as we know it.

And another historic convention destroyed by remainer MPs.

Fair game in the future for a government to schedule parliament to sit whilst the opposition are having their conference.

Very sad days regardless of your political allegiance.

Compared to unlawfully proroguing Parliament it's chicken feed

felix said:

OllyT said:

felix said:

OllyT said:

Pulpstar said:

OllyT said:

Pulpstar said:

Lucy Powell votes against Tory recess :!
Bryant, Hillier and Harman do too.
Strange way to boost the Manc economy and get the speaker job.

Missing a few drunken Tory MPs for a couple of days is going to make sod all difference to the Manchester economy. No Deal Brexit on the other hand...

Lucy Powell last night:

"As the Member of Parliament for Manchester Central, I want the Conservative conference to go ahead—not because I want to welcome the Conservatives to our city, but because livelihoods depend on it, and I think that it is an important part of our democracy. "

The Tory Conference hasn't been cancelled as far as I am aware. It will go ahead minus about 100 MPs on any particular day. Hardly the end of the world as we know it.

And the precedent is now set for future years - Parliament can sit through all party conferences except the Tory one. It'll look really clever if that was to happen.

Surely even you can see that this is a one off and a direct result of the Tories unlawfully proroguing Parliament. Had the government demonstrated a scintilla of contrition yesterday it could easily have been avoided

Surely even you can see that a chance for sensible magnaminity on the part of the polarised and petty could have done much to dial down the nonsense. Even Jess Philips tweet goes a little way in the right direction.

Agreed.

Sensible magnanimity is not greatly evident on either side of the argument.

felix said:

Polruan said:

felix said:

OllyT said:

Pulpstar said:

OllyT said:

Pulpstar said:

Lucy Powell votes against Tory recess :!
Bryant, Hillier and Harman do too.
Strange way to boost the Manc economy and get the speaker job.

Missing a few drunken Tory MPs for a couple of days is going to make sod all difference to the Manchester economy. No Deal Brexit on the other hand...

Lucy Powell last night:

"As the Member of Parliament for Manchester Central, I want the Conservative conference to go ahead—not because I want to welcome the Conservatives to our city, but because livelihoods depend on it, and I think that it is an important part of our democracy. "

The Tory Conference hasn't been cancelled as far as I am aware. It will go ahead minus about 100 MPs on any particular day. Hardly the end of the world as we know it.

And the precedent is now set for future years - Parliament can sit through all party conferences except the Tory one. It'll look really clever if that was to happen.

Or perhaps the precedent is 'Parliament can sit through all party conferences in situations where the government has no majority in the house and has recently unlawfully sought to prevent Parliament from scrutinising its activities at a time of massive political and constitutional upheaval.' Doesn't seem such a bad precedent.

Except 2 party conferences happened. And that is not the precedent. Otherwise good show jiminy cricket!

I realise it's not received much coverage, but Parliament didn't get to vote on recess for the previous two conferences, what with the government unlawfully proroguing Parliament and all.... actually the Labour conference was then disrupted by the resumption of the Parliamentary session.

There was a strong sense that if the house had been asked to vote on recess for any conferences it would have voted no due to the special circumstances, so it's hard to draw any conclusion from the absence of a vote.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1177178770425425920?s=21

A really foolish article sponsored by the sometimes interesting John Rentoul. What would he have MPs do? Turn up in Parliament and vote to Leave the EU under the auspices of the pathological liar Boris Johnson of Red Bus/Turkish Border starting at Dover fame when they believe it would be a catastrophy?

Are our MPs just lobby fodder? Should they do as some did over Iraq? Follow a crackpot leadrwho followed an even bigger crackpot leader? It isn't their fault that the Tory government needed a Refrendum to gain a majority? Our system isn't designed for one. Come on Rentoul. Pull your socks up!

Pulpstar said:

It's one of my sincerest hopes that the Lib Dems replace the Labour party as the main left of centre party.

@RochdalePioneers Good job

They won't not in my lifetime

Mind you i do have an inoperable heart condition and could snuff it at anytime!!

CaptainBuzzkill said:

OllyT said:

The Tory Conference hasn't been cancelled as far as I am aware. It will go ahead minus about 100 MPs on any particular day. Hardly the end of the world as we know it.

And another historic convention destroyed by remainer MPs.

Fair game in the future for a government to schedule parliament to sit whilst the opposition are having their conference.

Very sad days regardless of your political allegiance.

The conferences should be organised to be friday to sunday or if longer is needed over the summer recess. It's bonkers that they should have more time off for conferences.