Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation.
You would think so but then "events" can move on very quickly.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war just saying that things can move on a lot quicker than people might think.
There was a bit of bother about Ireland 1912 onwards, too!
Thank goodness that never came back to bite us.
LOL. To be fair, if it hadn't been for WWI that might a) have resulted in violence similar to 1920-22 b) might have resulted in violence similar to that in 1968-88 or c) might have ben settled by Lloyd-George's famed ability to sort something out.
If I were Johnson I'd call up the Telegraph and get a photo op set up with an unsigned letter for the 19th 'I will never sign this letter'. Having termed it a "surrender act" I think he's got to go all in whether it means a creative interpretation of the law or not.
The letter gets signed "Mickey Mouse" by accident.
Then they jump on the Eurostar but someone puts the wrong sort of leave(r)s on the line so they miss the deadline.
Oops, sorry.
(Equally, I think you write a letter saying exactly what the UK government plans to do with the extension. No more negotiations. Just preparation for no deal).
If Johnson is forced to seek the extension, as I think he will be, a VONC may not be possible as I think the rebel Tories would not back it in those circumstances.
Your correct conclusion in the 2nd half of your sentence is the reason why the assumption in the 1st half is very, very unlikely.
I've just realised that one of the reasons I visit this site is because I subconsciously hope that one day a commenter will pop on here, with an amazing insight, that begins
"OK guys, I've got it. I've worked out what will happen with Brexit"
The commenter will then explain, with dazzling lucidity, exactly what will occur, and why, over the next months and years, and I will finally be able to forget about this tedious cavalcade of cack.
Hasn't happened yet, natch.
1. United Kingdom votes to leave the EU with over 17 million votes cast in favour.
2. Remainer dominated parliament use all means to thwart the referendum result whilst hiding from electorate.
3. Tory PM gives them final chance in the form of a deal which they refuse to accept instead resorting to a final legislative tantrum which fails because...
4. Government resigns; temporary PM (of Labour flavour) has to submit extension request and has to call GE.
5. Labour decimated at the GE and Tory PM is returned with mandate and MPs to finally implement the will of the people.
The end.
6. But the implementation is a no-deal crash out.
7. UK economy re-runs the Great Depression
8. Scotland secedes and NI joins the RoI, both in the EU.
9. England (and Wales, which may also have seceded by now) rejoins the EU.
10. All the territories of the former UK end up in the Euro and Schengen.
Mr. Above, decreasing the age may cause problems too.
It's hard for younger people to compete for jobs with older people who tend to have more experience. The lower wage is one way to do is and earn valuable experience.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience but the other costs less due to young age, it can go either way.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience and the costs are identical, who wouldn't go for the more experienced candidate?
NI Only backstop, rebranded as Boris' amazing deal.
If there is one, I guess it will be that. And it WOULD be amazing. It would be amazing in 2 senses of the word. It would be great. And I would be amazed.
The amount of leverage the DUP have over the Gov't is somewhere between zero and nil now everyone (In a timescale according to their interests) including the Gov't and opposition is looking to induce a collapse of the current parliament.
This contrasts massively to the second May ministry.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
Cut it out, get it done. Apply it or annul it, I am beyond caring. Most of all, give us a bloody election where, if the politicians won't do it, we will elect politicians that do have the bollocks: to enact or reject it.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation.
You would think so but then "events" can move on very quickly.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war just saying that things can move on a lot quicker than people might think.
There was a bit of bother about Ireland 1912 onwards, too!
Thank goodness that never came back to bite us.
LOL. To be fair, if it hadn't been for WWI that might a) have resulted in violence similar to 1920-22 b) might have resulted in violence similar to that in 1968-88 or c) might have ben settled by Lloyd-George's famed ability to sort something out.
"Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right!"
IN the summer of 1914 the LVF was armed and ready, and there were equivalents on the other side. They formed the basis of the 16th and 36th Divisions in WW1.
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
Did Labour announce anything like this or was it all resolutions to free Palestine, burn down public schools and sit on the Brexit fence ?
That is interesting and IMO exactly right. Trump is a powerful abuser who is doing grave damage to both his opponents and his supporters. Opponents by direct victimization. Supporters, indirectly, by causing them to debase themselves defending him.
In which case why would MPs take the risk of no-deal crash out if a deal is brought back to them next month?
Either:
1. They don't believe no-deal would actually be anywhere near as bad as made out.
Or,
2. They are putting political game playing above the future of the country and will be sanctioned appropriately at the ballot box...when they are finally dragged kicking and screaming to it.
I mean, it seems most politically reasonable. Make sure Johnson is willing to to enforce the law passed. If he refuses, it gives them a bigger stick to hit him with later on. If he goes through with it, it can be used against him in a GE.
It seems unlikely they can form a GNU, so any VoNC is just a delayed call for a GE. I don't think any of the opposition parties want parliament dissolved on Oct 31st. So No VoNC and no passing legislation for GE until early Nov (at the earliest) seems likely.
I'm still thinking we may be looking at a Boxing Day GE; 4th of November is first Monday after Brexit Day, if there is a VoNC 14 days takes us to the 18th, if you have a 5 week GE that takes us to 26th being the Thursday of that week.
My comment was more a cry of pain, I think.
Like the rest of the country, I am now sick of Brexit. Sick of everything about it, sick of the miasma that surrounds it, sick of the contortions required to justify it, or justify its thwarting. It is a disease infecting us.
This endless stasis is sickening, and here is just another example of cowardly politicians kicking the decision down the lane. PFFFFFFF
There is no end to Brexit. Every scenario leaves this festering scab on our polity for a generation.
You would think so but then "events" can move on very quickly.
I mean around 1910 people were seriously thinking we might have a civil war over the People's Budget impasse but within five years that had all been forgotten about and we had a unity government during a World War.
And no I'm not predicting another world war just saying that things can move on a lot quicker than people might think.
There was a bit of bother about Ireland 1912 onwards, too!
Thank goodness that never came back to bite us.
LOL. To be fair, if it hadn't been for WWI that might a) have resulted in violence similar to 1920-22 b) might have resulted in violence similar to that in 1968-88 or c) might have ben settled by Lloyd-George's famed ability to sort something out.
"Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right!"
IN the summer of 1914 the LVF was armed and ready, and there were equivalents on the other side. They formed the basis of the 16th and 36th Divisions in WW1.
I used to know an Ulsterman who asserted his father had signed the Covenant in his own blood!
Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
The invasion of privacy seems minimal. What do you think they would do with that information anyway?
The issue surely is whether the NHS obtained a patient’s consent for the handover of information to a private company. If they didn’t then they have no right to do so.
If I see my doctor I certainly would not, regardless of the issue, agree to them sharing it with a credit reference agency. What possible benefit is there to me from doing this? And who else might Experian share it with?
Mr. Above, decreasing the age may cause problems too.
It's hard for younger people to compete for jobs with older people who tend to have more experience. The lower wage is one way to do is and earn valuable experience.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience but the other costs less due to young age, it can go either way.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience and the costs are identical, who wouldn't go for the more experienced candidate?
Well one might wonder which employee had the more potential, unlikely to be the one five years in and still asking for entry level wages, but it would depend on the job. Also I am unaware of landlords or utilities offering discounts by age so if a minimum wage reflects wage what is needed to live then it should be the same regardless of age.
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
Good job that's not being shared then.
The information - including name, address, date of birth and NHS number"
That's the sort of data which is routine shared - assuming you have the appropriate GDPR approvals - with credit agencies
Name, address, dob and the fact that you have sought medical treatment. That's an intensely private combination of data. It doesn't belong in the hands of anyone without my explicit consent. Obviously that consent extends to the health service. But I have never given my consent for Experian to know, and nor have I any desire to. Furthermore, it is not necessary for my treatment for Experian to know.
Sure, you need to have the appropriate consents. But just include that on the admission form.
How will the government be forced to carry on if parliament votes down the deal that is brought back?
The opposition's tactics are predicated on the assumption that there will not be a Deal done at the summit. If there is one, that will be game-changer. Personally, I would be extremely surprised.
If Johnson is forced to seek the extension, as I think he will be, a VONC may not be possible as I think the rebel Tories would not back it in those circumstances. Having obtained the extension some of them at least would be seeking to regain the Tory whip, and Johnson would then be in a very weak position and would have to give in to pressure from Tory moderate MP and readmit them.
Johnson lost his majority before sacking the rebels though.
Yes that's true but if an extension had been obtained and the immediate prospect of no deal was averted I'm not sure the opposition could rely on getting 100% of the independents to support an immediate VONC. And it mighht well be in their interests to leave a powerless Johnson in place for a bit longer whilst Farage mops up support on the no deal Brexit wing.
This is the way to go. Johnson needs to be allowed to fail to get a Deal. The Deal that he has promised is a virtual certainty. In fact IMO the Benn Act was premature because it gives him an effective soundbite ('Surrender Act') and a semblance of an excuse for the failure. That parliament ruined his leverage by taking No Deal away. Bollox, of course, but nevertheless it would IMO have been better to have humoured him, played along, held off on all the resistance activity until after the summit. Then jugular.
If I were feeling particularly spiteful, I'd table a VoNC tomorrow evening, blow up BoJo's conference speech plans, use the VoNC debate to lecture him on 'What we will make you do and what we will do in response' (in the fashion of a Bond baddie expositing his plans), then fail to move / provide tellers / abstain on the VoNC vote itself.
BoJo seems more a Johnny English (or perhaps No Johnny English) character than a Bond, so chances are that, hopefully, he won't wriggle out of the plan, even though it has been explained to him in full.
He could pre-empt that with a prorogation announced tomorrow morning for a Queen's Speech on say Friday/Monday, depending on the minimum timeline for security arrangements.
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
Did Labour announce anything like this or was it all resolutions to free Palestine, burn down public schools and sit on the Brexit fence ?
I try not to listen to Labour conference proposals, they are simply bonkers. Once it reaches the watered down manifesto stage perhaps some of their plans will make more sense.
The point is that it has never been considered by healthcare professionals their job to deal with that side of things. Therefore, you add a layer of administration and costs to trying to recoup costs, which on average are more than the costs of the healthcare provided anyway. The current target is £500 million a year recouped. I can't see anywhere that says that is net (so £500 mil on top of whatever they spend to collect it), so they could claim success if they spend £600 million trying to recoup £500 mil. And costs of staff, administration, advertising, training, computer systems, etc etc across all the local authorities could easily cost more than £500 million.
Every GP has a receptionist. Every hospital has a receptionist. Every dentist or optician has a receptionist who takes payments.
"Can I see your NI card please?" "Yes" "Thank you. When would you like your appointment?"
"No. I don't have it with me." "Can you tell me the number?" "Yes" "Great. Please bring your card when you come for your appointment"
"I don't have a NI number." "OK. There is a charge of £25 to see the GP,"
Do you think most UK citizens know where their NI card is, or carry it with them every time they go to the doctors, or should have it memorised? In A&E what do you do if they don't have their card nor remember their number? People freaked out at the idea of a mandatory ID card and we as a country seem generally against needing identification to vote. How many people do you think will not go to the doctor because they can't find their card? And do you not think that will have a higher economic impact than just letting them access healthcare?
1) I've explicitly already said emergency care is not included 2) NI number is used all the time. I know mine off by heart. 3) everyone gets issued a card at 16. If it was mandatory to show, people would apply for a replacement.
No they don't. NI cards were phased out in 2011 or 2012. You now just get a letter with your NI number on it.
Interesting article in the NYT; "What's the Matter with Republicans", which will no doubt annoy a good number of people.
Seems reasonable acute to me, FWIW.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/republicans-trump-impeachment.html ...Month after month, with one outrageous, norm-shattering comment or action giving way to another, Republicans who in the past could never have envisioned being Trump acolytes, have been ground down. Accommodation has kicked in, which is a psychological relief to many of them. For those who view Mr. Trump as a model politician who voices their grievances and fights with a viciousness they have long hoped for from Republicans, the accommodation is not just a relief but a source of delight.
As the psychologist I spoke to put it to me, many Republicans “are nearly unrecognizable versions of themselves pre-Trump. At this stage it’s less about defending Trump; they are defending their own defense of Trump.”
“At this point,” this person went on, “condemnation of Trump is condemnation of themselves. They’ve let too much go by to try and assert moral high ground now. Calling out another is one thing; calling out yourself is quite another.”
As a result, many in Mr. Trump’s party not only refuse to challenge his maliciousness; they have adopted his approach. They have embraced his “will to power” worldview. After dealing with Mr. Trump, “you’re definitely denuded and jaded,” one Republican who has interacted recently with members of Congress told me. “Your sense of perspective is totally warped.”
Many Republicans now find themselves in a place they never envisioned — not only defending Mr. Trump but doing so with gusto. Those who once defended traditional values now relish siding with the Great Transgressor. “Owning the libs” turns out to be a lot of fun. But it also comes at a high cost...
Totally fair. And, by the way, an indictment of two party politics. In a polity with multidimensional politics, where there are multiple parties with overlapping positions, such extremes are easily sidelined. Today's Republican party is a nonsense hybrid of libertarians, ethnochauvinists, protectionists and social conservatives. They do not belong in the same party. The fact that so few of them have left is because the political model is two tribes on opposite sides of a chasm, flinging shit at one another. Your best bet is to stay on one side. Anybody who strays into the middle gets pelted from front and back.
That's not how you run a country. Yet that's what we do, too.
I've just realised that one of the reasons I visit this site is because I subconsciously hope that one day a commenter will pop on here, with an amazing insight, that begins
"OK guys, I've got it. I've worked out what will happen with Brexit"
The commenter will then explain, with dazzling lucidity, exactly what will occur, and why, over the next months and years, and I will finally be able to forget about this tedious cavalcade of cack.
Hasn't happened yet, natch.
1. United Kingdom votes to leave the EU with over 17 million votes cast in favour.
2. Remainer dominated parliament use all means to thwart the referendum result whilst hiding from electorate.
3. Tory PM gives them final chance in the form of a deal which they refuse to accept instead resorting to a final legislative tantrum which fails because...
4. Government resigns; temporary PM (of Labour flavour) has to submit extension request and has to call GE.
5. Labour decimated at the GE and Tory PM is returned with mandate and MPs to finally implement the will of the people.
The end.
6. But the implementation is a no-deal crash out.
7. UK economy re-runs the Great Depression
8. Scotland secedes and NI joins the RoI, both in the EU.
9. England (and Wales, which may also have seceded by now) rejoins the EU.
10. All the territories of the former UK end up in the Euro and Schengen.
FTFY.
If we stay in EU, it should be your No. 10.
Continuing on the existing terms is utter madness - it is those terms that have generated Euroscepticism and generally doing the same thing and expecting a different result is frowned upon.
We would drift ever further from the core as it became a closer Union with one currency, adding fuel to strengthen the pre existing grumbles about EU.
Too right too foreigners need to pay, they don't get it free...
Ummm, that's not the issue. Why is the NHS handing over confidential data to a private company? I don't want to Experian to know my medical history.
From the article it looks a although it is your name and address. For many, that is in the public domain. Also include date of birth, but no medical information.
The very fact that you're used the health service is private information. I don't want Experian to know whether or not I've sought medical attention. It's really not much to ask, you know. Experian has no reason to know that about me.
The invasion of privacy seems minimal. What do you think they would do with that information anyway?
The issue surely is whether the NHS obtained a patient’s consent for the handover of information to a private company. If they didn’t then they have no right to do so.
If I see my doctor I certainly would not, regardless of the issue, agree to them sharing it with a credit reference agency. What possible benefit is there to me from doing this? And who else might Experian share it with?
They could decide that your visit to the doctor makes you less creditworthy. Which might in turn encourage some people for whom credit is an important part of their near-future plans not to visit a doctor. Which could lead to unfortunate outcomes that could have been avoided.
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
But if they are not nonsense, they have lost time to do something about them......
This is the way to go. Johnson needs to be allowed to fail to get a Deal. The Deal that he has promised is a virtual certainty. In fact IMO the Benn Act was premature because it gives him an effective soundbite ('Surrender Act') and a semblance of an excuse for the failure. That parliament ruined his leverage by taking No Deal away. Bollox, of course, but nevertheless it would IMO have been better to have humoured him, played along, held off on all the resistance activity until after the summit. Then jugular.
If I were feeling particularly spiteful, I'd table a VoNC tomorrow evening, blow up BoJo's conference speech plans, use the VoNC debate to lecture him on 'What we will make you do and what we will do in response' (in the fashion of a Bond baddie expositing his plans), then fail to move / provide tellers / abstain on the VoNC vote itself.
BoJo seems more a Johnny English (or perhaps No Johnny English) character than a Bond, so chances are that, hopefully, he won't wriggle out of the plan, even though it has been explained to him in full.
He could pre-empt that with a prorogation announced tomorrow morning for a Queen's Speech on say Friday/Monday, depending on the minimum timeline for security arrangements.
If I were feeling particularly spiteful, I'd table a VoNC tomorrow evening, blow up BoJo's conference speech plans, use the VoNC debate to lecture him on 'What we will make you do and what we will do in response' (in the fashion of a Bond baddie expositing his plans), then fail to move / provide tellers / abstain on the VoNC vote itself.
BoJo seems more a Johnny English (or perhaps No Johnny English) character than a Bond, so chances are that, hopefully, he won't wriggle out of the plan, even though it has been explained to him in full.
We must resist such things
Johnson has enormous potential to collapse under the weight of his own contradictions.
@Richard_Nabavi : I've been beating an occasional drum on another potential pitfall, namely the Labour party rulebook.
This is me reasonably clear.
So my reading is that Corbyn cannot just let someone else be PM if Labour joins the government. His only way is resigning, and then Watson would automatically assume the primacy for PM candidate.
To my mind Labour's conference shenanigans were less some vague panic at future succession, but a much more immediate need to be able to put forward somebody else in the event Corbyn could not command confidence after a VoNC, and wanted to push a lefty successor as the alternative within what was allowed by Labour's rules.
On the other hand Corbyn has said he would do everything necessary to prevent No Deal, his clarity on that must surely include considering compromise candidates if he is rejected, else he might choke on those words. This applies even though Watson is still the heir apparent.
One irony. If Labour were in government, there is much more flexibility as to who would assume if Corbyn resigned. It is chicken and egg though: Corbyn would have to become PM to gain such freedom of succession.
I think the way round might be this. Labour stay in opposition, performing a DUP type role, but release the whip temporarily from some of the preferred succession and unthreatening grandees. A few should suffice. If they can get a Long Bailey or some such in as PM candidate, fantastic.
This leaves some pretty bare looking government benches, Boris as Loto and Corbyn and Labour squeezed up tight to the Tories on the current SNP benches. What a lovefest that would be
As a final aside, I had a bit of a hunt round for what the Labour rules and approach were in 1940 when Attlee joined the national government. I didn't find good much, other than that the bringing down of Chamberlain seems to have been well timed around a Labour spring conference and Attlee went off to see the NEC in Bournemouth before Labour joined the government. Of course 'just get NEC approval for a rulebook change / exemption' seems a natural short-circuit to all the spiel above but, given what happened at conference, I'm not sure that is a good assumption.
Hmmm.
My understanding is that if there is a Labour government the PM has to be the Labour leader. But is a GNU a Labour government? It's hard to see how that can be the case. If Corbyn accepts someone else as leader of a GNU, then in practical terms nothing is going to happen - it's up to the Queen to choose. The real killer for a GNU is that Corbyn will not accept one. What he wants is a Labour minority government. And there is no way MPs will vote for that.
I'd forgotten that you'd written that. It seems a long time ago now! And yet the media speculation about an interim government still continues without the point being addressed.
The other thing that strikes me is that, if there really were serious discussions going on about the make-up of such a government, there would surely have been leaks by now, given the number of players who would have to be involved.
I'm not sure what to think of the minimum wage announcement.
It is pretty clear that Cummings is releasing the GE manifesto domestic policy plans and tbf they will hoover up huge numbers of undecideds for whom Brexit isn't a priority.
1. Focusing on the NHS
2. Increase in the National Living Wage
There will be others of course designed to cut Labour off at the knees but they do need to be careful to keep within realistic costings otherwise their promises could be viewed as a fairytale like Labour's.
If Johnson is forced to seek the extension, as I think he will be, a VONC may not be possible as I think the rebel Tories would not back it in those circumstances.
Your correct conclusion in the 2nd half of your sentence is the reason why the assumption in the 1st half is very, very unlikely.
The choice Johnson will face, in the absence of a deal, is to seek an extension or resign. If he does not seek it he will be forced to do so by a court order. His whole career has been dedicated to making himself PM - the idea that he might resign on a matter of principle is very hard to credit since there is no evidence that he has any principles whatsoever. He will wish to continue as PM and the only way that will be possible is by seeking the extension. Of course that might lead to him being forced out anyway, but it his best - and only - chance.
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
But if they are not nonsense, they have lost time to do something about them......
So they will have fallen for the trap.
I’ll take what the experts say who agree even if Bozo refuses to obey the law the courts will take quick action to make sure he does .
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
I think they are right not to VONC the Government. What they should try instead is reducing the PMs pay! To zero if that is feasable! That will really be a powerful message!
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
I think they are right not to VONC the Government. What they should try instead is reducing the PMs pay! To zero if that is feasable! That will really be a powerful message!
Mr. Above, decreasing the age may cause problems too.
It's hard for younger people to compete for jobs with older people who tend to have more experience. The lower wage is one way to do is and earn valuable experience.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience but the other costs less due to young age, it can go either way.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience and the costs are identical, who wouldn't go for the more experienced candidate?
Well one might wonder which employee had the more potential, unlikely to be the one five years in and still asking for entry level wages, but it would depend on the job. Also I am unaware of landlords or utilities offering discounts by age so if a minimum wage reflects wage what is needed to live then it should be the same regardless of age.
And if we do that, then we accept a higher rate of unemployment for younger people. Which does have the concomitant issue that if people get stuck in the unemployment groove early on for a prolonged period, they usually find it rather hard to get out of said groove.
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
I think they are right not to VONC the Government. What they should try instead is reducing the PMs pay! To zero if that is feasable! That will really be a powerful message!
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
And it's not a commitment - like Labour's 32-hour week over 10 years, it's something they will "aim to" do. I'm not especially cynical about politics, but there is wriggle room there.
The choice Johnson will face, in the absence of a deal, is to seek an extension or resign. If he does not seek it he will be forced to do so by a court order. His whole career has been dedicated to making himself PM - the idea that he might resign on a matter of principle is very hard to credit since there is no evidence that he has any principles whatsoever. He will wish to continue as PM and the only way that will be possible is by seeking the extension. Of course that might lead to him being forced out anyway, but it his best - and only - chance.
It won't be him resigning it will be the government.
Trying to continue after sending an extension letter is completely pointless, he doesn't have the MPs to get anything through parliament so why allow the opposition parties the opportunity to leave him dangling?
It makes no sense when he can go out in a 'principled'* blaze of glory having offered the game playing remainers a chance to vote through a deal to avoid their supposed worst outcome.
Labour will be forced to send the surrender letter and with it set an election date.
It doesn't need repeating what the outcome will be for Corbyn...just as it would be for Johnson if he sent the letter.
Am I unusual in knowing my NI number off by heart?
Possibly, but would you know your NHS number?
You mean your CHI* - I don't know that, it's 90pc date of birth but I still have never felt the need or indeed needed to know it.
*Unless this is a Scotland only thing
A completely different health service, despite one erstwhile Tory Satrap for Scotland maliciously changing its name from Scottish Health Service to National Health Service to maximise confusion (which has evidently worked).
Simply put it's them and us. I'm sure many Republicans in their hearts don't agree with everything Trump says or does but they still like him a lot better than the likes of Pelosi or Sanders.
The left are no better. Look at the way, Labour brushed away the Bercow bullying allegations as we was on their side over Brexit. Look at the way Momentum operate.
@Richard_Nabavi : I've been beating an occasional drum on another potential pitfall, namely the Labour party rulebook.
This is me fairly clear.
So my reading is that Corbyn cannot just let someone else be PM if Labour joins the government. His only way is resigning, and then Watson would automatically assume the primacy for PM candidate.
To my mind Labour's conference shenanigans were less some vague panic at future succession, but a much more immediate need to be able to put forward somebody else in the event Corbyn could not command confidence after a VoNC, and wanted to push a lefty successor as the alternative within what was allowed by Labour's rules.
On the other hand Corbyn has said he would do everything necessary to prevent No Deal, his clarity on that must surely include considering compromise candidates if he is rejected, else he might choke on those words. This applies even though Watson is still the heir apparent.
One irony. If Labour were in government, there is much more flexibility as to who would assume if Corbyn resigned. It is chicken and egg though: Corbyn would have to become PM to gain such freedom of succession.
I think the way round might be this. Labour stay in opposition, performing a DUP type role, but release the whip temporarily from some of the preferred succession and unthreatening grandees. A few should suffice. If they can get a Long Bailey or some such in as PM candidate, fantastic.
This leaves some pretty bare looking government benches, Boris as Loto and Corbyn and Labour squeezed up tight to the Tories on the current SNP benches. What a lovefest that would be
As a final aside, I had a bit of a hunt round for what the Labour rules and approach were in 1940 when Attlee joined the national government. I didn't find good much, other than that the bringing down of Chamberlain seems to have been well timed around a Labour spring conference and Attlee went off to see the NEC in Bournemouth before Labour joined the government. Of course 'just get NEC approval for a rulebook change / exemption' seems a natural short-circuit to all the spiel above but, given what happened at conference, I'm not sure that is a good assumption.
Hmmm.
My understanding is that if there is a Labour government the PM has to be the Labour leader. But is a GNU a Labour government? It's hard to see how that can be the case. If Corbyn accepts someone else as leader of a GNU, then in practical terms nothing is going to happen - it's up to the Queen to choose. The real killer for a GNU is that Corbyn will not accept one. What he wants is a Labour minority government. And there is no way MPs will vote for that.
The specific wording introducing the relevant rules is 'When the party is in government...', and is not caveated. Would the normal meaning of 'in government' cover coalition or not?
The choice Johnson will face, in the absence of a deal, is to seek an extension or resign. If he does not seek it he will be forced to do so by a court order. His whole career has been dedicated to making himself PM - the idea that he might resign on a matter of principle is very hard to credit since there is no evidence that he has any principles whatsoever. He will wish to continue as PM and the only way that will be possible is by seeking the extension. Of course that might lead to him being forced out anyway, but it his best - and only - chance.
It won't be him resigning it will be the government.
Trying to continue after sending an extension letter is completely pointless, he doesn't have the MPs to get anything through parliament so why allow the opposition parties the opportunity to leave him dangling?
It makes no sense when he can go out in a 'principled'* blaze of glory having offered the game playing remainers a chance to vote through a deal to avoid their supposed worst outcome.
Labour will be forced to send the surrender letter and with it set an election date.
It doesn't need repeating what the outcome will be for Corbyn...just as it would be for Johnson if he sent the letter.
If Boris and the Government had the ability to resign don't you think they would have already done so.
Then any negotiation and any extension wouldn't be their responsibility.
As I keep on saying while everyone says Boris and the Government can resign I don't believe they can unless a replacement is in place.
Simply put it's them and us. I'm sure many Republicans in their hearts don't agree with everything Trump says or does but they still like him a lot better than the likes of Pelosi or Sanders.
The left are no better. Look at the way, Labour brushed away the Bercow bullying allegations as we was on their side over Brexit. Look at the way Momentum operate.
Momentum have the support of what, 5-10% of the country? Most of Labour voters dont like them and Labour are polling low twenties.
I think that is quite different to the embracing of Trump and Johnson by the mainstream right in the US and here.
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
I think they are right not to VONC the Government. What they should try instead is reducing the PMs pay! To zero if that is feasable! That will really be a powerful message!
Whatever the tactics and the pros and cons for each party, this is all pushing things later and later in the year - are we really going to have a GE in December?
If they wait till after Thurs 31 Oct and then go VONC early the next week it's 7 weeks from Thurs 7 Nov which is Boxing Day!
OK, if Con party agrees and go 2/3 route, 5 weeks is Thurs 12 Dec. Surely still too late in year / near Christmas.
I guess if Boris does get extension on Sat 19 Oct then process could all start on Mon 21 Oct which brings each of above dates forward two weeks.
The choice Johnson will face, in the absence of a deal, is to seek an extension or resign. If he does not seek it he will be forced to do so by a court order. His whole career has been dedicated to making himself PM - the idea that he might resign on a matter of principle is very hard to credit since there is no evidence that he has any principles whatsoever. He will wish to continue as PM and the only way that will be possible is by seeking the extension. Of course that might lead to him being forced out anyway, but it his best - and only - chance.
It won't be him resigning it will be the government.
Trying to continue after sending an extension letter is completely pointless, he doesn't have the MPs to get anything through parliament so why allow the opposition parties the opportunity to leave him dangling?
It makes no sense when he can go out in a 'principled'* blaze of glory having offered the game playing remainers a chance to vote through a deal to avoid their supposed worst outcome.
Labour will be forced to send the surrender letter and with it set an election date.
It doesn't need repeating what the outcome will be for Corbyn...just as it would be for Johnson if he sent the letter.
One of the many bizarre side effects of Brexit is that we have now arrived at a position in which many believe that the best way for the government to achieve its aim is for it to resign and leave office. I cannot think of any historical example of such a tactic being successful - maybe someone else can come up with one?
If Johnson is forced to seek the extension, as I think he will be, a VONC may not be possible as I think the rebel Tories would not back it in those circumstances. Having obtained the extension some of them at least would be seeking to regain the Tory whip, and Johnson would then be in a very weak position and would have to give in to pressure from Tory moderate MP and readmit them.
This is broadly how I hope things go.
The thing to be avoided at all costs is the People v Parliament election where Johnson gets to eat the cake of being the tough guy with impeccable Hard Leave credentials and yet retains on his plate the slice of cake called 'willing and able to do a Deal'.
If Boris and the Government had the ability to resign don't you think they would have already done so.
Then any negotiation and any extension wouldn't be their responsibility.
As I keep on saying while everyone says Boris and the Government can resign I don't believe they can unless a replacement is in place.
Working until the bitter end to deliver a last-chance deal, and having the remainers reject it, is absolutely the right thing to do politically.
And the government can resign. Boris will recommend Corbyn to HMQ and, assuming JC doesn't refuse, he will be given the mandate to send the extension request and then call a GE.
The choice Johnson will face, in the absence of a deal, is to seek an extension or resign. If he does not seek it he will be forced to do so by a court order. His whole career has been dedicated to making himself PM - the idea that he might resign on a matter of principle is very hard to credit since there is no evidence that he has any principles whatsoever. He will wish to continue as PM and the only way that will be possible is by seeking the extension. Of course that might lead to him being forced out anyway, but it his best - and only - chance.
It won't be him resigning it will be the government.
Trying to continue after sending an extension letter is completely pointless, he doesn't have the MPs to get anything through parliament so why allow the opposition parties the opportunity to leave him dangling?
It makes no sense when he can go out in a 'principled'* blaze of glory having offered the game playing remainers a chance to vote through a deal to avoid their supposed worst outcome.
Labour will be forced to send the surrender letter and with it set an election date.
It doesn't need repeating what the outcome will be for Corbyn...just as it would be for Johnson if he sent the letter.
One of the many bizarre side effects of Brexit is that we have now arrived at a position in which many believe that the best way for the government to achieve its aim is for it to resign and leave office. I cannot think of any historical example of such a tactic being successful - maybe someone else can come up with one?
Not an expert on their politics but think the Greek and Italian govts have threatened this in the last few years?
I also know my NI number off by heart. It's one of my party tricks.
A friend of mine use to work for the NHS back in the day when the NHS numbers were the old alpha-numeric format that was directly descended from the WW2 ID card numbers. Her party piece was that if you told her your NHS number she could make a pretty good guess as to where and when you were born.
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
And it's not a commitment - like Labour's 32-hour week over 10 years, it's something they will "aim to" do. I'm not especially cynical about politics, but there is wriggle room there.
I have long taken the view that as society develops it is only logical that it becomes more social democratic. From my perspective it seems to be only that technology has not yet evolved to a level sustainable level to cut working hours and also some parts of the world will always be able to do things cheaper by human activity. Personally i have been on a political journey from a Tory to a progressive, even as a Tory i was always worried about human impacts. The Tories now are so repulsive i am embarassed i ever supported them!
If Boris and the Government had the ability to resign don't you think they would have already done so.
Then any negotiation and any extension wouldn't be their responsibility.
As I keep on saying while everyone says Boris and the Government can resign I don't believe they can unless a replacement is in place.
Working until the bitter end to deliver a last-chance deal, and having the remainers reject it, is absolutely the right thing to do politically.
And the government can resign. Boris will recommend Corbyn to HMQ and, assuming JC doesn't refuse, he will be given the mandate to send the extension request and then call a GE.
He will get no more than that.
Why would JC accept that poisoned chalice when it's in Labour's interest to not touch said chalice?
Whatever the tactics and the pros and cons for each party, this is all pushing things later and later in the year - are we really going to have a GE in December?
If they wait till after Thurs 31 Oct and then go VONC early the next week it's 7 weeks from Thurs 7 Nov which is Boxing Day!
OK, if Con party agrees and go 2/3 route, 5 weeks is Thurs 12 Dec. Surely still too late in year / near Christmas.
I guess if Boris does get extension on Sat 19 Oct then process could all start on Mon 21 Oct which brings each of above dates forward two weeks.
If Johnson gets an extension on 19 October I think the last thing he will want to do is go into an immediate general election. Farage will be in full betrayal mode and all of Johnson's "do or die" rhetoric will be thrown back at him.
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
And it's not a commitment - like Labour's 32-hour week over 10 years, it's something they will "aim to" do. I'm not especially cynical about politics, but there is wriggle room there.
I have long taken the view that as society develops it is only logical that it becomes more social democratic. From my perspective it seems to be only that technology has not yet evolved to a level sustainable level to cut working hours and also some parts of the world will always be able to do things cheaper by human activity. Personally i have been on a political journey from a Tory to a progressive, even as a Tory i was always worried about human impacts. The Tories now are so repulsive i am embarassed i ever supported them!
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
And it's not a commitment - like Labour's 32-hour week over 10 years, it's something they will "aim to" do. I'm not especially cynical about politics, but there is wriggle room there.
I have long taken the view that as society develops it is only logical that it becomes more social democratic. From my perspective it seems to be only that technology has not yet evolved to a level sustainable level to cut working hours and also some parts of the world will always be able to do things cheaper by human activity. Personally i have been on a political journey from a Tory to a progressive, even as a Tory i was always worried about human impacts. The Tories now are so repulsive i am embarassed i ever supported them!
Parties change very rapidly. No reason to be ashamed of supporting them pre 2019 nor supporting Labour pre 2015. No reason not to consider either of them again when they return to their senses.
I also know my NI number off by heart. It's one of my party tricks.
A friend of mine use to work for the NHS back in the day when the NHS numbers were the old alpha-numeric format that was directly descended from the WW2 ID card numbers. Her party piece was that if you told her your NHS number she could make a pretty good guess as to where and when you were born.
The Bulgarian ID card number will give you everything you need to know without second guessing unless a child is born in the late evening in Sofia when the regional code may be different as the Sofia codes for that day are used up.
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
But if they are not nonsense, they have lost time to do something about them......
So they will have fallen for the trap.
I’ll take what the experts say who agree even if Bozo refuses to obey the law the courts will take quick action to make sure he does .
His threats at the judiciary won’t go down well.
Good to see you prejudging what the courts will decide. They are truly no longer independent if you can rely upon them to do your bidding.....
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
And it's not a commitment - like Labour's 32-hour week over 10 years, it's something they will "aim to" do. I'm not especially cynical about politics, but there is wriggle room there.
I have long taken the view that as society develops it is only logical that it becomes more social democratic. From my perspective it seems to be only that technology has not yet evolved to a level sustainable level to cut working hours and also some parts of the world will always be able to do things cheaper by human activity. Personally i have been on a political journey from a Tory to a progressive, even as a Tory i was always worried about human impacts. The Tories now are so repulsive i am embarassed i ever supported them!
TEN POUNDS FIFTY!
So if Corbyn offered you TWELVE POUNDS...you'd take it?...
@Richard_Nabavi : I've been beating an occasional drum on another potential pitfall, namely the Labour party rulebook.
This is me fairly clear.
So my reading is that Corbyn cannot just let someone else be PM if Labour joins the government. His only way is resigning, and then Watson would automatically assume the primacy for PM candidate.
To my mind Labour's conference shenanigans were less some vague panic at future succession, but a much more immediate need to be able to put forward somebody else in the event Corbyn could not command confidence after a VoNC, and wanted to push a lefty successor as the alternative within what was allowed by Labour's rules.
On the other hand Corbyn has said he would do everything necessary to prevent No Deal, his clarity on that must surely include considering compromise candidates if he is rejected, else he might choke on those words. This applies even though Watson is still the heir apparent.
One irony. If Labour were in government, there is much more flexibility as to who would assume if Corbyn resigned. It is chicken and egg though: Corbyn would have to become PM to gain such freedom of succession.
I think the way round might be this. Labour stay in opposition, performing a DUP type role, but release the whip temporarily from some of the preferred succession and unthreatening grandees. A few should suffice. If they can get a Long Bailey or some such in as PM candidate, fantastic.
This leaves some pretty bare looking government benches, Boris as Loto and Corbyn and Labour squeezed up tight to the Tories on the current SNP benches. What a lovefest that would be
As a finalto all the spiel above but, given what happened at conference, I'm not sure that is a good assumption.
Hmmm.
My understanding is that if there is a Labour government the PM has to be the Labour leader. But is a GNU a Labour government? It's hard to see how that can be the case. If Corbyn accepts someone else as leader of a GNU, then in practical terms nothing is going to happen - it's up to the Queen to choose. The real killer for a GNU is that Corbyn will not accept one. What he wants is a Labour minority government. And there is no way MPs will vote for that.
The specific wording introducing the relevant rules is 'When the party is in government...', and is not caveated. Would the normal meaning of 'in government' cover coalition or not?
I'd say it is loosely enough worded for it not to be a problem if the leadership is on board.
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
And it's not a commitment - like Labour's 32-hour week over 10 years, it's something they will "aim to" do. I'm not especially cynical about politics, but there is wriggle room there.
I have long taken the view that as society develops it is only logical that it becomes more social democratic. From my perspective it seems to be only that technology has not yet evolved to a level sustainable level to cut working hours and also some parts of the world will always be able to do things cheaper by human activity. Personally i have been on a political journey from a Tory to a progressive, even as a Tory i was always worried about human impacts. The Tories now are so repulsive i am embarassed i ever supported them!
TEN POUNDS FIFTY!
Not sure of your meaning! It might be agreement or it might mean something about shillings in the negative! Anyway I cannot believe where we are politically. Madness!
Why on earth are we setting this 5 years in advance? What if there is deflation in that time? Or 10% inflation? Its not exactly the most predictable economy ever at the moment.
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
And it's not a commitment - like Labour's 32-hour week over 10 years, it's something they will "aim to" do. I'm not especially cynical about politics, but there is wriggle room there.
I have long taken the view that as society develops it is only logical that it becomes more social democratic. From my perspective it seems to be only that technology has not yet evolved to a level sustainable level to cut working hours and also some parts of the world will always be able to do things cheaper by human activity. Personally i have been on a political journey from a Tory to a progressive, even as a Tory i was always worried about human impacts. The Tories now are so repulsive i am embarassed i ever supported them!
TEN POUNDS FIFTY!
So if Corbyn offered you TWELVE POUNDS...you'd take it?...
Very Good - From a personal perspective, being signed off and that, and have never earned 10 fifty in my life- and since they got there first, I'm taking the Tory offer.
Thankfully the opposition parties have seen sense and not fallen for a trap .
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
But if they are not nonsense, they have lost time to do something about them......
So they will have fallen for the trap.
I’ll take what the experts say who agree even if Bozo refuses to obey the law the courts will take quick action to make sure he does .
His threats at the judiciary won’t go down well.
Good to see you prejudging what the courts will decide. They are truly no longer independent if you can rely upon them to do your bidding.....
Good point. If I drive at 130mph on the A1(M) and get caught I have no idea what will happen.
Comments
It is meaningless, apart from confirming the country is being managed for opinion poll outcomes, not economic (or other socially good) outcomes.
Then they jump on the Eurostar but someone puts the wrong sort of leave(r)s on the line so they miss the deadline.
Oops, sorry.
(Equally, I think you write a letter saying exactly what the UK government plans to do with the extension. No more negotiations. Just preparation for no deal).
7. UK economy re-runs the Great Depression
8. Scotland secedes and NI joins the RoI, both in the EU.
9. England (and Wales, which may also have seceded by now) rejoins the EU.
10. All the territories of the former UK end up in the Euro and Schengen.
FTFY.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/08/25/clarkes-tanda-what-about-all-the-other-positions/
It's hard for younger people to compete for jobs with older people who tend to have more experience. The lower wage is one way to do is and earn valuable experience.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience but the other costs less due to young age, it can go either way.
If a business has two otherwise identical candidates for a role and one has five years' experience and the costs are identical, who wouldn't go for the more experienced candidate?
This contrasts massively to the second May ministry.
IN the summer of 1914 the LVF was armed and ready, and there were equivalents on the other side. They formed the basis of the 16th and 36th Divisions in WW1.
That is interesting and IMO exactly right. Trump is a powerful abuser who is doing grave damage to both his opponents and his supporters. Opponents by direct victimization. Supporters, indirectly, by causing them to debase themselves defending him.
I'm not arguing whether it's right or not, but it is a clear bright line test.
Either:
1. They don't believe no-deal would actually be anywhere near as bad as made out.
Or,
2. They are putting political game playing above the future of the country and will be sanctioned appropriately at the ballot box...when they are finally dragged kicking and screaming to it.
If I see my doctor I certainly would not, regardless of the issue, agree to them sharing it with a credit reference agency. What possible benefit is there to me from doing this? And who else might Experian share it with?
To have tried to VONC Bozo now would have allowed him to say they ruined negotiations as allegedly concrete proposals will be put forward early next week .
Secondly the 21 Tory rebels are reluctant to pull the plug, some want the whip back and others want to be seen to giving him a chance to secure a deal.
The off record briefings about a loophole in the Benn Act were a desperate attempt to frighten the opposition into an early VONC.
The so called loopholes are just more nonsense from Cummings .
I've voting Tory.
Hello everyone, my name is JBriskinindref2 - and I am now officially a PB Tory
NI cards were phased out in 2011 or 2012. You now just get a letter with your NI number on it.
And, by the way, an indictment of two party politics. In a polity with multidimensional politics, where there are multiple parties with overlapping positions, such extremes are easily sidelined.
Today's Republican party is a nonsense hybrid of libertarians, ethnochauvinists, protectionists and social conservatives. They do not belong in the same party. The fact that so few of them have left is because the political model is two tribes on opposite sides of a chasm, flinging shit at one another. Your best bet is to stay on one side. Anybody who strays into the middle gets pelted from front and back.
That's not how you run a country. Yet that's what we do, too.
Continuing on the existing terms is utter madness - it is those terms that have generated Euroscepticism and generally doing the same thing and expecting a different result is frowned upon.
We would drift ever further from the core as it became a closer Union with one currency, adding fuel to strengthen the pre existing grumbles about EU.
Revoke is absolutely stupidly dumb.
Doesn't really answer your question.
So they will have fallen for the trap.
I worked in offices for ten years and only once got close to that in my last proper job (I know, inflation etc.)
I'm voting Tory. (I know I'm not employable anymore more ; but for insurance purposes)
Johnson has enormous potential to collapse under the weight of his own contradictions.
Let's give him every possible chance to do that.
My understanding is that if there is a Labour government the PM has to be the Labour leader. But is a GNU a Labour government? It's hard to see how that can be the case. If Corbyn accepts someone else as leader of a GNU, then in practical terms nothing is going to happen - it's up to the Queen to choose. The real killer for a GNU is that Corbyn will not accept one. What he wants is a Labour minority government. And there is no way MPs will vote for that.
The other thing that strikes me is that, if there really were serious discussions going on about the make-up of such a government, there would surely have been leaks by now, given the number of players who would have to be involved.
It is pretty clear that Cummings is releasing the GE manifesto domestic policy plans and tbf they will hoover up huge numbers of undecideds for whom Brexit isn't a priority.
1. Focusing on the NHS
2. Increase in the National Living Wage
There will be others of course designed to cut Labour off at the knees but they do need to be careful to keep within realistic costings otherwise their promises could be viewed as a fairytale like Labour's.
His threats at the judiciary won’t go down well.
*Unless this is a Scotland only thing
Which does have the concomitant issue that if people get stuck in the unemployment groove early on for a prolonged period, they usually find it rather hard to get out of said groove.
Trying to continue after sending an extension letter is completely pointless, he doesn't have the MPs to get anything through parliament so why allow the opposition parties the opportunity to leave him dangling?
It makes no sense when he can go out in a 'principled'* blaze of glory having offered the game playing remainers a chance to vote through a deal to avoid their supposed worst outcome.
Labour will be forced to send the surrender letter and with it set an election date.
It doesn't need repeating what the outcome will be for Corbyn...just as it would be for Johnson if he sent the letter.
Simply put it's them and us. I'm sure many Republicans in their hearts don't agree with everything Trump says or does but they still like him a lot better than the likes of Pelosi or Sanders.
The left are no better. Look at the way, Labour brushed away the Bercow bullying allegations as we was on their side over Brexit. Look at the way Momentum operate.
Then any negotiation and any extension wouldn't be their responsibility.
As I keep on saying while everyone says Boris and the Government can resign I don't believe they can unless a replacement is in place.
I think that is quite different to the embracing of Trump and Johnson by the mainstream right in the US and here.
If they wait till after Thurs 31 Oct and then go VONC early the next week it's 7 weeks from Thurs 7 Nov which is Boxing Day!
OK, if Con party agrees and go 2/3 route, 5 weeks is Thurs 12 Dec. Surely still too late in year / near Christmas.
I guess if Boris does get extension on Sat 19 Oct then process could all start on Mon 21 Oct which brings each of above dates forward two weeks.
https://twitter.com/edballs/status/1178681702589308928
The thing to be avoided at all costs is the People v Parliament election where Johnson gets to eat the cake of being the tough guy with impeccable Hard Leave credentials and yet retains on his plate the slice of cake called 'willing and able to do a Deal'.
Because IMO he wins that election.
And the government can resign. Boris will recommend Corbyn to HMQ and, assuming JC doesn't refuse, he will be given the mandate to send the extension request and then call a GE.
He will get no more than that.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1178703550026616839