Do you have the sense that blame would fall on Johnson?
If the opposition were looking for an election AHEAD of a vote on the WAB (LD's+SNP) then it will be difficult to claim an attempt to get the treaty agreed with the EU through parliament is in someway blocking our exit.
Everybody is aware an election favours the Tories so for them to sacrifice that advantage to try and get the treaty agreed is a selfless act in a parliament dominated by an opposition whose sole purpose has been to work against the will of the people since 2016.
People vs Parliament.
I think what leavers forget in their analyis is its not whether most leavers will blame Johnson. Of course they wont, most are and will continue to be sympathetic to the people vs parliament meme.
The question is can Farage use the die or ditch to squeeze the Tory vote by 3% or more, which would make a huge difference to the make up of seats in the HoC. That seems perfectly plausible, especially given a lot of the Tory vote is now people who have rarely actually voted for them in the past.
Precisely. Even 3%, in the wrong places, will cost the government dearly.
And there's no reason to do it other than to cost the Tories, who at this point are the only ones who will seek to Brexit, so it would be self defeating, but Farage does not care, and how many will he take with him?
Farage is clear the deal is not Brexit. Nothing rules out Farages Brexit ever happening more than someone else delivering a different flavour Brexit before him. Not to mention the angle that has some truth in it, that without membership of the EU, Farages status and importance drops significantly.
I thought Jo Swinson did very well on Marr. One of her best interviews .
TBF she has a lower bar than the Limbo dancing World Champion
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
Why would libdems vote tactically for Labour when their supporters keep calling them Tories?
Because it will be in their own interests in many areas, if they care about stopping Brexit. It might be through gritted teeth, and the accusation they are mini Tories or the assumption it is their job to prop up Labour rather than their own party, will no doubt rankle them. But while there's no shame in having candidates in Lab/Tory marginals, in case something incredible happens, their voters will have to make a choice knowing Brexit will be stopped if they vote for Labour in those seats. Not all will be tactical. But lots will, never mind the lack of formal cooperation.
The most obvious reason for calling them Tories is to deter Labour voters from switching to them and to persuade LD voters to switch to Labour.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
In which case to be consistent there should be no South Africa team - rather separate teams from Transval - Orange Free State - Natal - Eastern Cape etc.
I thought Jo Swinson did very well on Marr. One of her best interviews .
TBF she has a lower bar than the Limbo dancing World Champion
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
Why would libdems vote tactically for Labour when their supporters keep calling them Tories?
Because it will be in their own interests in many areas, if they care about stopping Brexit. It might be through gritted teeth, and the accusation they are mini Tories or the assumption it is their job to prop up Labour rather than their own party, will no doubt rankle them. But while there's no shame in having candidates in Lab/Tory marginals, in case something incredible happens, their voters will have to make a choice knowing Brexit will be stopped if they vote for Labour in those seats. Not all will be tactical. But lots will, never mind the lack of formal cooperation.
The most obvious reason for calling them Tories is to deter Labour voters from switching to them and to persuade LD voters to switch to Labour.
Does it ever work, or do they just assume the insulter is very tribal and a bully?
Brexit date on Betfair rules say: For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. In the case of the two year time period in Article 50 being extended, via a unanimous vote by all EU Member States, we will settle this market on the extended date. This market will settle when the UK leaves the EU even if parts of the UK (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland) leave the UK or receive special status within the EU.
How is this to be interpreted? If we crash out on 31 Oct 19 then that is a 'date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply', so no problem.
If negotiating period is extended to 31 Jan 2020, then UK and all necessary EU bodies finish ratifying a deal on some date in December with Withdrawal bill saying treaties apply til 31 Dec 2020 and 72 Act has effect til 31/12/20 then what happens?
It seems possible to me to say any one of 3 things: 1. Negotiating period brought to a close early in Dec 19 and this is first to happen so Dec 19. 2. Last negotiated extension is 31 Jan 20 and this is first of the events to happen so Jan 20. 3. Nothing happens on 31 Jan 20 so it is a non event not an event or that it is the first date but it is not a 'date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply' (also note the "might occur' so not necessarily will occur). So winning date is Dec 2020.
Betfair seem to be refusing to answer any differently than quoting the rules which doesn't answer my query. Which is correct or how do I find out?
Farage is clear the deal is not Brexit. Nothing rules out Farages Brexit ever happening more than someone else delivering a different flavour Brexit before him. Not to mention the angle that has some truth in it, that without membership of the EU, Farages status and importance drops significantly.
It is in his interests to stop the Tories.
It shouldn't be too difficult for the Tories to blunt TBP in seats where they may hold the balance.
If the opposition are calling this deal a much harder version of Brexit than May's deal it should assuage those leavers enough for them to realise it is better to get 'a Brexit' than the 'purest Brexit'. Voters aren't dumb, they know the latter is not realistic.
In the hard leave seats where the Tories are nowhere then don't get involved with the campaign and let TBP take on Labour in the hope there might be a shock or two.
I thought Jo Swinson did very well on Marr. One of her best interviews .
TBF she has a lower bar than the Limbo dancing World Champion
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
Why would libdems vote tactically for Labour when their supporters keep calling them Tories?
Because it will be in their own interests in many areas, if they care about stopping Brexit. It might be through gritted teeth, and the accusation they are mini Tories or the assumption it is their job to prop up Labour rather than their own party, will no doubt rankle them. But while there's no shame in having candidates in Lab/Tory marginals, in case something incredible happens, their voters will have to make a choice knowing Brexit will be stopped if they vote for Labour in those seats. Not all will be tactical. But lots will, never mind the lack of formal cooperation.
The most obvious reason for calling them Tories is to deter Labour voters from switching to them and to persuade LD voters to switch to Labour.
Does it ever work, or do they just assume the insulter is very tribal and a bully?
I am sure the Tory Helper label will help revive memories of the Coalition, and cause many to hesitate before switching to the LDs. It will be a case of 'There they go again!' and 'They are not to be trusted!'
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
FAA are going to be in real trouble over the 737 Max.
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
I suspect the Europeans, CAA,Chinese and Australians will be doing the FAA’s job.
Yes. Usually authorities worldwide trust each other's certifications, but the FAA have lost credibility now. There will be an international re-certification committee for the 737 Max, working independently of the FAA.
I saw one airline had delayed putting the max back into its schedule until at least February next year - and according to the industry news I read they have negotiated compensation from Boeing for the extended period.
The plot thickens: No10 now reveals it wants to keep a one line bill option for an election on the table, with or without WAB passing, if FTPA motion fails on Monday. Not what Morgan and Cleverly were saying on broadcast this morning, so appears Cabinet v No10 split remains.
Brexit date on Betfair rules say: For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. In the case of the two year time period in Article 50 being extended, via a unanimous vote by all EU Member States, we will settle this market on the extended date. This market will settle when the UK leaves the EU even if parts of the UK (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland) leave the UK or receive special status within the EU.
How is this to be interpreted? If we crash out on 31 Oct 19 then that is a 'date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply', so no problem.
If negotiating period is extended to 31 Jan 2020, then UK and all necessary EU bodies finish ratifying a deal on some date in December with Withdrawal bill saying treaties apply til 31 Dec 2020 and 72 Act has effect til 31/12/20 then what happens?
It seems possible to me to say any one of 3 things: 1. Negotiating period brought to a close early in Dec 19 and this is first to happen so Dec 19. 2. Last negotiated extension is 31 Jan 20 and this is first of the events to happen so Jan 20. 3. Nothing happens on 31 Jan 20 so it is a non event not an event or that it is the first date but it is not a 'date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply' (also note the "might occur' so not necessarily will occur). So winning date is Dec 2020.
Betfair seem to be refusing to answer any differently than quoting the rules which doesn't answer my query. Which is correct or how do I find out?
Given the decision making and communication on the May exit date settlements I would be wary of any clarifications beyond caveat emptor.
Welsh fans, do not be hard on your team, what would you prefer, losing a semi final to South Africa, or losing the final to England?
The players took the best option.
[Right that's enough trolling.]
I think that if Wales had reached the final it would has been the first global team competition final contested between two different nations of the UK.
It would not have been an International though because neither team represents a country.
Oh not this again...
I accept that neither team represents a sovereign state. But to suggests that neither England nor Wales are constituent countries of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom is just needlessly inflammatory. Even the archaic habit of styling Wales a “principality” does not preclude it from being a country as well. Generally recognised surviving sovereign principalities are Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Andorra - which are also countries - the distinguishing feature they have that Wales lacks is only in that they are also sovereign states.
It seems reasonably accurate to describe Wales as a Principality of the Kingdom of Great Britain (and before that of England). Not that it makes the blind bit of difference (except to explain why it isn't featured on the Union flag).
You know it's called that because it's sponsored by a company called "Principality", yes? And that said company was founded in 1860 -- older even than the modern Eisteddfod! Yes, "archaic" is probably close to the truth.
I thought Jo Swinson did very well on Marr. One of her best interviews .
TBF she has a lower bar than the Limbo dancing World Champion
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
Why would libdems vote tactically for Labour when their supporters keep calling them Tories?
Because it will be in their own interests in many areas, if they care about stopping Brexit. It might be through gritted teeth, and the accusation they are mini Tories or the assumption it is their job to prop up Labour rather than their own party, will no doubt rankle them. But while there's no shame in having candidates in Lab/Tory marginals, in case something incredible happens, their voters will have to make a choice knowing Brexit will be stopped if they vote for Labour in those seats. Not all will be tactical. But lots will, never mind the lack of formal cooperation.
The most obvious reason for calling them Tories is to deter Labour voters from switching to them and to persuade LD voters to switch to Labour.
Does it ever work, or do they just assume the insulter is very tribal and a bully?
I am sure the Tory Helper label will help revive memories of the Coalition, and cause many to hesitate before switching to the LDs. It will be a case of 'There they go again!' and 'They are not to be trusted!'
The lib dems are offering a clear message.
Revoke A50 and that will see many labour remain supporters back them.
Honestly I think things are moving so fast that the 'die in the ditch' promise is already gone and forgotten.
It seems what has happened is there has been concerted pressure from within the government to at least be seen to give the deal a go.
Far better to go in to the inevitable GE looking the more reasonable side battling against the forces of anti-democracy*.
*Hyperbole of course but no doubt a flavour of what a People vs Parliament election will look like.
Not forgotten but rather not being dwelt upon.
However, if this drags on into 2020, the question, "Hang on, this guy swore on his mother's grave that we would be out on 31 Oct LAST YEAR, that we could bank on it and bank on HIM" - this question will start to occur to more than a handful of people.
I feel the damage from it went up in smoke when Boris came back with a deal. "We're not out and have no plan for doing so" is much more damaging than "Boris got a deal against the odds and still parliamemt is blocking it".
I still think that we might wake up on 1/11 to find out we’ve left, no deal and this is all play acting to distract people from hunting down the Cummins loophole
I pointed out to @isam a few days ago the large odds against that. I put some money on it as an insurance bet (ie it's not meant to be won) but given the large odds and short time I need to consider this closely.
So here's my question for the PB Brains Trust.
"...If (or when) the EU offers an extension this week, will Boris accept it? If he does not accept it, what will Parliament do?..."
The plot thickens: No10 now reveals it wants to keep a one line bill option for an election on the table, with or without WAB passing, if FTPA motion fails on Monday. Not what Morgan and Cleverly were saying on broadcast this morning, so appears Cabinet v No10 split remains.
As I said earlier this is poor from Cummings, unless of course Morgan and Cleverly deliberately muddied the waters.
It was clear last night when the LD/SNP plan was released that the Tories would need a unambiguous response.
The plot thickens: No10 now reveals it wants to keep a one line bill option for an election on the table, with or without WAB passing, if FTPA motion fails on Monday. Not what Morgan and Cleverly were saying on broadcast this morning, so appears Cabinet v No10 split remains.
No.10 have said many things and been proven liars mere hours later. Not spinning, lying. It's been relatively rare in politics to directly lie, but they have done it, so can be ignored.
I still think that we might wake up on 1/11 to find out we’ve left, no deal and this is all play acting to distract people from hunting down the Cummins loophole
I pointed out to @isam a few days ago the large odds against that. I put some money on it as an insurance bet (ie it's not meant to be won) but given the large odds and short time I need to consider this closely.
So here's my question for the PB Brains Trust.
"...If (or when) the EU offers an extension this week, will Boris accept it? If he does not accept it, what will Parliament do?..."
OK, two questions...
He will accept it. He has no choice and I think it suits him as well. Ideally for him it will be a short extension - 15 days or so - but even if it is to Jan 31st it still suits his plans.
"Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. The government has been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers for years. The new law makes it even harder for regulators to review Boeing’s work."
FAA are going to be in real trouble over the 737 Max.
They should have been given a wake-up call years ago with the 787 battery problems, but continued to go down the route of allowing Boeing to basically certify their own plane - at a time when the engineers who used to lead projects had mostly been replaced with MBAs and accountants.
A severe case of regulatory capture and lack of oversight.
I suspect the Europeans, CAA,Chinese and Australians will be doing the FAA’s job.
Yes. Usually authorities worldwide trust each other's certifications, but the FAA have lost credibility now. There will be an international re-certification committee for the 737 Max, working independently of the FAA.
I saw one airline had delayed putting the max back into its schedule until at least February next year - and according to the industry news I read they have negotiated compensation from Boeing for the extended period.
Yes it's still grounded everywhere, and likely to remain so for several more months. Boeing have been writing cheques and giving large discounts on future orders to keep airlines happy. They're close to having to stop the production lines as they're running out of space to store the planes that aren't allowed to fly away from the factory. It's estimated to have cost them between $5bn and $10bn so far, depending on who you ask.
I still think that we might wake up on 1/11 to find out we’ve left, no deal and this is all play acting to distract people from hunting down the Cummins loophole
I pointed out to @isam a few days ago the large odds against that. I put some money on it as an insurance bet (ie it's not meant to be won) but given the large odds and short time I need to consider this closely.
So here's my question for the PB Brains Trust.
"...If (or when) the EU offers an extension this week, will Boris accept it? If he does not accept it, what will Parliament do?..."
OK, two questions...
If he declined, I am sure the Supreme Court would be invited to intervene with an Injunction. Proceedings against Johnson personally would doubtless follow.
'LDs and SNP in hock with the Tories' is a theme which could well play out to Labour's advantage.
I doubt it. On the two key issues for each of those parties -- remaining in the EU and Scottish independence -- they are each diametrically opposed to the Conservatives.
And Labour will want to focus on policy in any such election (should it happen), which means talking about things other than the process of achieving an election. I think the party that will be happiest talking about the election itself will be the Conservatives. People only have so much attention for what politicians are saying. Labour won't waste those moments talking about how we arrived at having an election.
Although I am precisely the kind of “Remainiac” Carswell wants hounded out of the country, I don’t think it is reasonable to change the franchise all of a sudden.
I read it as Brexit blockers - in Parliament - not people who don’t like Brexit
People like you may campaign against it but it’s not the same as “blocking” it because (no offence) you don’t have that power
So you can campaign against it, but as soon as you start becoming effective you are a traitor and need to be chucked out of the country? Got it!
First in the context he was talking about hounding out of Parliament (ie losing their seats) rather than anything more dramatic
Once again - to try and block the implementation of the referendum is anti democratic. To campaign to rejoin is legitimate.
Though we will probably Brexit, I think it unlikely to be a grateful demos afterwards. This survey in the Observer is an interesting one. Even amongst Leavers there is a substantial minority who wished the whole business of the referendum had never happened.
Hannan's piece reads quite reasonable to me, except for the fact that Remainer May being in power dragged out the period of shock at Brexit until she was replaced. As soon as we had a Leaver as PM terms were indeed easily enough.
Er... When are you expecting Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands to follow us out of the EU?
The piece was written from the future which hasn't happened yet.
I'm not expecting anyone to immediately follow us out but I do think many are watching to see how Brexit goes. Right now, especially due to the self-inflicted dragging us down inflicted by Remainer May and Remainer MPs in Parliament Brexit looks like it might be more hassle than its worth but once we are out and Project Fear is shown to be the BS it always was then a smooth Brexit can fuel Euroscepticism in a good way. People should be in the EU because its what they want not because they're afraid there's no alternative.
I don't expect Ireland to follow us out, and probably not the Netherlands either - but I think Denmark and Sweden certainly might.
A new Hanseatic League always more economic sense than the EU...
How do you define a new Hanseatic League because the original one has no relevance to the current reality?
The Nordic, Baltic, German, Dutch and U.K. economies are much more aligned than the EU as a whole.
No - it’s been debunked multiple times. It’s a myth propagated by people who want to demonise Brexiteers as shady international financiers. I wonder what they are implying/assuming?
The tried & tested 'racists' formulation probably works here -
Most Leavers are not shady international financiers.
But almost all shady international financiers are Leavers.
No, they are not.
(There are plenty of international financiers who are pro-Remain. Like any other sector it is split)
Although I am precisely the kind of “Remainiac” Carswell wants hounded out of the country, I don’t think it is reasonable to change the franchise all of a sudden.
I read it as Brexit blockers - in Parliament - not people who don’t like Brexit
People like you may campaign against it but it’s not the same as “blocking” it because (no offence) you don’t have that power
So you can campaign against it, but as soon as you start becoming effective you are a traitor and need to be chucked out of the country? Got it!
First in the context he was talking about hounding out of Parliament (ie losing their seats) rather than anything more dramatic
Once again - to try and block the implementation of the referendum is anti democratic. To campaign to rejoin is legitimate.
In your opinion. It is not objective.
The people trying to block the implementation of the referendum were ELECTED as REPRESENTATIVES after the referendum.
Their actions are entirely consistent with democracy.
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
Is that wise?
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I was always taught to vote for the candidate not the party. Someone taking a principled stand against whips for what they believe in is something I applaud and think parliament would be a far better place if MPs did this more regularly. (I accept this is nowadays a minority view and many people even think they are solely backing a party manifesto not an MP, others are just looking for a cypher for reflecting voters thoughts).
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
How sweet
You still believe that Lib Dem’s do things out of principle. Is Father Christmas going to bring you something nice this year?
'LDs and SNP in hock with the Tories' is a theme which could well play out to Labour's advantage.
I doubt it. On the two key issues for each of those parties -- remaining in the EU and Scottish independence -- they are each diametrically opposed to the Conservatives.
And Labour will want to focus on policy in any such election (should it happen), which means talking about things other than the process of achieving an election. I think the party that will be happiest talking about the election itself will be the Conservatives. People only have so much attention for what politicians are saying. Labour won't waste those moments talking about how we arrived at having an election.
I disagree there. It helps Labour with the Tory Little Helper message - and in Scotland the SNP would risk reving memories of how the party opened the door for Thatcher in March 1979 by backing the VNOC in the Callaghan Government.Labour's association with the Better Together campaign seriously damaged its standing with anti- Tory voters in Scotland. What the SNP is proposing here might reverse some of that.
Although I am precisely the kind of “Remainiac” Carswell wants hounded out of the country, I don’t think it is reasonable to change the franchise all of a sudden.
I read it as Brexit blockers - in Parliament - not people who don’t like Brexit
People like you may campaign against it but it’s not the same as “blocking” it because (no offence) you don’t have that power
So you can campaign against it, but as soon as you start becoming effective you are a traitor and need to be chucked out of the country? Got it!
First in the context he was talking about hounding out of Parliament (ie losing their seats) rather than anything more dramatic
Once again - to try and block the implementation of the referendum is anti democratic. To campaign to rejoin is legitimate.
In your opinion. It is not objective.
The people trying to block the implementation of the referendum were ELECTED as REPRESENTATIVES after the referendum.
Their actions are entirely consistent with democracy.
And obviously Brexit is a stupid idea anyway.
You can't get through to them. They've been gaslit into a shrunken definition of "democracy" that literally excludes a political party standing for election on a policy platform they believe in. It's really quite tragic to watch.
Although I am precisely the kind of “Remainiac” Carswell wants hounded out of the country, I don’t think it is reasonable to change the franchise all of a sudden.
I read it as Brexit blockers - in Parliament - not people who don’t like Brexit
People like you may campaign against it but it’s not the same as “blocking” it because (no offence) you don’t have that power
So you can campaign against it, but as soon as you start becoming effective you are a traitor and need to be chucked out of the country? Got it!
First in the context he was talking about hounding out of Parliament (ie losing their seats) rather than anything more dramatic
Once again - to try and block the implementation of the referendum is anti democratic. To campaign to rejoin is legitimate.
Would you agree it is antidemocratic for Johnson to seek to dissolve the 2017 Parliament? Is 2017 outdated, but 2016 gospel, because the City money men got the result they wanted in 2016?
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
Is that wise?
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I was always taught to vote for the candidate not the party. Someone taking a principled stand against whips for what they believe in is something I applaud and think parliament would be a far better place if MPs did this more regularly. (I accept this is nowadays a minority view and many people even think they are solely backing a party manifesto not an MP, others are just looking for a cypher for reflecting voters thoughts).
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
How sweet
You still believe that Lib Dem’s do things out of principle. Is Father Christmas going to bring you something nice this year?
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
Is that wise?
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I was always taught to vote for the candidate not the party. Someone taking a principled stand against whips for what they believe in is something I applaud and think parliament would be a far better place if MPs did this more regularly. (I accept this is nowadays a minority view and many people even think they are solely backing a party manifesto not an MP, others are just looking for a cypher for reflecting voters thoughts).
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
How sweet
You still believe that Lib Dem’s do things out of principle. Is Father Christmas going to bring you something nice this year?
To be fair, Mr C, one would be unlikely to stand for Parliament as a LibDem expecting to be able to seriously feather one's nest. I doubt even their memoirs would sell that well.
'LDs and SNP in hock with the Tories' is a theme which could well play out to Labour's advantage.
I doubt it. On the two key issues for each of those parties -- remaining in the EU and Scottish independence -- they are each diametrically opposed to the Conservatives.
And Labour will want to focus on policy in any such election (should it happen), which means talking about things other than the process of achieving an election. I think the party that will be happiest talking about the election itself will be the Conservatives. People only have so much attention for what politicians are saying. Labour won't waste those moments talking about how we arrived at having an election.
I disagree there. It helps Labour with the Tory Little Helper message - and in Scotland the SNP would risk reving memories of how the party opened the door for Thatcher in March 1979 by backing the VNOC in the Callaghan Government.Labour's association with the Better Together campaign seriously damaged its standing with anti- Tory voters in Scotland. What the SNP is proposing here might reverse some of that.
I was living in Scotland during the last two elections, and I have to say I saw the "SNP helped Thatcher in!" line many times on social media, and I don't think it cut through at all. I mean, quite apart from the factual gaps in the narrative, and the fact that it didn't matter because the Conservatives were going to win a five months down the line anyway. Certainly, if you look at the actual 2015 and 2017 results, there's little evidence that whatever Labour was doing was very effective.
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
Is that wise?
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I was always taught to vote for the candidate not the party. Someone taking a principled stand against whips for what they believe in is something I applaud and think parliament would be a far better place if MPs did this more regularly. (I accept this is nowadays a minority view and many people even think they are solely backing a party manifesto not an MP, others are just looking for a cypher for reflecting voters thoughts).
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
How sweet
You still believe that Lib Dem’s do things out of principle. Is Father Christmas going to bring you something nice this year?
I see no evidence to suggest that any party is more or less principled than any other, even if we may think the principles they have are better or worse than anothers. The one thing we can say about most LD supporters is they are at least not just concerned with backing a winner who is very broadly aligned with their own views, since they know for a fact they aren't winning an election.
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
Is that wise?
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I was always taught to vote for the candidate not the party. Someone taking a principled stand against whips for what they believe in is something I applaud and think parliament would be a far better place if MPs did this more regularly. (I accept this is nowadays a minority view and many people even think they are solely backing a party manifesto not an MP, others are just looking for a cypher for reflecting voters thoughts).
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
How sweet
You still believe that Lib Dem’s do things out of principle. Is Father Christmas going to bring you something nice this year?
To be fair, Mr C, one would be unlikely to stand for Parliament as a LibDem expecting to be able to seriously feather one's nest. I doubt even their memoirs would sell that well.
Sadly that has usually been true, (assuming we are ignoring the orange booker abhoration).
Looks like the Goivernment might now support the LIb Dem/SNP bill if their own motion fails, Labour might finally get their election then! Everyone would be happy!.
Why are the Conseravtives turning down the Lib-Dem/SNP general election idea?
Makes zero sense.
What are they playing at?
Because LD/SNP are game playing, the one line Bill is fraught with danger and the are enjoying hanging labour out to dry
Danger? Are you implying that the Conservatives have a bigger goal than a general election that will the thwarted by this one line bill? I genuinely can't think what the danger is, unless you mean they don't actually want an election.
"As ever with Johnson, there are pragmatic reasons for finally letting Scotland go, which resonate with an almost frightening level of personal ambition. The departure for good of all Scottish MPs would make it almost impossible for Labour to entertain any prospect of power in the foreseeable future. This would leave him virtually unopposed as prime minister of England for a generation."
There seems to be a lot more support for Scottish than English independence on this site but both are equally justified.
I don't agree. Scottish independence is in part motivated by Scotland frequently getting governments it doesn't want. How often does that happen in England? That's not saying there's no case for it, just that one of the justifications is missing for England but present for Scotland.
Are you sure?
2005. More English voted for Conservatives than Labour but Labour got a majority. To be fair due to unequal seat and vote distributions Labour did win more English seats but still.
2010 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we got a coalition.
2015 England voted a landslide Tory majority. Instead we had a fragile Tory majority.
2017 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we had a Tory minority.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
Indeed just as Sweden is obliged to adopt the Euro.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
Indeed just as Sweden is obliged to adopt the Euro.
Sweden was a member before the Euro was introduced.
The plot thickens: No10 now reveals it wants to keep a one line bill option for an election on the table, with or without WAB passing, if FTPA motion fails on Monday. Not what Morgan and Cleverly were saying on broadcast this morning, so appears Cabinet v No10 split remains.
No, it appears Boris knows how to do spin, unlike May, i.e. lie through your teeth.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
Indeed just as Sweden is obliged to adopt the Euro.
Sweden was a member before the Euro was introduced.
But not when the Maastricht Treaty was introduced which is why they lack an opt-out. They are every bit as 'treaty obliged' to join the Euro as new nations are.
'LDs and SNP in hock with the Tories' is a theme which could well play out to Labour's advantage.
I doubt it. On the two key issues for each of those parties -- remaining in the EU and Scottish independence -- they are each diametrically opposed to the Conservatives.
And Labour will want to focus on policy in any such election (should it happen), which means talking about things other than the process of achieving an election. I think the party that will be happiest talking about the election itself will be the Conservatives. People only have so much attention for what politicians are saying. Labour won't waste those moments talking about how we arrived at having an election.
I disagree there. It helps Labour with the Tory Little Helper message - and in Scotland the SNP would risk reving memories of how the party opened the door for Thatcher in March 1979 by backing the VNOC in the Callaghan Government.Labour's association with the Better Together campaign seriously damaged its standing with anti- Tory voters in Scotland. What the SNP is proposing here might reverse some of that.
I was living in Scotland during the last two elections, and I have to say I saw the "SNP helped Thatcher in!" line many times on social media, and I don't think it cut through at all. I mean, quite apart from the factual gaps in the narrative, and the fact that it didn't matter because the Conservatives were going to win a five months down the line anyway. Certainly, if you look at the actual 2015 and 2017 results, there's little evidence that whatever Labour was doing was very effective.
Some of that is very speculative. The 1979 election was held on 3rd May , and I have always felt that Callaghan failed in his duty to his party by failing to delay Polling Day to 7th June. Labour would have benefiited from the elapse of a further 5 weeks on from the Winter of Discontent , and - just as important - the election would have coincided with first direct elections to the European Parliament. At that time Labour was the mpre Eurosceptical party and would have gained from the EEC being a central campaign theme. Had Callaghan done that, the Tory lead of 7% on 3rd May might well have been circa 3% on 7th June. Instead of a Tory majority of 44 we might well have ended up with a Hung Parliament.I have never forgiven him for failing to do that. Re - ' SNP helped Thatcher in' I suspect that what the SNP is currently proposing will add credence and force to that message. It provides Labour with campaign amunition which would not otherwise be there.
Hammond is being given a free run. The LDs are standing aside
Is that wise?
I suppose it maximises the probability of them getting a Remainer elected.
But on most other topics he’s a conservative.
I don’t know his seat - assume it is safe otherwise strategy above wouldn’t make sense?
I was always taught to vote for the candidate not the party. Someone taking a principled stand against whips for what they believe in is something I applaud and think parliament would be a far better place if MPs did this more regularly. (I accept this is nowadays a minority view and many people even think they are solely backing a party manifesto not an MP, others are just looking for a cypher for reflecting voters thoughts).
I think it is in this spirt that they should be giving him a free run. I would have encouraged the same on other issues such as the David Davis by election on civil liberties.
How sweet
You still believe that Lib Dem’s do things out of principle. Is Father Christmas going to bring you something nice this year?
"As ever with Johnson, there are pragmatic reasons for finally letting Scotland go, which resonate with an almost frightening level of personal ambition. The departure for good of all Scottish MPs would make it almost impossible for Labour to entertain any prospect of power in the foreseeable future. This would leave him virtually unopposed as prime minister of England for a generation."
There seems to be a lot more support for Scottish than English independence on this site but both are equally justified.
I don't agree. Scottish independence is in part motivated by Scotland frequently getting governments it doesn't want. How often does that happen in England? That's not saying there's no case for it, just that one of the justifications is missing for England but present for Scotland.
Are you sure?
2005. More English voted for Conservatives than Labour but Labour got a majority. To be fair due to unequal seat and vote distributions Labour did win more English seats but still.
2010 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we got a coalition.
2015 England voted a landslide Tory majority. Instead we had a fragile Tory majority.
2017 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we had a Tory minority.
I don't find these examples very compelling. 2005 is problem of FPTP. If England had been independent, the result wouldn't have been different. 2010 yes, partially, but you still got a Conservative-led government. 2015, you got the government you voted for, 2017 you got the Conservative-led government.
And that's the story with England. It usually gets (an approximation of) what it wants. It's very easy to come up with many examples in the past few elections -- in fact many elections going back decades -- where Scotland gets (an approximation of) the opposite of what it wants. Scotland is the moon as England is the Earth. The tidal of each of them affect the other but not equally; but whole direction of the moon's face is locked to where the Earth is.
I thought Jo Swinson did very well on Marr. One of her best interviews .
TBF she has a lower bar than the Limbo dancing World Champion
And why has Marr got 2 Tories on anyway
Why would libdems vote tactically for Labour when their supporters keep calling them Tories?
Because it will be in their own interests in many areas, if they care about stopping Brexit. It might be through gritted teeth, and the accusation they are mini Tories or the assumption it is their job to prop up Labour rather than their own party, will no doubt rankle them. But while there's no shame in having candidates in Lab/Tory marginals, in case something incredible happens, their voters will have to make a choice knowing Brexit will be stopped if they vote for Labour in those seats. Not all will be tactical. But lots will, never mind the lack of formal cooperation.
The most obvious reason for calling them Tories is to deter Labour voters from switching to them and to persuade LD voters to switch to Labour.
"As ever with Johnson, there are pragmatic reasons for finally letting Scotland go, which resonate with an almost frightening level of personal ambition. The departure for good of all Scottish MPs would make it almost impossible for Labour to entertain any prospect of power in the foreseeable future. This would leave him virtually unopposed as prime minister of England for a generation."
There seems to be a lot more support for Scottish than English independence on this site but both are equally justified.
I don't agree. Scottish independence is in part motivated by Scotland frequently getting governments it doesn't want. How often does that happen in England? That's not saying there's no case for it, just that one of the justifications is missing for England but present for Scotland.
Are you sure?
2005. More English voted for Conservatives than Labour but Labour got a majority. To be fair due to unequal seat and vote distributions Labour did win more English seats but still.
2010 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we got a coalition.
2015 England voted a landslide Tory majority. Instead we had a fragile Tory majority.
2017 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we had a Tory minority.
I don't find these examples very compelling. 2005 is problem of FPTP. If England had been independent, the result wouldn't have been different. 2010 yes, partially, but you still got a Conservative-led government. 2015, you got the government you voted for, 2017 you got the Conservative-led government.
And that's the story with England. It usually gets (an approximation of) what it wants. It's very easy to come up with many examples in the past few elections -- in fact many elections going back decades -- where Scotland gets (an approximation of) the opposite of what it wants. Scotland is the moon as England is the Earth. The tidal of each of them affect the other but not equally; but whole direction of the moon's face is locked to where the Earth is.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
"As ever with Johnson, there are pragmatic reasons for finally letting Scotland go, which resonate with an almost frightening level of personal ambition. The departure for good of all Scottish MPs would make it almost impossible for Labour to entertain any prospect of power in the foreseeable future. This would leave him virtually unopposed as prime minister of England for a generation."
There seems to be a lot more support for Scottish than English independence on this site but both are equally justified.
I don't agree. Scottish independence is in part motivated by Scotland frequently getting governments it doesn't want. How often does that happen in England? That's not saying there's no case for it, just that one of the justifications is missing for England but present for Scotland.
Are you sure?
2005. More English voted for Conservatives than Labour but Labour got a majority. To be fair due to unequal seat and vote distributions Labour did win more English seats but still.
2010 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we got a coalition.
2015 England voted a landslide Tory majority. Instead we had a fragile Tory majority.
2017 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we had a Tory minority.
I don't find these examples very compelling. 2005 is problem of FPTP. If England had been independent, the result wouldn't have been different. 2010 yes, partially, but you still got a Conservative-led government. 2015, you got the government you voted for, 2017 you got the Conservative-led government.
And that's the story with England. It usually gets (an approximation of) what it wants. It's very easy to come up with many examples in the past few elections -- in fact many elections going back decades -- where Scotland gets (an approximation of) the opposite of what it wants. Scotland is the moon as England is the Earth. The tidal of each of them affect the other but not equally; but whole direction of the moon's face is locked to where the Earth is.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
We can agree to disagree about the scale (I don't agree about "world of difference"), but I'm sure you can see that however you define the scale, the issue is much bigger for Scotland than for England. If you really think that "we voted for a Conservative landslide and only got a Conservative majority" is as big a problem as "we voted Labour and got Conservative", then I can't really say much more.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Thankfully we have First Past the Post not PR and long may it continue. England has 533 seats
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
Indeed just as Sweden is obliged to adopt the Euro.
Sweden was a member before the Euro was introduced.
But not when the Maastricht Treaty was introduced which is why they lack an opt-out. They are every bit as 'treaty obliged' to join the Euro as new nations are.
This is what the European Commission says about the Economic and Monetary Policy acquis:
"New Member States are also committed to complying with the criteria laid down in the Treaty in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course after accession. Until then, they will participate in the Economic and Monetary Union as a Member State with a derogation from the use of the euro and shall treat their exchange rates as a matter of common concern."
On Schengen the Commission says, as part of the Justice, Freedom and security acquis:
"The most detailed part of the EU’s policies on justice, freedom and security is the Schengen acquis, which entails the lifting of internal border controls in the EU. However, for the new Member States substantial parts of the Schengen acquis are implemented following a separate Council Decision to be taken after accession."
The rules for that Council decision are set by the relevant accession treaty. For Bulgaria, for example, it had to be unanimous. But it is a matter of negotiation how this works in any particular case.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Thankfully we have First Past the Post not PR and long may it continue. England has 533 seats
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
Ok what relevance does that have? The intention of the voters still stands. There should be no expectation of a majority on 45%.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
We can agree to disagree about the scale (I don't agree about "world of difference"), but I'm sure you can see that however you define the scale, the issue is much bigger for Scotland than for England. If you really think that "we voted for a Conservative landslide and only got a Conservative majority" is as big a problem as "we voted Labour and got Conservative", then I can't really say much more.
The problem is the same, the scale is greater I agree, but its the same problem either way.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Thankfully we have First Past the Post not PR and long may it continue. England has 533 seats
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
So your definition of democracy is the system which gives you what you want.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
You would because you’re a hypocrite and pick and choose what is democratic and what isn’t when it suits.
Now says January extension won’t take no deal off the table . This is becoming ridiculous, the only way no deal comes off the table is if a government decides to and therefore you need an election to change the government to one which will rule that out.
The fact he hates the Lib Dem and SNP plan though makes it easier for the Tories to agree to some form of a simple bill for an election.
I'm sure in context, Dominic Cummings just meant drive the traitors out of the country who AREN'T Gina Miller.
Be in no doubt. Their strategy is two handed. The left hand must pretend not to know the right. But a systemic campaign of death threats against Remain activists, including the murder of an MP, does not arise from nowhere.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Thankfully we have First Past the Post not PR and long may it continue. England has 533 seats
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
So your definition of democracy is the system which gives you what you want.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Thankfully we have First Past the Post not PR and long may it continue. England has 533 seats
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
Under PR we probably wouldn't have two main parties but 25 or so parties, as in the Finnish parliament.
Paradoxically, they look strong and stable. We look so weak and wobbly that at present the EU despairs of us ...
Why are the Conseravtives turning down the Lib-Dem/SNP general election idea?
Makes zero sense.
What are they playing at?
Because LD/SNP are game playing, the one line Bill is fraught with danger and the are enjoying hanging labour out to dry
Agreed. Johnson sits very nicely this Sunday, with such a split opposition on how to stop a no deal Brexit.
Yes but remember Boris does not want a no-deal Brexit either.
But if No Deal happens, it won't be owned by him. It will be owned by those making the excuse of avoidig No Deal but allowing it to arise because they would not agree to a sensible course to prevent it.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
Then you have to withdraw the 2005 "problem". Under FPTP, England voted Labour in 2005, and it got Labour.
He must know he's got somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope of winning as an independent and I'm sure he can make much more money in "private consultancy" ?
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
Then you have to withdraw the 2005 "problem". Under FPTP, England voted Labour in 2005, and it got Labour.
We'll worry about that when Labour gets another Tony Blair.
I'm sure it is just round the corner with the current Labour Party. Althugh it will have to be an anti-semitic Tony Blair. Hmmm, I can see a problem......
He must know he got somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope of winning as an independent and I'm sure he can make much more money in "private consultancy" ?
Revenge may not be a likely outcome, but if he has a shot of preventing the party which cast him out from winning, why would he not take it?
Now says January extension won’t take no deal off the table . This is becoming ridiculous, the only way no deal comes off the table is if a government decides to and therefore you need an election to change the government to one which will rule that out.
I fear this is rapidly moving beyond Jezza's control...
Why are the Conseravtives turning down the Lib-Dem/SNP general election idea?
Makes zero sense.
What are they playing at?
Because LD/SNP are game playing, the one line Bill is fraught with danger and the are enjoying hanging labour out to dry
Agreed. Johnson sits very nicely this Sunday, with such a split opposition on how to stop a no deal Brexit.
Yes but remember Boris does not want a no-deal Brexit either.
But if No Deal happens, it won't be owned by him. It will be owned by those making the excuse of avoidig No Deal but allowing it to arise because they would not agree to a sensible course to prevent it.
Jeremy Corbyn, No Deal facilitator.
Believe that and you'll be blaming IDS for Iraq. Most voters will blame the government. Boris thinks so too, which is why he wants the election first or immediately afterwards before project fear turns out to have underplayed things.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
Then you have to withdraw the 2005 "problem". Under FPTP, England voted Labour in 2005, and it got Labour.
We'll worry about that when Labour gets another Tony Blair.
I'm sure it is just round the corner with the current Labour Party. Althugh it will have to be an anti-semitic Tony Blair. Hmmm, I can see a problem......
I'm not sure you've followed the thread of this conversation. The issue is not to do with the merits or otherwise of voting Labour now or in 2005.
Why are the Conseravtives turning down the Lib-Dem/SNP general election idea?
Makes zero sense.
What are they playing at?
Because LD/SNP are game playing, the one line Bill is fraught with danger and the are enjoying hanging labour out to dry
Agreed. Johnson sits very nicely this Sunday, with such a split opposition on how to stop a no deal Brexit.
Yes but remember Boris does not want a no-deal Brexit either.
But if No Deal happens, it won't be owned by him. It will be owned by those making the excuse of avoidig No Deal but allowing it to arise because they would not agree to a sensible course to prevent it.
Jeremy Corbyn, No Deal facilitator.
Believe that and you'll be blaming IDS for Iraq. Most voters will blame the government. Boris thinks so too, which is why he wants the election first or immediately afterwards before project fear turns out to have underplayed things.
You aren't seeing how preposterous Labour look this weekend.
No Deal is the terror that is supposedly stopping them agreeing an election. But they won't vote for a Deal that prevents that terror. Because that would reward Boris. Everybody knows it is bullshit. Instead of having a coherent Brexit policy, Labour run around making a noise that only dolphins can hear.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
You would because you’re a hypocrite and pick and choose what is democratic and what isn’t when it suits.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Yes, sadly there are two overlapping issues here, that of FPTP and that of whether it's a problem that a country votes one was and gets the "wrong" result. Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Personally I think FPTP is great and independence would solve the only problem.
Then you have to withdraw the 2005 "problem". Under FPTP, England voted Labour in 2005, and it got Labour.
We'll worry about that when Labour gets another Tony Blair.
I'm sure it is just round the corner with the current Labour Party. Althugh it will have to be an anti-semitic Tony Blair. Hmmm, I can see a problem......
I'm not sure you've followed the thread of this conversation. The issue is not to do with the merits or otherwise of voting Labour now or in 2005.
I've followed that you hate acknowledging that only Tony Blair got Labour power since 1974.
Now says January extension won’t take no deal off the table . This is becoming ridiculous, the only way no deal comes off the table is if a government decides to and therefore you need an election to change the government to one which will rule that out.
I fear this is rapidly moving beyond Jezza's control...
You mean like most of his leadership ! The latest election avoidance is becoming desperate .
Labour Remainers need to realize that Corbyn wants the deal to go through because his actions are going to lead to a short extension.
The Labour MPs who are pro EU are seemingly more worried about saving their seats than stopping Brexit.
I’m sick of the lot of them , I’ll be voting Lib Dem even though I’m uncomfortable with their revoke policy . And will still vote Lib Dem even if Brexit happens .
Why are the Conseravtives turning down the Lib-Dem/SNP general election idea?
Makes zero sense.
What are they playing at?
Because LD/SNP are game playing, the one line Bill is fraught with danger and the are enjoying hanging labour out to dry
Agreed. Johnson sits very nicely this Sunday, with such a split opposition on how to stop a no deal Brexit.
Yes but remember Boris does not want a no-deal Brexit either.
But if No Deal happens, it won't be owned by him. It will be owned by those making the excuse of avoidig No Deal but allowing it to arise because they would not agree to a sensible course to prevent it.
Jeremy Corbyn, No Deal facilitator.
Believe that and you'll be blaming IDS for Iraq. Most voters will blame the government. Boris thinks so too, which is why he wants the election first or immediately afterwards before project fear turns out to have underplayed things.
Actually, IDS does bear some responsibility for Iraq. If he’d backed Charlie Kennedy’s position instead of being a gung-ho warmonger, Blair might just have paused.
He must know he's got somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope of winning as an independent and I'm sure he can make much more money in "private consultancy" ?
You get the exit payment if you stand and lose, but I would have assumed he didn't really need the money.
Perhaps he's hoping to soak up enough votes to squeeze the Con candidate's vote, and let the LD or Lab candidate in.
He must know he's got somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope of winning as an independent and I'm sure he can make much more money in "private consultancy" ?
Don’t MPs get a much better pension if they’re below state retirement age and they lose their seat rather than chose not to run again.
More relevant why did some if thrm react as if December was unacceptable before thinking about alternatives and making a judgement in the first place?
They'll be queuing at the border if Scotland get's its independance. What a time it would be to be Scottish. They don't need to worry about the nighmare of a Johnson/Cummings government or the looming disaster of years of Brexiting.
Scotland, as a new state, would not be part of the EU.
It wouldn't take long for accession to be realised though. They've already aligned with the acquis communautaire so it should be, to coin a phrase, 'the easiest deal in history'.
But under the treaty defined rules for new accessions they would have to adopt both Schengen and the Euro. So a hard border with England.
Mist in the Cheviots, England cut off.
Indeed just as Sweden is obliged to adopt the Euro.
Sweden was a member before the Euro was introduced.
But it didn’t negotiate an opt-out from the Euro like the UK and Denmark did, so is bound to join the Euro. However, to qualify to join the Euro, it has to join the ERM first, and it is not bound to join the ERM. I dare say an Indy Scotland could figure out a similar fudge for Schengen if it wanted to.
There is a world of difference between "Conservative led" and "Conservative majority" let alone healthy or landslide Tory majority which we haven't had in the UK since the 1987 General Election despite the English voting that way in 1992, 2010, 2015 and 2017.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
What you on about? The Tories only got 45% in England in 2017.
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
Thankfully we have First Past the Post not PR and long may it continue. England has 533 seats
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
Ok what relevance does that have? The intention of the voters still stands. There should be no expectation of a majority on 45%.
Of course there should be no expectation of a majority on 45% if another party gets 49% say then the 49% would get a majority. But that's not the case, we DID elect a majority of Tories - 296 out of 532 excluding Speaker were elected Tory whether you like it or not.
Comments
It is in his interests to stop the Tories.
For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. In the case of the two year time period in Article 50 being extended, via a unanimous vote by all EU Member States, we will settle this market on the extended date. This market will settle when the UK leaves the EU even if parts of the UK (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland) leave the UK or receive special status within the EU.
How is this to be interpreted?
If we crash out on 31 Oct 19 then that is a 'date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply', so no problem.
If negotiating period is extended to 31 Jan 2020, then UK and all necessary EU bodies finish ratifying a deal on some date in December with Withdrawal bill saying treaties apply til 31 Dec 2020 and 72 Act has effect til 31/12/20 then what happens?
It seems possible to me to say any one of 3 things:
1. Negotiating period brought to a close early in Dec 19 and this is first to happen so Dec 19.
2. Last negotiated extension is 31 Jan 20 and this is first of the events to happen so Jan 20.
3. Nothing happens on 31 Jan 20 so it is a non event not an event or that it is the first date but it is not a 'date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply' (also note the "might occur' so not necessarily will occur). So winning date is Dec 2020.
Betfair seem to be refusing to answer any differently than quoting the rules which doesn't answer my query. Which is correct or how do I find out?
If the opposition are calling this deal a much harder version of Brexit than May's deal it should assuage those leavers enough for them to realise it is better to get 'a Brexit' than the 'purest Brexit'. Voters aren't dumb, they know the latter is not realistic.
In the hard leave seats where the Tories are nowhere then don't get involved with the campaign and let TBP take on Labour in the hope there might be a shock or two.
The plot thickens: No10 now reveals it wants to keep a one line bill option for an election on the table, with or without WAB passing, if FTPA motion fails on Monday. Not what Morgan and Cleverly were saying on broadcast this morning, so appears Cabinet v No10 split remains.
Revoke A50 and that will see many labour remain supporters back them.
So here's my question for the PB Brains Trust.
"...If (or when) the EU offers an extension this week, will Boris accept it? If he does not accept it, what will Parliament do?..."
OK, two questions...
It was clear last night when the LD/SNP plan was released that the Tories would need a unambiguous response.
No10 need to sharpen up.
I thought Labour wanted an election too?
And Labour will want to focus on policy in any such election (should it happen), which means talking about things other than the process of achieving an election. I think the party that will be happiest talking about the election itself will be the Conservatives.
People only have so much attention for what politicians are saying. Labour won't waste those moments talking about how we arrived at having an election.
Once again - to try and block the implementation of the referendum is anti democratic. To campaign to rejoin is legitimate.
The people trying to block the implementation of the referendum were ELECTED as REPRESENTATIVES after the referendum.
Their actions are entirely consistent with democracy.
And obviously Brexit is a stupid idea anyway.
You still believe that Lib Dem’s do things out of principle. Is Father Christmas going to bring you something nice this year?
I doubt even their memoirs would sell that well.
Conservatives ~320 seats
Labour ~240 seats
SNP ~45 seats
Lib Dems ~20 seats
Vote Shares
Conservatives 42%
Labour 37%
Lib Dems 11%
Brexit Party 4%
SNP 3%
Greens 2%
Post-election prediction: another Tory minority govt, but Brexit still a complete mess with no solution able to pass Parliament.
Certainly, if you look at the actual 2015 and 2017 results, there's little evidence that whatever Labour was doing was very effective.
Not sure what abhoration means
2005. More English voted for Conservatives than Labour but Labour got a majority. To be fair due to unequal seat and vote distributions Labour did win more English seats but still.
2010 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we got a coalition.
2015 England voted a landslide Tory majority. Instead we had a fragile Tory majority.
2017 England voted a healthy Tory majority. Instead we had a Tory minority.
Johnson sits very nicely this Sunday, with such a split opposition on how to stop a no deal Brexit.
Re - ' SNP helped Thatcher in' I suspect that what the SNP is currently proposing will add credence and force to that message. It provides Labour with campaign amunition which would not otherwise be there.
And that's the story with England. It usually gets (an approximation of) what it wants. It's very easy to come up with many examples in the past few elections -- in fact many elections going back decades -- where Scotland gets (an approximation of) the opposite of what it wants. Scotland is the moon as England is the Earth. The tidal of each of them affect the other but not equally; but whole direction of the moon's face is locked to where the Earth is.
I don’t think there’s a perfect outcome either way .
Pre you can say the Commons in blocking Brexit, the only way to get it done is to give the Tories a majority .
Post , we got it done but then mindful that this would allow Labour to fight just on domestic issues .
Another thing what’s left of the Brexit Party vote, is that now more Labour Leavers in which case they get hurt more than the Tories.
In 4 of the last 7 General Elections there has been a different result in the UK to England.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/27/jd-wetherspoon-may-have-breached-law-over-19m-brexit-beer-mats
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/27/kill-gina-miller-crowdfunding-page-investigated-by-police
There should be no expectation of any sort of majority when 55% are against you in England alone.
If you really think that "we voted for a Conservative landslide and only got a Conservative majority" is as big a problem as "we voted Labour and got Conservative", then I can't really say much more.
Personally I think PR would do a lot to solve both problems, but independence would only solve one of them.
Conservatives 296 + 1 Speaker
Opposition 236
Effective Majority 61
That should be a very healthy majority instead we got a minority.
"New Member States are also committed to complying with the criteria laid down in the Treaty in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course after accession. Until then, they will participate in the Economic and Monetary Union as a Member State with a derogation from the use of the euro and shall treat their exchange rates as a matter of common concern."
On Schengen the Commission says, as part of the Justice, Freedom and security acquis:
"The most detailed part of the EU’s policies on justice, freedom and security is the Schengen acquis, which entails the lifting of internal border controls in the EU. However, for the new Member States substantial parts of the Schengen acquis are implemented following a separate Council Decision to be taken after accession."
The rules for that Council decision are set by the relevant accession treaty. For Bulgaria, for example, it had to be unanimous. But it is a matter of negotiation how this works in any particular case.
See: https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis_en
The intention of the voters still stands.
There should be no expectation of a majority on 45%.
Now says January extension won’t take no deal off the table . This is becoming ridiculous, the only way no deal comes off the table is if a government decides to and therefore you need an election to change the government to one which will rule that out.
The fact he hates the Lib Dem and SNP plan though makes it easier for the Tories to agree to some form of a simple bill for an election.
Be in no doubt. Their strategy is two handed. The left hand must pretend not to know the right. But a systemic campaign of death threats against Remain activists, including the murder of an MP, does not arise from nowhere.
Shame....
Paradoxically, they look strong and stable. We look so weak and wobbly that at present the EU despairs of us ...
Jeremy Corbyn, No Deal facilitator.
He must know he's got somewhere between Bob Hope and No Hope of winning as an independent and I'm sure he can make much more money in "private consultancy" ?
I'm sure it is just round the corner with the current Labour Party. Althugh it will have to be an anti-semitic Tony Blair. Hmmm, I can see a problem......
https://twitter.com/bbctheview/status/1188432478496854018
https://twitter.com/elliotttimes/status/1188444425619423232
No Deal is the terror that is supposedly stopping them agreeing an election. But they won't vote for a Deal that prevents that terror. Because that would reward Boris. Everybody knows it is bullshit. Instead of having a coherent Brexit policy, Labour run around making a noise that only dolphins can hear.
Labour Remainers need to realize that Corbyn wants the deal to go through because his actions are going to lead to a short extension.
The Labour MPs who are pro EU are seemingly more worried about saving their seats than stopping Brexit.
I’m sick of the lot of them , I’ll be voting Lib Dem even though I’m uncomfortable with their revoke policy . And will still vote Lib Dem even if Brexit happens .
Perhaps he's hoping to soak up enough votes to squeeze the Con candidate's vote, and let the LD or Lab candidate in.