The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
The best article I have read on this site, and the clearest explanation I have seen for why today's Conservative Party is nothing to do with the Conservative Party of the past that we could respect even if we voted for others. The mutterings of Johnson and his band of cronies reminds me far more of Victor Orban than of serious Conservative politicians, including Thatcher and Major.
That is just ridiculous
No, it is on point. The current Conservative party is not the party from a few years ago. It has become the Nasty Party again. With nobs on....
I reject that. It is brexit that is causing anger to remainers but the 17.4 million who voted for it were across the political spectrum and for many of us who voted remain we want brexit to happen as we respect the democratic vote
On domestic issues Boris is from the liberal wing of the party and it is an easy line for labour and remainers to try to paint the party as right wing.
No, this goes beyond Brexit. Both Boris and Corbyn are dangerous and for much the same reasons - they are both about the Cult of Personality and, historically, such people have been disasters for the countries that they have been Leaders of.
Boris may wave some liberal-style policies about, but he is mostly about Boris.
If Boris sidelines Parliament and gives ultimate power to the executive then the UK's history as a democracy ends and we begin our first dictatorship in 350 years.
The only laugh will be when the Tories lose a future election and then complain about the sweeping powers they granted to a Labour government.
oh what utter rot. Grow up.
It's not rot. We have a very fragile democracy compared to countries with a written constitution, checks and balances *and* a second chamber.
Thatcher abolished the GLC by the stroke of a pen - well, a vote in parliament when she had a convenient majority of 144. Even Tories on the GLC and its predecessor the LCC thought it was outrageous.
At times only the House of Lords stands between us and tyranny.
Well, we have the courts but they depend on millionaires. There's no legal aid for 'constitutional' or 'public interest' litigation. Also Johnson wants to alter them.
Sky seem to be completely ignoring this AS report.
They did report on it earlier but they are doing this mornings programme in Wales
I expect it will feature more after lunch and I expect the ex brexit party members making a public announcement on their move to the conservatives to also feature
The JLM report is dreadful timing for Corbyn with his live tv debate v Boris tomorrow evening on BBC
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
True, but equally true of the Conservative Party. I used to vote Conservative in Chichester. We had the best MP I have come across in Andrew Tyrie. His Commons speech opposing Cameron's Syria policy was probably the best Commons speech in a generation, and far superior to the waffling of Hilary Benn, who got all the attention in that debate. And Tyrie, who was also a great committee chairman, always fair and forensic in his scrutiny of all sides, felt forced to leave the Commons in 2017 as he saw the rise of Conservative extremism and the personal weakness of Cameron. And his foresight proved absolutely right.
Don't tell me you prefer McVey to Gauke too! This manifestation of the Tories - I just can't get my head around it.
Yes I do. That says more about my opinion of Gauke than it does about McVey though.
Tell me what Gauke has done to justify a high opinion of him? Besides his contempt for democracy when he is on the losing side has he done anything else fantastic?
All I know about Gauke (other than his deep opposition to Brexit) is that one of his last acts as Lord Chancellor was to announce a change in the Ogden discount rate, used to set damage awards for large liability insurance claims (among other things).
Prior to this, his department had spent a year trailing to the insurance industry that the new rate was going to be in the range from zero to one percent (it was previously minus 0.75%).
He set it at minus 0.25%. It did not go down well. I have no idea where he got this number from.
For the record, I don't much like McVey either. But if I had to choose, I'd go for the one who is currently on board with the plan, and not being a pain in the neck. That McVey is no longer being disastrous in the DWP due to not liking the previous plan, is icing on the cake.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Sky seem to be completely ignoring this AS report.
They did report on it earlier but they are doing this mornings programme in Wales
I expect it will feature more after lunch and I expect the ex brexit party members making a public announcement on their move to the conservatives to also feature
The JLM report is dreadful timing for Corbyn with his live tv debate v Boris tomorrow evening on BBC
It warms my heart that Corbyn may actually have to answer for Labour's descent into malignancy under his leadership.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Contra what seems an oft-consensus on this site, a Venezuelan-style catastrophe is incredibly unlikely. At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight, before the centrist end of the Labour Left like Starmer and Miliband reassert control.
A hard Brexit may destroy Britain's international influence, and wound its economy permanently, if the manner of leaving suggests permanently damaged trading relations with the European continent.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
Contra what seems an oft-consensus on this site, a Venezuelan-style catastrophe is incredibly unlikely. At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight, before the centrist end of the Labour Left like Starmer and Miliband reassert control.
It was incredibly unlikely in Venezuela, until a bunch of vile ideologues beloved of Corbyn and his cult came to power and ... it happened. No thanks.
Don't tell me you prefer McVey to Gauke too! This manifestation of the Tories - I just can't get my head around it.
Yes I do. That says more about my opinion of Gauke than it does about McVey though.
Tell me what Gauke has done to justify a high opinion of him? Besides his contempt for democracy when he is on the losing side has he done anything else fantastic?
All I know about Gauke (other than his deep opposition to Brexit) is that one of his last acts as Lord Chancellor was to announce a change in the Ogden discount rate, used to set damage awards for large liability insurance claims (among other things).
Prior to this, his department had spent a year trailing to the insurance industry that the new rate was going to be in the range from zero to one percent (it was previously minus 0.75%).
He set it at minus 0.25%. It did not go down well. I have no idea where he got this number from.
For the record, I don't much like McVey either. But if I had to choose, I'd go for the one who is currently on board with the plan, and not being a pain in the neck. That McVey is no longer being disastrous in the DWP due to not liking the previous plan, is icing on the cake.
Yes, the discount rate decision was ludicrous. But the blame for the stupidity of the discount rate, which considerably increases insurance costs for everyone, lies mainly with the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court as it is today). In the late 90s, as a director at London & Edinburgh, I was on the recieving end of the House of Lords decision which said the discount rate should assume that the recipient of a claim award keeps the money in cash (or government gilts - only the negative rate seems to assume cash). Until then the discount rate had been a matter for judicial discretion and assumed a low risk but balanced approach to investing the monies. We won unanimously in the Court of Appeal, and lost unanimously in the Supreme Court. So, whilst Gauke went OTT in only moving from -0.75% to -0.25%, he was very much following precedent set in the courts to be ultra conservative in investment assumptions.
Ofcom rejected the complaint against Channel 4 so seems like the BBC could totally do it.
Good point. But I personally think 'empty chairing' would be going too far. It would look like Labour propaganda. What I'd like to see is a high profile public apology from the BBC for the unwanted outcome that their toughest media engagement was fulfilled by all party leaders bar Boris Johnson.
"We recognize that this has resulted in a lack of fairness in our election coverage. This was not our intention and we apologize for it."
On the Scottish BBC election debate last night (hosted in Inverness) the SNP chap got a bit of a drubbing over their record on education. In the land of John Knox and Miss Jean Brodie this is an important issue. PISA results confirm Scottish schoolkids falling behind their peers across Europe (incl England) in STEM subjects. 12 years in Govt at Holyrood is beginning to catch-up - early tremors.
The dossier accuses Corbyn of 11 acts of AS committed by him personally.
Just out of curiosity, whereabouts in the document are these accusations? It's rather long.
Sorry, I've found them now, at paragraph 25.
I'd be interested to know whether anyone here who has read them can pick out even one which can be characterised as a personal "act of antisemitism."
Most of them are along the lines of "Corbyn defended someone who has been accused of antisemitism," "Corbyn attended an event at which one of the speakers is alleged to have made an antisemitic statement," "Corbyn wrote a forward [sic] for a book which has been accused of antisemitism" and so on.
It's very much the usual mud-slinging. For example, it attributes to Corbyn the quotation: "Zionists ... don't understand English irony despite having lived in the country for a long time or perhaps all of their lives." Of course, this is an old chestnut, which is freely available on video, which makes it clear Corbyn was talking about comments made by a specific group of people who had attended a particular talk. If they have to rely on misleadingly edited quotations like this, it's pretty clear they don't have a single genuine piece of evidence of antisemitism on Corbyn's part.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Contra what seems an oft-consensus on this site, a Venezuelan-style catastrophe is incredibly unlikely. At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight, before the centrist end of the Labour Left like Starmer and Miliband reassert control.
A hard Brexit may destroy Britain's international influence, and wound its economy permanently, if the manner of leaving suggests permanently damaged trading relations with the European continent.
How, exactly, would Labour's moderate wing reaasert control? Would the far left simply concede that it had got it wrong?
Yes I do. That says more about my opinion of Gauke than it does about McVey though.
Tell me what Gauke has done to justify a high opinion of him? Besides his contempt for democracy when he is on the losing side has he done anything else fantastic?
Just a thoughtful, decent and pragmatic politician. Contempt for democracy? That is plain silly. He voted for Brexit many times. You can level that charge at the likes of Grieve. In fact, you ought to. But not Gauke.
The dossier accuses Corbyn of 11 acts of AS committed by him personally.
Just out of curiosity, whereabouts in the document are these accusations? It's rather long.
Sorry, I've found them now, at paragraph 25.
I'd be interested to know whether anyone here who has read them can pick out even one which can be characterised as a personal "act of antisemitism."
Most of them are along the lines of "Corbyn defended someone who has been accused of antisemitism," "Corbyn attended an event at which one of the speakers is alleged to have made an antisemitic statement," "Corbyn wrote a forward [sic] for a book which has been accused of antisemitism" and so on.
It's very much the usual mud-slinging. For example, it attributes to Corbyn the quotation: "Zionists ... don't understand English irony despite having lived in the country for a long time or perhaps all of their lives." Of course, this is an old chestnut, which is freely available on video, which makes it clear Corbyn was talking about comments made by a specific group of people who had attended a particular talk. If they have to rely on misleadingly edited quotations like this, it's pretty clear they don't have a single genuine piece of evidence of antisemitism on Corbyn's part.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Contra what seems an oft-consensus on this site, a Venezuelan-style catastrophe is incredibly unlikely. At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight, before the centrist end of the Labour Left like Starmer and Miliband reassert control.
A hard Brexit may destroy Britain's international influence, and wound its economy permanently, if the manner of leaving suggests permanently damaged trading relations with the European continent.
How, exactly, would Labour's moderate wing reaasert control? Would the far left simply concede that it had got it wrong?
The party is now run by the Left and the centrist faction of the Left. That's why Miliband, Starmer and others are still on board with Corbyn. Were things were to go badly wrong, one of those two, or someone very like them, would be turned to by the grassroots.
Ofcom rejected the complaint against Channel 4 so seems like the BBC could totally do it.
Good point. But I personally think 'empty chairing' would be going too far. It would look like Labour propaganda. What I'd like to see is a high profile public apology from the BBC for the unwanted outcome that their toughest media engagement was fulfilled by all party leaders bar Boris Johnson.
"We recognize that this has resulted in a lack of fairness in our election coverage. This was not our intention and we apologize for it."
How is it the BBC’s fault that Boris Johnson didn’t want to do an interview?
Impartiality means offering equal time to all parties to make their case, by offering AN and a studio to the the Conservatives the BBC have fulfilled that mandate.
Someone had better go and get measured up for the chicken suit!
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
This is exactly the pickle the British electorate find themselves in: at a time when a moderate hand on the tiller is required, both parties have been taken over by revolutionaries who spent most of their careers plotting how they were going to overthrow the state. Brexit is just a move in the game to them.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Contra what seems an oft-consensus on this site, a Venezuelan-style catastrophe is incredibly unlikely. At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight, before the centrist end of the Labour Left like Starmer and Miliband reassert control.
A hard Brexit may destroy Britain's international influence, and wound its economy permanently, if the manner of leaving suggests permanently damaged trading relations with the European continent.
Worst end of projections according to who?
If Corbyn and McDonnell get their mits on Downing Street I'm not going to put my faith in Starmer and Miliband ousting them in an internal party coup.
Yes I do. That says more about my opinion of Gauke than it does about McVey though.
Tell me what Gauke has done to justify a high opinion of him? Besides his contempt for democracy when he is on the losing side has he done anything else fantastic?
Just a thoughtful, decent and pragmatic politician. Contempt for democracy? That is plain silly. He voted for Brexit many times. You can level that charge at the likes of Grieve. In fact, you ought to. But not Gauke.
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Contra what seems an oft-consensus on this site, a Venezuelan-style catastrophe is incredibly unlikely. At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight, before the centrist end of the Labour Left like Starmer and Miliband reassert control.
A hard Brexit may destroy Britain's international influence, and wound its economy permanently, if the manner of leaving suggests permanently damaged trading relations with the European continent.
There is a danger of (multiple) viscous circles. The Corbynite/momentum core would never admit that their basic philosophy was at fault so would always double down.
20-29 looks decent value at 12/5. Given that over 25.5 is 3/1 the 12/5 looks out of line. It is relatively easy to see how the LDs reach 20 by retaining the 2017 seats and adding obvious targets (Richmond/St Albans/Cheltenham/Fife etc). But adding another 6 should surely command a bigger gap in the odds.
I think we need the LDs up towards 30 seats to have any chance of denying Johnson a majority. So c'mon you LDs. If Esher is in play then perhaps several others are possible with extensive tactical voting.
Some people here say that Boris's political philosophy is simply to promote himself. I don't know but, assuming that is so, it nevertheless aligns with what most people want (e.g. Brexit) because electorally that is what keeps him in the top job. So Boris being in it for himself is, in my view, no argument against supporting him. On the other hand we have Corbyn and McDonnell who are radical dogmatists and said to be not in it for themselves. They are fundamentalists, and as the great Amos Oz said in a BBC interview, the fundamentalist is not interested in his own welfare, he is interested in your welfare. Therein lies the problem.
If Boris sidelines Parliament and gives ultimate power to the executive then the UK's history as a democracy ends and we begin our first dictatorship in 350 years.
The only laugh will be when the Tories lose a future election and then complain about the sweeping powers they granted to a Labour government.
oh what utter rot. Grow up.
It's not rot. We have a very fragile democracy compared to countries with a written constitution, checks and balances *and* a second chamber.
Thatcher abolished the GLC by the stroke of a pen - well, a vote in parliament when she had a convenient majority of 144. Even Tories on the GLC and its predecessor the LCC thought it was outrageous.
At times only the House of Lords stands between us and tyranny.
Well, we have the courts but they depend on millionaires. There's no legal aid for 'constitutional' or 'public interest' litigation. Also Johnson wants to alter them.
Mrs Thatcher governed with majorities of 144 and 102 for nearly 10 years without abolishing democracy, (except the Greater London Council).
Yes I do. That says more about my opinion of Gauke than it does about McVey though.
Tell me what Gauke has done to justify a high opinion of him? Besides his contempt for democracy when he is on the losing side has he done anything else fantastic?
Just a thoughtful, decent and pragmatic politician. Contempt for democracy? That is plain silly. He voted for Brexit many times. You can level that charge at the likes of Grieve. In fact, you ought to. But not Gauke.
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
Yes, had Gauke had sufficient faith, he would have known in advance that Theresa was a false prophet and only with the coming of Boris the saviour would he have been shown the one, true light.
On the Scottish BBC election debate last night (hosted in Inverness) the SNP chap got a bit of a drubbing over their record on education. In the land of John Knox and Miss Jean Brodie this is an important issue. PISA results confirm Scottish schoolkids falling behind their peers across Europe (incl England) in STEM subjects. 12 years in Govt at Holyrood is beginning to catch-up - early tremors.
Are you suggesting that to improve Scottish education folk should back the party that voted down one of its own education manifesto policies for partisan reasons?
Ofcom rejected the complaint against Channel 4 so seems like the BBC could totally do it.
Good point. But I personally think 'empty chairing' would be going too far. It would look like Labour propaganda. What I'd like to see is a high profile public apology from the BBC for the unwanted outcome that their toughest media engagement was fulfilled by all party leaders bar Boris Johnson.
"We recognize that this has resulted in a lack of fairness in our election coverage. This was not our intention and we apologize for it."
I presume the BBC also know how to read polls and don't want to be abolished in 7 days' time...
What happened over the Supreme Court was both a new feature in British politics and as old as the hills. There have been arguments between the courts, parliament and the executive stretching back to at least the 14th century and, in that sense, the struggle over prorogation was nothing new (cf Richard II and the Questions to the Judges in 1387 for example!).
What was unusual was that the Government did not have a majority in Parliament and was struggling to implement its principal policy in the face of parliamentary opposition that was rewriting the Commons rule book to enact primary legislation against the will of the executive. Precedents for parliaments doing this (however good their motive might be) are not good (cf 1258, 1311, 1386, 1460, 1640-2, 1679-81).
What happened with prorogation was not an attack on democracy (whatever the pious pronouncements of Lady Hale, whose understanding about the role of parliament only seems to go back to the 17th century and no further) but a political manoeuvre by the Government (one that failed in its purpose hence the passing of the Benn Act), something recognised by the High Court (though overturned by the Supreme Court).
We will have to wait and see what any review produces (assuming Johnson wins a majority) but, while I appreciate why people have concerns about the motives of a Johnson government, the principle that the courts should not be used to conduct politics by another means and that judges need to be careful about making laws as well interpreting them seems as sound to me as that of judicial independence and ability of judges to force the government to obey the law.
A proper look at the Constitution in the wake of the Blair reforms is a good thing and at least Johnson is proposing a proper commission unlike Blair's decision to create the Supreme Court which came after very little consultation. Let's see what the proposals are before we assume that we're in Thomas More territory!
Ofcom rejected the complaint against Channel 4 so seems like the BBC could totally do it.
Good point. But I personally think 'empty chairing' would be going too far. It would look like Labour propaganda. What I'd like to see is a high profile public apology from the BBC for the unwanted outcome that their toughest media engagement was fulfilled by all party leaders bar Boris Johnson.
"We recognize that this has resulted in a lack of fairness in our election coverage. This was not our intention and we apologize for it."
I presume the BBC also know how to read polls and don't want to be abolished in 7 days' time...
This is why you shouldn't have a state-run broadcaster.
The Tories have cut the courts way back, if everybody stops paying the license fee at the same time they won't be able to get to everyone.
Yes I do. That says more about my opinion of Gauke than it does about McVey though.
Tell me what Gauke has done to justify a high opinion of him? Besides his contempt for democracy when he is on the losing side has he done anything else fantastic?
Just a thoughtful, decent and pragmatic politician. Contempt for democracy? That is plain silly. He voted for Brexit many times. You can level that charge at the likes of Grieve. In fact, you ought to. But not Gauke.
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
Yes, had Gauke had sufficient faith, he would have known in advance that Theresa was a false prophet and only with the coming of Boris the saviour would he have been shown the one, true light.
You're just being hyperbolic and absurd with no realism like your 99.95% chance of a Hung Parliament claim.
I consistently and unwaveringly opposed May's undemocratic backstop deal, but I've not condemned MPs for being loyal to May . . . though I have said Boris was wrong for voting for the deal in MV3.
However Gauke was not a loyalist, he was quite to ignore the mandate Johnson got. I don't see why he deserves any kudos for that. He was on the wrong side of the referendum and the wrong side of the leadership election and that shouldn't win any respect.
If Boris sidelines Parliament and gives ultimate power to the executive then the UK's history as a democracy ends and we begin our first dictatorship in 350 years.
The only laugh will be when the Tories lose a future election and then complain about the sweeping powers they granted to a Labour government.
"If" doing plenty of hard work there. Parliament remains sovereign. I would enjoy watching someone try to legislate that away.
Ofcom rejected the complaint against Channel 4 so seems like the BBC could totally do it.
Good point. But I personally think 'empty chairing' would be going too far. It would look like Labour propaganda. What I'd like to see is a high profile public apology from the BBC for the unwanted outcome that their toughest media engagement was fulfilled by all party leaders bar Boris Johnson.
"We recognize that this has resulted in a lack of fairness in our election coverage. This was not our intention and we apologize for it."
I presume the BBC also know how to read polls and don't want to be abolished in 7 days' time...
This is why you shouldn't have a state-run broadcaster.
The Tories have cut the courts way back, if everybody stops paying the license fee at the same time they won't be able to get to everyone.
To be fair, we Tories have been consistent in warning about the dangers of state-run industries. What's happening with the BBC is just a bit of practical education for those who don't believe us...
Huge fan of Andrew Neil, but it would be ludicrous to suggest that somehow the others who have interviewed Johnson are less able to be properly briefed and prepared, and to press hard questions.
Huge fan of Andrew Neil, but it would be ludicrous to suggest that somehow the others who have interviewed Johnson are less able to be properly briefed and prepared, and to press hard questions.
Have you actually seen Andrew Marr do an interview? He was obviously chosen because he's not very good at it.
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
The mindset capable of defining May's WA as "not Brexit" is difficult to reason with. But not, I hope, impossible. So I would ask you to please reflect on the term "Brexit". Is it not simply shorthand for the UK exiting the EU? And are there not several different ways in which that could be achieved, ranging from very close alignment to clean break? And is it not for this very reason that various qualifying adjectives such as "hard" and "soft" have evolved?
I placed a sizeable bet on LibDems to win Portsmouth South at 15/8. Today I can get 33/1. Has anyone got a worse value bet then mine or indeed match my idiocy in any conceivable way?
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Quite.
A load of bollocks in today's FT today saying sterling is strong because investors now expect "an orderly withdrawal from the EU". NO, THAT ISNT WHY.... The pound is strong because Corbyn looks set to lose and is a mortal threat to the UK's prosperity and credit-worthiness.
The dossier accuses Corbyn of 11 acts of AS committed by him personally.
Just out of curiosity, whereabouts in the document are these accusations? It's rather long.
Sorry, I've found them now, at paragraph 25.
I'd be interested to know whether anyone here who has read them can pick out even one which can be characterised as a personal "act of antisemitism."
Most of them are along the lines of "Corbyn defended someone who has been accused of antisemitism," "Corbyn attended an event at which one of the speakers is alleged to have made an antisemitic statement," "Corbyn wrote a forward [sic] for a book which has been accused of antisemitism" and so on.
It's very much the usual mud-slinging. For example, it attributes to Corbyn the quotation: "Zionists ... don't understand English irony despite having lived in the country for a long time or perhaps all of their lives." Of course, this is an old chestnut, which is freely available on video, which makes it clear Corbyn was talking about comments made by a specific group of people who had attended a particular talk. If they have to rely on misleadingly edited quotations like this, it's pretty clear they don't have a single genuine piece of evidence of antisemitism on Corbyn's part.
Oh well if St Jeremy's hands are sort of clean then it doesn't matter! The institutionalized racism he supports by inaction doesn't count because Jeremy 'technically' isn't racist himself. What a fucking relief.
Every vote counts. Every election every seat start with zero votes cast and every seat can change hands. Former safe seats can be overturned or become marginals if that is what the local voters want.
If you want to elect a Lib Dem MP you don't need to change the electoral system. You just need more of your neighbours in your constituency to also vote Lib Dem than Tory or anyone else.
The first step to changing anything is to realise your own problems. The problem is not the electoral system the problem is people don't want to vote for your party.
Unsurprisingly you support the only electoral system in Europe that will give the Tories total power on 40% of the vote.
When we had a PR Election in May the LDs were second and the Tories 5th. Has that much really changed in 6 months? Have the Brexit Party gone from leading the field in May to 4% 6 months later?
No, the only thing that has changed is that the GE has a different voting system and under FPTP the relentless message from the old duopoly is that unless you vote for one of us you are wasting your vote and they are right so by and large it works.
Unlike France, Spain, Germany or Italy no party has made a meaningful breakthrough and challenged the status quo in the national parliament for 100 years. It is the system, there is no other logical explanation.
No that's not the only thing that changed. For one thing the Prime Minister changed since then! Did you miss that?
Also one was a protest vote marginal election not taken seriously as we are leaving the EU and the other is a real election that chooses who runs the country. Another difference.
I'd have more respect for you if you stopped trying to defend a system that demonstrably does not reflect how the nation votes and just admit you like it because it's the only system that will give you the outcome you want and no other system will.
I won't admit it because its not true! I like FPTP because it makes parties and voters compromise before the election rather than dodgy backroom deals after it.
As far as no other system would give similar results that's garbage - AW would have but I voted against it.
I like FPTP because I agree with it as a system. I'm also OK with AV as a system but voted against it because I thought it was a slippery slope to other systems like PR that I philosophically oppose.
She claimed: 'He might watch it on catch up, some of us do, some of us have dinner at different times. I don't necessarily think that means that he has lied.' Ms Rayner then vehemently insisted the Labour leader had actually said he catches up with the speech on Boxing Day morning, causing host Susanna Reid to challenge her.
I placed a sizeable bet on LibDems to win Portsmouth South at 15/8. Today I can get 33/1. Has anyone got a worse value bet then mine or indeed match my idiocy in any conceivable way?
I’ve lost track. How many nanoseconds since Labour’s last anti-semitism crisis?
Imagine how bad it will be once Labour Twitter has had a full day to "respond" to the Jewish Labour Movement ... shudders.
p.s. I just wanted to check whether the zero line at the right of your awesome graphs is election day itself? It looked to me like there might be a day's offset, but I could be wrong.
She claimed: 'He might watch it on catch up, some of us do, some of us have dinner at different times. I don't necessarily think that means that he has lied.' Ms Rayner then vehemently insisted the Labour leader had actually said he catches up with the speech on Boxing Day morning, causing host Susanna Reid to challenge her.
At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight that's ok then.
It could be much worse under a no-deal or even hard Brexit.
The Tory pro-European pivot begins as soon as we're technically out. Watch this space.
Boris’s plan will be to resolve Brexit quickly inside a year, and then from 2021-2024 build domestic progress and infrastructure off the back of that economic stability of that new status quo so his electoral pitch in May 2024 will be on how he’s improved the regions, not retrospectively on the purity of his Brexit.
If he’s still up against a pseudo-Marxist Labour leader then, he’ll probably win again.
She claimed: 'He might watch it on catch up, some of us do, some of us have dinner at different times. I don't necessarily think that means that he has lied.' Ms Rayner then vehemently insisted the Labour leader had actually said he catches up with the speech on Boxing Day morning, causing host Susanna Reid to challenge her.
She claimed: 'He might watch it on catch up, some of us do, some of us have dinner at different times. I don't necessarily think that means that he has lied.' Ms Rayner then vehemently insisted the Labour leader had actually said he catches up with the speech on Boxing Day morning, causing host Susanna Reid to challenge her.
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
The mindset capable of defining May's WA as "not Brexit" is difficult to reason with. But not, I hope, impossible. So I would ask you to please reflect on the term "Brexit". Is it not simply shorthand for the UK exiting the EU? And are there not several different ways in which that could be achieved, ranging from very close alignment to clean break? And is it not for this very reason that various qualifying adjectives such as "hard" and "soft" have evolved?
I would define Brexit as how it was defined during the EU referendum: Taking back control of our laws, money and borders [even though I couldn't care less about the last one]. Is that an unreasonable definition? Hard and soft evolved afterwards by those who lost the referendum trying to retain what they liked about the EU despite it having been rejected - there is no such thing as hard and soft, there is BINO or Brexit.
Hence the "red lines" these were all issues accepted by both sides during the referendum - we must leave the ECJ, Single Market, Customs Union, regain control of our laws, our money and our borders.
May's backstop didn't do this. In fact May's backstop was much LESS democratic than being EU members.
The best article I have read on this site, and the clearest explanation I have seen for why today's Conservative Party is nothing to do with the Conservative Party of the past that we could respect even if we voted for others. The mutterings of Johnson and his band of cronies reminds me far more of Victor Orban than of serious Conservative politicians, including Thatcher and Major.
I think it is possible that the present period is a special case arising out of the unique circumstances of a referendum where the establishment was not prepared for not getting its own way and that things will return to customary low level hostilities between electorate, government, parliament and courts in time.
She claimed: 'He might watch it on catch up, some of us do, some of us have dinner at different times. I don't necessarily think that means that he has lied.' Ms Rayner then vehemently insisted the Labour leader had actually said he catches up with the speech on Boxing Day morning, causing host Susanna Reid to challenge her.
I actually wonder if Jezza might secretly be quite relieved if he loses this GE as he won't have to stop pretending about stuff he has no interest in, dressing up smart and having the media / protesters outside his house every day. He can console himself with the fact he has moved the Labour Party much further to the left and it seems that who ever takes over will continue this.
Huge fan of Andrew Neil, but it would be ludicrous to suggest that somehow the others who have interviewed Johnson are less able to be properly briefed and prepared, and to press hard questions.
How is it ludicrous to rank peoples capabilities to do a quite specific task differently? Have you heard of competitive sport?
I’ve lost track. How many nanoseconds since Labour’s last anti-semitism crisis?
Imagine how bad it will be once Labour Twitter has had a full day to "respond" to the Jewish Labour Movement ... shudders.
p.s. I just wanted to check whether the zero line at the right of your awesome graphs is election day itself? It looked to me like there might be a day's offset, but I could be wrong.
At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight that's ok then.
It could be much worse under a no-deal or even hard Brexit.
The Tory pro-European pivot begins as soon as we're technically out. Watch this space.
Boris’s plan will be to resolve Brexit quickly inside a year, and then from 2021-2024 build domestic progress and infrastructure off the back of that economic stability of that new status quo so his electoral pitch in May 2024 will be on how he’s improved the regions, not retrospectively on the purity of his Brexit.
If he’s still up against a pseudo-Marxist Labour leader then, he’ll probably win again.
If he can target NE marginals for regeneration he could make like very tough of Labour in next GE
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
The mindset capable of defining May's WA as "not Brexit" is difficult to reason with. But not, I hope, impossible. So I would ask you to please reflect on the term "Brexit". Is it not simply shorthand for the UK exiting the EU? And are there not several different ways in which that could be achieved, ranging from very close alignment to clean break? And is it not for this very reason that various qualifying adjectives such as "hard" and "soft" have evolved?
I would define Brexit as how it was defined during the EU referendum: Taking back control of our laws, money and borders [even though I couldn't care less about the last one]. Is that an unreasonable definition? Hard and soft evolved afterwards by those who lost the referendum trying to retain what they liked about the EU despite it having been rejected - there is no such thing as hard and soft, there is BINO or Brexit.
Hence the "red lines" these were all issues accepted by both sides during the referendum - we must leave the ECJ, Single Market, Customs Union, regain control of our laws, our money and our borders.
May's backstop didn't do this. In fact May's backstop was much LESS democratic than being EU members.
Leaving the CU and the SM were not accepted by both sides during the referendum as the definition of Leave, indeed, many people talked about a Norway or Swiss style deal or joining the EEA.
She claimed: 'He might watch it on catch up, some of us do, some of us have dinner at different times. I don't necessarily think that means that he has lied.' Ms Rayner then vehemently insisted the Labour leader had actually said he catches up with the speech on Boxing Day morning, causing host Susanna Reid to challenge her.
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
The mindset capable of defining May's WA as "not Brexit" is difficult to reason with. But not, I hope, impossible. So I would ask you to please reflect on the term "Brexit". Is it not simply shorthand for the UK exiting the EU? And are there not several different ways in which that could be achieved, ranging from very close alignment to clean break? And is it not for this very reason that various qualifying adjectives such as "hard" and "soft" have evolved?
I would define Brexit as how it was defined during the EU referendum: Taking back control of our laws, money and borders [even though I couldn't care less about the last one]. Is that an unreasonable definition? Hard and soft evolved afterwards by those who lost the referendum trying to retain what they liked about the EU despite it having been rejected - there is no such thing as hard and soft, there is BINO or Brexit.
Hence the "red lines" these were all issues accepted by both sides during the referendum - we must leave the ECJ, Single Market, Customs Union, regain control of our laws, our money and our borders.
May's backstop didn't do this. In fact May's backstop was much LESS democratic than being EU members.
Leaving the CU and the SM were not accepted by both sides during the referendum as the definition of Leave, indeed, many people talked about a Norway or Swiss style deal or joining the EEA.
Not during a referendum campaign they didn't. During the referendum campaign all sides agreed leaving meant leaving the Single Market.
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
The mindset capable of defining May's WA as "not Brexit" is difficult to reason with. But not, I hope, impossible. So I would ask you to please reflect on the term "Brexit". Is it not simply shorthand for the UK exiting the EU? And are there not several different ways in which that could be achieved, ranging from very close alignment to clean break? And is it not for this very reason that various qualifying adjectives such as "hard" and "soft" have evolved?
I would define Brexit as how it was defined during the EU referendum: Taking back control of our laws, money and borders [even though I couldn't care less about the last one]. Is that an unreasonable definition? Hard and soft evolved afterwards by those who lost the referendum trying to retain what they liked about the EU despite it having been rejected - there is no such thing as hard and soft, there is BINO or Brexit.
Hence the "red lines" these were all issues accepted by both sides during the referendum - we must leave the ECJ, Single Market, Customs Union, regain control of our laws, our money and our borders.
May's backstop didn't do this. In fact May's backstop was much LESS democratic than being EU members.
This is dancing on the head of a pin. Brexit is Britain ceasing to be a member of the EU.
I placed a sizeable bet on LibDems to win Portsmouth South at 15/8. Today I can get 33/1. Has anyone got a worse value bet then mine or indeed match my idiocy in any conceivable way?
I don't think it is idiocy. Most people including me thought the LDs had a very good chance of winning that seat until the MRP study came out.
She claimed: 'He might watch it on catch up, some of us do, some of us have dinner at different times. I don't necessarily think that means that he has lied.' Ms Rayner then vehemently insisted the Labour leader had actually said he catches up with the speech on Boxing Day morning, causing host Susanna Reid to challenge her.
The British electorate need to give Jeremy Corbyn the biggest defeat ever handed out to The Labour Party. They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
This could have been penned about Boris Johnson's and Dominic Cummings' revolutionary populists, with curious links, in their ever greater merging with the Brexit Party, to a bizarre stew of ultrarightwing and ultra-leftwing intellectual influences.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Why?
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Contra what seems an oft-consensus on this site, a Venezuelan-style catastrophe is incredibly unlikely. At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight, before the centrist end of the Labour Left like Starmer and Miliband reassert control.
A hard Brexit may destroy Britain's international influence, and wound its economy permanently, if the manner of leaving suggests permanently damaged trading relations with the European continent.
How, exactly, would Labour's moderate wing reaasert control? Would the far left simply concede that it had got it wrong?
After the 1981 GE the message from Benn & co was that the electorate didn't understand the manifesto & if it had been more clearly explained the electorate would have voted for it.
Does anyone know if BXP are actually targeting Labour wards and voters in marginals or just using unsophisticated knock on everyones door like UKIP style canvassing? If it's the former then that could be quite important.
What do people think of Labour’s plan to ban MPs from having second jobs? Does it mean the cabinet will have to be in the Lords or are there going to be exceptions for the right sort of job?
My own opinion is this is the sort of thing the electorate should be able to decide, as long as everything is fully declared. What counts as a job anyway: should a writer no longer be able to write?
He voted for May's BINO deal, not Brexit. He also showed contempt for his own parties election and the mandate that Johnson won, so quite right he was chucked out of the party.
The mindset capable of defining May's WA as "not Brexit" is difficult to reason with. But not, I hope, impossible. So I would ask you to please reflect on the term "Brexit". Is it not simply shorthand for the UK exiting the EU? And are there not several different ways in which that could be achieved, ranging from very close alignment to clean break? And is it not for this very reason that various qualifying adjectives such as "hard" and "soft" have evolved?
I would define Brexit as how it was defined during the EU referendum: Taking back control of our laws, money and borders [even though I couldn't care less about the last one]. Is that an unreasonable definition? Hard and soft evolved afterwards by those who lost the referendum trying to retain what they liked about the EU despite it having been rejected - there is no such thing as hard and soft, there is BINO or Brexit.
Hence the "red lines" these were all issues accepted by both sides during the referendum - we must leave the ECJ, Single Market, Customs Union, regain control of our laws, our money and our borders.
May's backstop didn't do this. In fact May's backstop was much LESS democratic than being EU members.
This is dancing on the head of a pin. Brexit is Britain ceasing to be a member of the EU.
And the purpose of Britain ceasing to be a member of the EU was to regain control of our laws, money and borders.
If we cease to be a member of the EU but continue to be subject to EU laws etc then have we really left?
What do people think of Labour’s plan to ban MPs from having second jobs? Does it mean the cabinet will have to be in the Lords or are there going to be exceptions for the right sort of job?
My own opinion is this is the sort of thing the electorate should be able to decide, as long as everything is fully declared. What counts as a job anyway: should a writer no longer be able to write?
Didn't Ed Miliband float this idea as well and then you quickly find it is really quite difficult. They think of it as all those Tory fat cat MPs doing their 5hrs a month as a non-exec on the board of some company, but actually there is all sorts of bits and pieces MPs do.
2 elections, north vs south. Cons win big in the 1st but lose quite badly in the 2nd due to tactical voting. Majority as expected 40/50. So to make money (starting from here) requires a clever micro approach of backing the Cons to take some very unlikely places up north/midlands but at the same time backing them to lose some crazy seats in the south. Put together a portfolio like that, individual seats, all bets at 3/1 or better. That could pay off big time.
At the worst end of projections there might be a period of high inflation and limited capital flight that's ok then.
It could be much worse under a no-deal or even hard Brexit.
The Tory pro-European pivot begins as soon as we're technically out. Watch this space.
Boris’s plan will be to resolve Brexit quickly inside a year, and then from 2021-2024 build domestic progress and infrastructure off the back of that economic stability of that new status quo so his electoral pitch in May 2024 will be on how he’s improved the regions, not retrospectively on the purity of his Brexit.
If he’s still up against a pseudo-Marxist Labour leader then, he’ll probably win again.
That'll be 19 years of continuous tory government. Almost certainly not what Leibniz was contemplating when he coined the phrase, 'Die beste aller möglichen Welten.'
What do people think of Labour’s plan to ban MPs from having second jobs? Does it mean the cabinet will have to be in the Lords or are there going to be exceptions for the right sort of job?
My own opinion is this is the sort of thing the electorate should be able to decide, as long as everything is fully declared. What counts as a job anyway: should a writer no longer be able to write?
It is a stupid idea. It would make more sense to make all MPs have a second job.
Who looks at MPs and thinks the problem we have in Parliament is that our MPs are not out of touch enough?
I’ve lost track. How many nanoseconds since Labour’s last anti-semitism crisis?
Imagine how bad it will be once Labour Twitter has had a full day to "respond" to the Jewish Labour Movement ... shudders.
p.s. I just wanted to check whether the zero line at the right of your awesome graphs is election day itself? It looked to me like there might be a day's offset, but I could be wrong.
Zero should be election day itself.
Greats, thanks. I'm all square now - that means today is Day -7 on the chart.
2 elections, north vs south. Cons win big in the 1st but lose quite badly in the 2nd due to tactical voting. Majority as expected 40/50. So to make money (starting from here) requires a clever micro approach of backing the Cons to take some very unlikely places up north/midlands but at the same time backing them to lose some crazy seats in the south. Put together a portfolio like that, individual seats, all bets at 3/1 or better. That could pay off big time.
I confidently believe there is money to be made out of carefully selected northern Lab Holds. Scratch that. I desperately hope there is money to be made out of carefully selected northern Lab Holds.
Comments
They have been taken over by extremists with abhorrent views.
“As Conservatives, we stand for power and the rule of of the Conservative Party.”
Because that's what it looks like from here.
However damaging or not Corbyn's policies may be in the short-term, they may be reversible for those that want to. A hard Brexit may not.
Boris may wave some liberal-style policies about, but he is mostly about Boris.
Are you having a laugh?
I expect it will feature more after lunch and I expect the ex brexit party members making a public announcement on their move to the conservatives to also feature
The JLM report is dreadful timing for Corbyn with his live tv debate v Boris tomorrow evening on BBC
Prior to this, his department had spent a year trailing to the insurance industry that the new rate was going to be in the range from zero to one percent (it was previously minus 0.75%).
He set it at minus 0.25%. It did not go down well. I have no idea where he got this number from.
For the record, I don't much like McVey either. But if I had to choose, I'd go for the one who is currently on board with the plan, and not being a pain in the neck. That McVey is no longer being disastrous in the DWP due to not liking the previous plan, is icing on the cake.
A hard Brexit can be reversed by rejoining the EU. 22 countries have joined the EU over the years.
A Venezuelan-style catastrophe will be much more irreversible. I can't think of any country ever that has pursued Marxist policies and come back from it to where we are now - can you?
Yay poll coming out today!
A hard Brexit may destroy Britain's international influence, and wound its economy permanently, if the manner of leaving suggests permanently damaged trading relations with the European continent.
Con 43%, Lab 32%, LD 14%.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/oct/31/uk-general-election-2019-poll-tracker
"We recognize that this has resulted in a lack of fairness in our election coverage. This was not our intention and we apologize for it."
I'd be interested to know whether anyone here who has read them can pick out even one which can be characterised as a personal "act of antisemitism."
Most of them are along the lines of "Corbyn defended someone who has been accused of antisemitism," "Corbyn attended an event at which one of the speakers is alleged to have made an antisemitic statement," "Corbyn wrote a forward [sic] for a book which has been accused of antisemitism" and so on.
It's very much the usual mud-slinging. For example, it attributes to Corbyn the quotation: "Zionists ... don't understand English irony despite having lived in the country for a long time or perhaps all of their lives." Of course, this is an old chestnut, which is freely available on video, which makes it clear Corbyn was talking about comments made by a specific group of people who had attended a particular talk. If they have to rely on misleadingly edited quotations like this, it's pretty clear they don't have a single genuine piece of evidence of antisemitism on Corbyn's part.
Impartiality means offering equal time to all parties to make their case, by offering AN and a studio to the the Conservatives the BBC have fulfilled that mandate.
Someone had better go and get measured up for the chicken suit!
If Corbyn and McDonnell get their mits on Downing Street I'm not going to put my faith in Starmer and Miliband ousting them in an internal party coup.
https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1202541809882324993?s=20
On the other hand we have Corbyn and McDonnell who are radical dogmatists and said to be not in it for themselves. They are fundamentalists, and as the great Amos Oz said in a BBC interview, the fundamentalist is not interested in his own welfare, he is interested in your welfare. Therein lies the problem.
What was unusual was that the Government did not have a majority in Parliament and was struggling to implement its principal policy in the face of parliamentary opposition that was rewriting the Commons rule book to enact primary legislation against the will of the executive. Precedents for parliaments doing this (however good their motive might be) are not good (cf 1258, 1311, 1386, 1460, 1640-2, 1679-81).
What happened with prorogation was not an attack on democracy (whatever the pious pronouncements of Lady Hale, whose understanding about the role of parliament only seems to go back to the 17th century and no further) but a political manoeuvre by the Government (one that failed in its purpose hence the passing of the Benn Act), something recognised by the High Court (though overturned by the Supreme Court).
We will have to wait and see what any review produces (assuming Johnson wins a majority) but, while I appreciate why people have concerns about the motives of a Johnson government, the principle that the courts should not be used to conduct politics by another means and that judges need to be careful about making laws as well interpreting them seems as sound to me as that of judicial independence and ability of judges to force the government to obey the law.
A proper look at the Constitution in the wake of the Blair reforms is a good thing and at least Johnson is proposing a proper commission unlike Blair's decision to create the Supreme Court which came after very little consultation. Let's see what the proposals are before we assume that we're in Thomas More territory!
The Tories have cut the courts way back, if everybody stops paying the license fee at the same time they won't be able to get to everyone.
I consistently and unwaveringly opposed May's undemocratic backstop deal, but I've not condemned MPs for being loyal to May . . . though I have said Boris was wrong for voting for the deal in MV3.
However Gauke was not a loyalist, he was quite to ignore the mandate Johnson got. I don't see why he deserves any kudos for that. He was on the wrong side of the referendum and the wrong side of the leadership election and that shouldn't win any respect.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/democratic-debate-lineup.html
Down to 5 actual candidates: Biden, Buttigeig, Bernie, Baemy, Belizabeth Bwarren.
Then Steyer buying his way in and touch-and-go whether you also get Yang and Gabbard by the power of twitter.
Present but not involved...obvs
Today I can get 33/1. Has anyone got a worse value bet then mine or indeed match my idiocy in any conceivable way?
A load of bollocks in today's FT today saying sterling is strong because investors now expect "an orderly withdrawal from the EU". NO, THAT ISNT WHY.... The pound is strong because Corbyn looks set to lose and is a mortal threat to the UK's prosperity and credit-worthiness.
As far as no other system would give similar results that's garbage - AW would have but I voted against it.
I like FPTP because I agree with it as a system. I'm also OK with AV as a system but voted against it because I thought it was a slippery slope to other systems like PR that I philosophically oppose.
The SNP are at it now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7758661/Angela-Rayner-repeatedly-insists-Corbyn-watched-Queens-speech-catch-up.html
And some in Labour want this lady to be leader?
p.s. I just wanted to check whether the zero line at the right of your awesome graphs is election day itself? It looked to me like there might be a day's offset, but I could be wrong.
If he’s still up against a pseudo-Marxist Labour leader then, he’ll probably win again.
Hence the "red lines" these were all issues accepted by both sides during the referendum - we must leave the ECJ, Single Market, Customs Union, regain control of our laws, our money and our borders.
May's backstop didn't do this. In fact May's backstop was much LESS democratic than being EU members.
https://twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/status/1202533101362135040
My own opinion is this is the sort of thing the electorate should be able to decide, as long as everything is fully declared. What counts as a job anyway: should a writer no longer be able to write?
If we cease to be a member of the EU but continue to be subject to EU laws etc then have we really left?
https://capx.co/the-tories-are-spending-much-less-than-labour-online-for-a-good-reason/
2 elections, north vs south. Cons win big in the 1st but lose quite badly in the 2nd due to tactical voting. Majority as expected 40/50. So to make money (starting from here) requires a clever micro approach of backing the Cons to take some very unlikely places up north/midlands but at the same time backing them to lose some crazy seats in the south. Put together a portfolio like that, individual seats, all bets at 3/1 or better. That could pay off big time.
Who looks at MPs and thinks the problem we have in Parliament is that our MPs are not out of touch enough?
Scratch that.
I desperately hope there is money to be made out of carefully selected northern Lab Holds.