Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joff Wild on Jeremy Corbyn and an impending constitutional

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joff Wild on Jeremy Corbyn and an impending constitutional crisis

As leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition Jeremy Corbyn receives a salary of close to £138,000 per annum. On top of this, of course, he gets expenses and a generous pension package. Last week, he told us that he does not consider himself wealthy.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    First!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    second (like a gentleman)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited August 2016
    Bercow and Corbyn hung out to dry...sounds like a good plan to me. Perhaps both men can spend more time making jam.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    An excellent piece. Clearly Douglas Carswell is the right man to be the official Leader of the Opposition. After all, his party secured the next most number of votes at the General Election last year, and he has the full support of all of his parliamentary party.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    second (like a gentleman)

    :heart:
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited August 2016
    Advance workers! Not one cent’s worth of confidence in the “third front” of the Joffist and Wildian petty bourgeoisie!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Interesting piece, Mr. Wild.

    How can the Speaker impose a change, though? Surely the PLP needs to split, and the non-socialists form a new party?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Good piece and I understand the frustration but I struggle to see what the Speaker can do other than express concern when either no shadow minister stands up or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked.

    The matter of who is the Leader of the Labour party is ultimately a matter for the members of the party, not the Speaker.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    rcs1000 said:

    An excellent piece. Clearly Douglas Carswell is the right man to be the official Leader of the Opposition. After all, his party secured the next most number of votes at the General Election last year, and he has the full support of all of his parliamentary party.

    I thought they split over short money?

    Also does that 138k include his 64k as an MP and his index-linked final salary pension?

    If not, he owes something like 182k in change for taking the money under false pretences...
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited August 2016
    Excellent article SO. I've given up trying to predict what will happen to the Labour party. As I've said before the GE15 defeat, combined with Ed's daft rule changes have left us with a party that is having a cross between a nervous breakdown and a psychotic episode.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    rcs1000 said:

    An excellent piece. Clearly Douglas Carswell is the right man to be the official Leader of the Opposition. After all, his party secured the next most number of votes at the General Election last year, and he has the full support of all of his parliamentary party.

    But not so much of his non Parliamentary party. Pretty remarkable when you think of it that a party with 1 MP does not have that MP as one of 5 candidates for leader.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    If there's nothing for the speaker to do, the speaker will do nothing.

    The MPs will still be taking the Labour whip, Corbyn is filling the main posts, it's hard to see what justification Bercow would have to get involved.

    If the rebels resign the whip and/or form a breakaway party-in-a-party with more MPs than Corbyn then there might be an alternative lever to try to persuade Bercow to pull, but it seems unlikely that they'd have the numbers.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    DavidL said:

    Good piece and I understand the frustration but I struggle to see what the Speaker can do other than express concern when either no shadow minister stands up or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked.

    The matter of who is the Leader of the Labour party is ultimately a matter for the members of the party, not the Speaker.

    ""or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked. "

    That's the case now with the Leader of the Opposition " A fish rots from the head......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    DavidL said:


    The matter of who is the Leader of the Labour party is ultimately a matter for the members of the party, not the Speaker.

    But isn't the point that the Leader of the Opposition is a matter for the speaker? And if the Leader of The Labour Party isn't up to it, Bercow should lock the PLP in a room and not let them out until they've got a leader they can support....

    If the Labour Party isn't interested in Parliament, Parliament can return the favour.....
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Great article but the solution does still lie within the PLP and they lack the confidence/ability/spine to act decisively. The weakness of Labour sadly is not just down to JC and his cronies. I doubt if Bercow would do anything but if he did the obvious alternative is within the SNP - for my money the more exposure they get the better - it makes them look ever barmier!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:


    The matter of who is the Leader of the Labour party is ultimately a matter for the members of the party, not the Speaker.

    But isn't the point that the Leader of the Opposition is a matter for the speaker? And if the Leader of The Labour Party isn't up to it, Bercow should lock the PLP in a room and not let them out until they've got a leader they can support....

    If the Labour Party isn't interested in Parliament, Parliament can return the favour.....
    The ability of the Speaker to lock anyone up is (thankfully) quite limited. The Labour Party constitution is clear. The leader of the party is either PM or leader of the Opposition. The only way that can change is by sufficient MPs leaving the party to make Corbyn's cronies no longer the second largest political party in the Commons. Much as I would like it to I don't see that happening.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    I'm not really convinced by the notion that we need these vast hordes of junior ministers and PPSs. They mostly seem like ways to boost the leaderships power by patronage, and occasional sacrificial lambs when something embarassing needs to be done
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited August 2016
    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. L, indeed.

    We shall see, if Corbyn wins, whether Labour MPs do the decent thing and split; whether their loyalties are to the name or to the values of Labour.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Good piece and I understand the frustration but I struggle to see what the Speaker can do other than express concern when either no shadow minister stands up or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked.

    The matter of who is the Leader of the Labour party is ultimately a matter for the members of the party, not the Speaker.

    ""or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked. "

    That's the case now with the Leader of the Opposition " A fish rots from the head......
    Oh he is truly pathetic no question and Joff is right that our constitution simply did not contemplate a scenario where the vast majority of MPs have no confidence in their leader but he thinks that he should continue leading them.

    Other than the PLP selecting their own leader in Parliament (which would be a clear breach of the party's constitution and entitle the party to suspend them) it is not obvious what can be done about it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    William_H said:

    I'm not really convinced by the notion that we need these vast hordes of junior ministers and PPSs. They mostly seem like ways to boost the leaderships power by patronage, and occasional sacrificial lambs when something embarassing needs to be done

    For the minor parties that is true but for the alternative government it is important that people have invested the time and effort finding out about the area they are going to be in charge of, thinking about what works and does not and what might be improved. Being a minister with no such backdrop means months of paralysis or civil service management.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    DavidL said:

    Oh he is truly pathetic no question and Joff is right that our constitution simply did not contemplate a scenario where the vast majority of MPs have no confidence in their leader but he thinks that he should continue leading them.

    It sort-of does. If that person is Prime Minister, they show their lack of confidence in a no confidence vote, and the Prime Minister resigns, then they get a new one who doesn't necessarily have to be the leader of the party, or failing that they have a new election.

    If the person is the Leader of the Opposition, well, whatever.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.


    Yes, but Ed M was elected by the PLP for the PLP.

    Corbyn was not.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.


    Yes, but Ed M was elected by the PLP for the PLP.

    Corbyn was not.

    I thought David Miliband won the PLP vote? ;)
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346

    Mr. L, indeed.

    We shall see, if Corbyn wins, whether Labour MPs do the decent thing and split; whether their loyalties are to the name or to the values of Labour.

    There won't be a split as long as they can block rule changes and re-selections. They're still in line to take back control as soon as Corbyn goes, since no Corbynite will get the necessary nominations..
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.


    Yes, but Ed M was elected by the PLP for the PLP.

    Corbyn was not.

    No, he didn’t win the PLP vote. His brother did.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. H, perhaps.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.


    Yes, but Ed M was elected by the PLP for the PLP.

    Corbyn was not.

    No, he didn’t win the PLP vote. His brother did.

    Ok, but he was an acceptable alternative to DavidM for the PLP (within the voting process).

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Actually, I withdraw my remark. It's a bad article, and needs a complete rewrite so any constitutional crisis results in Jacob Rees-Mogg becoming Speaker :).
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Good piece and I understand the frustration but I struggle to see what the Speaker can do other than express concern when either no shadow minister stands up or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked.

    The matter of who is the Leader of the Labour party is ultimately a matter for the members of the party, not the Speaker.

    ""or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked. "

    That's the case now with the Leader of the Opposition " A fish rots from the head......
    Oh he is truly pathetic no question and Joff is right that our constitution simply did not contemplate a scenario where the vast majority of MPs have no confidence in their leader but he thinks that he should continue leading them.

    Other than the PLP selecting their own leader in Parliament (which would be a clear breach of the party's constitution and entitle the party to suspend them) it is not obvious what can be done about it.
    Unless Corbyn loses which seems unlikely, and even if he does, not sure Smith has the confidence of the PLP, it seems that we are here until HMQ is asked to dissolve this Parliament.

    I suppose a loss of thousands of council seats might start a revolution in Labour, but the MP's have played it very badly. they seem weak and indecisive and even fecked up the resignations from the front bench..
    There is no one I can think of who could take the PLP by the scuff of the neck..

    Any suggestions?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    An interesting article, Mr Wild. Thanks.

    It suggests a question: what is the legal basis and requirements of the Official Opposition in parliament? Is there any exact wording written down anywhere? Its too long since I read the uni's copy of Erskine May (*) to remember much about it, and I'm no sure if it's the sort of thing it covered anyway.

    Do the OO actually *have* to do anything?

    (*) It's a real shame this costs so much - £318 for the latest edition. Ouch.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    An interesting article, Mr Wild. Thanks.

    It suggests a question: what is the legal basis and requirements of the Official Opposition in parliament? Is there any exact wording written down anywhere? Its too long since I read the uni's copy of Erskine May (*) to remember much about it, and I'm no sure if it's the sort of thing it covered anyway.

    Do the OO actually *have* to do anything?

    (*) It's a real shame this costs so much - £318 for the latest edition. Ouch.

    We should ask our kle4, who just got gifted a copy the lucky git.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. M, a shame PM doesn't stand for Prime Moggster.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    What we have learned over the last few weeks is that once the leadership contest which Corbyn is fighting with Owen Smith has been put to bed, the acrimony that exists across Labour is not going to go away

    That depends what you mean. I think it will go away for a time, perhaps a year or more, while the beaten lick their wounds.

    Our constitution demands a properly functioning opposition – one in which a full shadow cabinet is backed up by a full team of junior shadow ministers and parliamentary private secretaries. For as long as Jeremy Corbyn leads Labour, this will not happen.

    Not quite - he has just enough MP support for a full team I think. The question is if they are up to the job.

    I'm not sure at what point Bercow would be prompted into taking action. There is definitely an argument if the opposition leader is not actually leading parliamentary opposition that is a problem, no matter how much Corbyn claims to be opposing in the country at large, but it would be such a momentous thing to attempt.

    Like the Constitution itself, I expect all sides will attempt to muddle along for as long as possible, and surprisingly long at that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    John_M said:

    Actually, I withdraw my remark. It's a bad article, and needs a complete rewrite so any constitutional crisis results in Jacob Rees-Mogg becoming Speaker :).

    A long, long time ago, Jacob Rees-Mogg had my job (before I had it).
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    John_M said:

    Actually, I withdraw my remark. It's a bad article, and needs a complete rewrite so any constitutional crisis results in Jacob Rees-Mogg becoming Speaker :).

    Moggster is everything the Speaker should be.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    rcs1000 said:

    John_M said:

    Actually, I withdraw my remark. It's a bad article, and needs a complete rewrite so any constitutional crisis results in Jacob Rees-Mogg becoming Speaker :).

    A long, long time ago, Jacob Rees-Mogg had my job (before I had it).
    He's my favourite parliamentarian, you were treading on hallowed ground :).
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Will Anthony Weiner Live at the White House?

    "Given his proximity to power, however, some questions have yet to be asked. Will Weiner have an official role in the White House? (Director of Social Media, perhaps?) Will he, in fact, be living at the White House with Huma Abedin? One can only imagine the late-night hijinks of First Man Bill Clinton and his junior sidekick."

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/07/will-anthony-weiner-enter-white-house/
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    A cri de coeur from Mr. Observer over the state of his beloved party which he has recently rejoined - rejoined, IIRC, after his current leader was in post. However, one can hardly expect the Speaker to step in to sort out a party's internal problems. Corbyn is the leader of the second largest party in the commons. The MPs in that party may not like him, and he maybe a useless leader but that is a problem for those MPs not the Speaker or indeed anyone else.



  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Good piece and I understand the frustration but I struggle to see what the Speaker can do other than express concern when either no shadow minister stands up or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked.

    The matter of who is the Leader of the Labour party is ultimately a matter for the members of the party, not the Speaker.

    ""or the one that does is so poorly briefed that the important questions are not asked. "

    That's the case now with the Leader of the Opposition " A fish rots from the head......
    Oh he is truly pathetic no question and Joff is right that our constitution simply did not contemplate a scenario where the vast majority of MPs have no confidence in their leader but he thinks that he should continue leading them.

    Other than the PLP selecting their own leader in Parliament (which would be a clear breach of the party's constitution and entitle the party to suspend them) it is not obvious what can be done about it.
    Unless Corbyn loses which seems unlikely, and even if he does, not sure Smith has the confidence of the PLP, it seems that we are here until HMQ is asked to dissolve this Parliament.

    I suppose a loss of thousands of council seats might start a revolution in Labour, but the MP's have played it very badly. they seem weak and indecisive and even fecked up the resignations from the front bench..
    There is no one I can think of who could take the PLP by the scuff of the neck..

    Any suggestions?
    In the House of Commons, not really, maybe Jim McMahon?

    Outside there is Ed Balls, David Miliband and arguably even Alan Milburn or James Purnell who would have been options. Labour have yet to recover from the catastrophe that was Brown and a whole generation of potential leaders who decided to do other things with their lives.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.

    As I was reading Joff's excellent piece I was thinking that perhaps Bercow would be better off approaching this from the other direction. I would talk to the ring-leader of the cabal and say to them - "look, either you support your leader (and get on with the job of being the official opposition), you break away and form a different party (and if there's enough of you you will become the official opposition), or I will go nuclear and declare the SNP the official opposition.
  • More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    MP_SE said:

    Will Anthony Weiner Live at the White House?

    "Given his proximity to power, however, some questions have yet to be asked. Will Weiner have an official role in the White House? (Director of Social Media, perhaps?) Will he, in fact, be living at the White House with Huma Abedin? One can only imagine the late-night hijinks of First Man Bill Clinton and his junior sidekick."

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/07/will-anthony-weiner-enter-white-house/

    How about Minister for Works and other Public Erections?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    Righty-ho!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited August 2016
    tlg86 said:

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.

    As I was reading Joff's excellent piece I was thinking that perhaps Bercow would be better off approaching this from the other direction. I would talk to the ring-leader of the cabal and say to them - "look, either you support your leader (and get on with the job of being the official opposition), you break away and form a different party (and if there's enough of you you will become the official opposition), or I will go nuclear and declare the SNP the official opposition.
    Surely he can only declare the second largest grouping of MPs as the official opposition?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    RobD said:

    An interesting article, Mr Wild. Thanks.

    It suggests a question: what is the legal basis and requirements of the Official Opposition in parliament? Is there any exact wording written down anywhere? Its too long since I read the uni's copy of Erskine May (*) to remember much about it, and I'm no sure if it's the sort of thing it covered anyway.

    Do the OO actually *have* to do anything?

    (*) It's a real shame this costs so much - £318 for the latest edition. Ouch.

    We should ask our kle4, who just got gifted a copy the lucky git.
    It does note that many matters of the House, in particular the arrangement and conduct of business, are arranged on the basis of a single clear-cut division between Government and Opposition. The fact of several separately organized parties, supporting, opposing or in coalition with the government, complicated those arrangements. The predominant share of the Government in arranging time and business of the house is recognized in standing orders, but the fact of several parties and their own party machinery perform important procedural workings is still largely disregarded by standing orders

    But on to the matter at hand:

    The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually obviated any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the 'Official Opposition'; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office. The Leader of the Opposition and some of his principal colleagues in both Houses form a a group, popularly known as the Shadow Cabinet...Since the strength of modern party discipline tends to reduce the effectiveness in the House of Commons of a direct attack upon a Government, the criticism of the Opposition is primarily directed towards the electorate, with a view to the next election, or with the aim of influencing government policy through the pressure of public opinion.The floor of the House of Commons provides the Opposition with their main instrument for this purpose...The Leader of the Opposition is by custom afforded certain rights in asking questions of ministers, and members of the Shadow Cabinet and other official Opposition spokesman are also given some precedence in asking questions and in debate.

    On 'Opposition Time' - Seventeen of the days so allocated [for such time] are at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition, and three at the disposal of the leader of the second largest opposition party.


    There's a lot of technical guff, but it doesn't look the Opposition have many formal responsibilities, as it also notes in some ways government days are in essence also opposition days with the ways they can debate and influence government time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    If he thinks the process will be more complex than - for example - the velvet divorce of 1993, or the replacement of the USSR by the CIS, both of which took rather less than four months to agree, then he's an absolute fool anyway.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    tlg86 said:

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.

    As I was reading Joff's excellent piece I was thinking that perhaps Bercow would be better off approaching this from the other direction. I would talk to the ring-leader of the cabal and say to them - "look, either you support your leader (and get on with the job of being the official opposition), you break away and form a different party (and if there's enough of you you will become the official opposition), or I will go nuclear and declare the SNP the official opposition.
    Why, Mr 86, should the Speaker do anything? The leader of the opposition is not very good at his job. Is the great Speaker of the House required to vet the competency of party leaders? Where did such an idea come from?

    This is a Labour party issue and not a constitutional one. The labour party got itself into this mess, not least by some of its MPs nominating Corbyn for the leadership ballot. It is down to the party to sort itself out not for the Speaker to try and rescue it from its own folly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    rcs1000 said:

    John_M said:

    Actually, I withdraw my remark. It's a bad article, and needs a complete rewrite so any constitutional crisis results in Jacob Rees-Mogg becoming Speaker :).

    A long, long time ago, Jacob Rees-Mogg had my job (before I had it).
    Only reasonable you follow after him again - fancy a pay cut?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Thanks @kle4.

    "The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually obviated any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the 'Official Opposition'; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office. "

    Interesting, so it isn't just pure numbers (assuming this is used as the definition of official opposition).
  • RobD said:

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    Righty-ho!
    I think it translates as "If I stick my fingers in my ears and sing lalalalalala for long enough it will all go away like a bad dream..."
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    Smelling salts on standby :D:o:D
  • Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    Crikey, that is a majority of 190, bigger than Bliars.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    It will be terribly complex, but given the political difficulty in not following through, a muddle will be found regardless, Professor.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    An interesting article, Mr Wild. Thanks.

    It suggests a question: what is the legal basis and requirements of the Official Opposition in parliament? Is there any exact wording written down anywhere? Its too long since I read the uni's copy of Erskine May (*) to remember much about it, and I'm no sure if it's the sort of thing it covered anyway.

    Do the OO actually *have* to do anything?

    (*) It's a real shame this costs so much - £318 for the latest edition. Ouch.

    We should ask our kle4, who just got gifted a copy the lucky git.
    The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually obviated any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the 'Official Opposition'; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office.
    You could, if it were allowed to interpret well beyond the obvious meaning, take that in many different ways.
  • More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    Thanks.
    He's a yank and Blairite academic placeman . A new entry to my black book.
  • kle4 said:

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    It will be terribly complex, but given the political difficulty in not following through, a muddle will be found regardless, Professor.
    I dont really see any difficulty at all. As all EU laws, directives and regulations have been topped and tailed by statutory instruments you dont repeal the EEC act 1972 you just amended it to note withdrawal from the EU but leave all its daughter legislation intact.

    So on day one nothing changes. As time goes on parliament just changes bits and pieces of it as it pleases by repealing or changing the SIs.

    In a decade or two they might replace the EEC act with a new one to tidy things up but that is not unusual with any major legislation.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    edited August 2016

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    "Brooks worked with Labour Party advisors on the 2015 election manifesto and advises on policy." - Says it all. https://www.dur.ac.uk/law/staff/?id=11140
  • Thanks for all the comments.

    Corbyn is paid £138,000 a year because he has a constitutional role beyond being his party's leader. If someone can't do the job they're paid to do, they either resign or are fired. Corbyn can't do the job he is paid to do :-)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Can I please drop some further thoughts into the EU debate (sorry SO to keep off-topic)!

    (1) Britain is fully compliant with all EU regulations so once a deal on the SM is reached it should be straightforward to implement. If it isn't it is unlikely we will get a FT deal anyway, so that won't take much negotiating;

    (2) The claim that there are 60,000 pages of EU law on the statute book is false. Take, for example, EU regulations on caged hens. The original was 12 pages long. Our regulations are over 250 pages long. This is because the civil servants at MAFF (as it then was) took the opportunity to add loads of other regulations to the same statute and blame the EU for it. So most of those are British laws anyway and don't need removing, or can be removed as they come up;

    (3) trade will continue in some form, as it always has since the days of the Celtic tribes. There may well be costs. But there is no law saying we must impose tariffs on EU components for assemblage in this country (for example). There are things a clever Chancellor can do to mitigate the impact. As for the loss of City euro traded, did they ever pay taxes on that anyway, or make up for the huge banking losses of 2007-8?

    There may be changes. But if it is complex, long-drawn out or especially painful, that is not because of the inherent impossibility of Brexit but because somebody is playing silly nuggets.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Thanks for all the comments.

    Corbyn is paid £138,000 a year because he has a constitutional role beyond being his party's leader. If someone can't do the job they're paid to do, they either resign or are fired. Corbyn can't do the job he is paid to do :-)

    Although it doesn't seem as though there are any success criteria against which to judge him.
  • weejonnie said:

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    "Brooks worked with Labour Party advisors on the 2015 election manifesto and advises on policy." - Says it all. https://www.dur.ac.uk/law/staff/?id=11140
    It is beginning to look to me that this leadership election in Labour is because Corbyn is not sound on the EU and the Euro Sausagists in Labour are desperate to replace him with a euro toadie who will do everything he can to obstruct brexit. The next election is a secondary matter.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited August 2016
    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,719

    A cri de coeur from Mr. Observer over the state of his beloved party which he has recently rejoined - rejoined, IIRC, after his current leader was in post. However, one can hardly expect the Speaker to step in to sort out a party's internal problems. Corbyn is the leader of the second largest party in the commons. The MPs in that party may not like him, and he maybe a useless leader but that is a problem for those MPs not the Speaker or indeed anyone else.

    I don’t think Bercow will even think of going there. In public, anyway. He just might, in some form of non-attributable conversations though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    Thanks for all the comments.

    Corbyn is paid £138,000 a year because he has a constitutional role beyond being his party's leader. If someone can't do the job they're paid to do, they either resign or are fired. Corbyn can't do the job he is paid to do :-)

    Yes but is that inclusive of MPs pay? (I really do want to know. He's not worth 138 but still less is he worth north of 200.)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    When Harriet Harman applauded Ed Miliband’s criticisms of Iraq in 2010 just after he was elected leader, David leaned over and said “You voted for it. Why are you clapping”. Harriet replied “I am clapping because I am supporting my leader”

    It is the job of the PLP to support their leader. They are not doing it.

    You might as well argue that Bercow should fire the PLP. They are preventing Corbyn from doing his job.

    As I was reading Joff's excellent piece I was thinking that perhaps Bercow would be better off approaching this from the other direction. I would talk to the ring-leader of the cabal and say to them - "look, either you support your leader (and get on with the job of being the official opposition), you break away and form a different party (and if there's enough of you you will become the official opposition), or I will go nuclear and declare the SNP the official opposition.
    Why, Mr 86, should the Speaker do anything? The leader of the opposition is not very good at his job. Is the great Speaker of the House required to vet the competency of party leaders? Where did such an idea come from?

    This is a Labour party issue and not a constitutional one. The labour party got itself into this mess, not least by some of its MPs nominating Corbyn for the leadership ballot. It is down to the party to sort itself out not for the Speaker to try and rescue it from its own folly.
    As Joff says, there is the financial element. But I suspect nothing will actually happen.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    Who has a tattoo on their face anyway?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    Who has a tattoo on their face anyway?
    No one I'd want to be a police officer. Call me prejudiced.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    The Conservatives won't get 420 seats, not least because it'll be a 600 seat Parliament.

    A majority of 240 seems a shade optimistic.
  • kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    When I was single. Rule 1. Never asked out anyone with any sort of tatto or rings/studs anywhere other than 1 in each earlobe.

    Repulsive.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    OK: LDs gain NE Fife, Edinburgh West from the SNP, Cambridge from Labour (yes, Justin). Twickenham? Does that work?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    A cri de coeur from Mr. Observer over the state of his beloved party which he has recently rejoined - rejoined, IIRC, after his current leader was in post. However, one can hardly expect the Speaker to step in to sort out a party's internal problems. Corbyn is the leader of the second largest party in the commons. The MPs in that party may not like him, and he maybe a useless leader but that is a problem for those MPs not the Speaker or indeed anyone else.

    I don’t think Bercow will even think of going there. In public, anyway. He just might, in some form of non-attributable conversations though.
    Quite. This is a man who's defence of trying to appoint someone patently unsuited to a senior job was that he wasn't allowed to split the role in two, so he went with someone unable to do half the role that was required. That was his defence. And that was over an official, he won't have the confidence or support to take a controversial stance on something like this openly.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    RobD said:

    Thanks @kle4.

    "The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually obviated any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the 'Official Opposition'; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office. "

    Interesting, so it isn't just pure numbers (assuming this is used as the definition of official opposition).

    Indeed, thanks to kle4.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    rcs1000 said:

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    OK: LDs gain NE Fife, Edinburgh West from the SNP, Cambridge from Labour (yes, Justin). Twickenham? Does that work?
    East Dunbartonshire? Lowest LD drop in the country in 2015.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    rcs1000 said:

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    OK: LDs gain NE Fife, Edinburgh West from the SNP, Cambridge from Labour (yes, Justin). Twickenham? Does that work?
    East Dunbartonshire, I would have thought.
  • Another good piece from Mr Wild.

    I've changed the thread picture with a picture that's much more appropriate for this thread.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    RobD said:

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    Righty-ho!
    I think it translates as "If I stick my fingers in my ears and sing lalalalalala for long enough it will all go away like a bad dream..."


    1. Denial
    2. Anger
    3. Bargaining
    4. Depression
    5. Acceptance

    He's got a long way to go.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    rcs1000 said:

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    OK: LDs gain NE Fife, Edinburgh West from the SNP, Cambridge from Labour (yes, Justin). Twickenham? Does that work?
    In a 650 seat House of Commons, I honestly do not believe that Labour would win <200 without a strong UK-wide replacement party of opposition. Or to put it another way, I do not think that even Jeremy Corbyn would hand the Tories more than about 370-380.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @ydoethur

    " trade will continue in some form, as it always has since the days of the Celtic tribes. "

    Excuse me! Trade with europe, and indeed beyond, was happening well before the celtic tribes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    OK: LDs gain NE Fife, Edinburgh West from the SNP, Cambridge from Labour (yes, Justin). Twickenham? Does that work?
    East Dunbartonshire? Lowest LD drop in the country in 2015.
    The LDs were well behind in Holyrood. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strathkelvin_and_Bearsden_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)

    So, although Jo Swinson is very impressive, I doubt they'll be competitive. (I wouldn't be surprised if she was the candidate in O&S next time around.)

    I just looked at NE Fife again, and I'm staggered by how Willie Rennie did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_Fife_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency) - I've gone from thinking that's a 50/50 seat for the LDs to thinking it's a likely LD gain, given it's 80% of the parliamentary constituency.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,773
    kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    Just what we need. Police officers with Swastikas and Iron Crosses tattooed on their faces.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited August 2016

    kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    When I was single. Rule 1. Never asked out anyone with any sort of tatto or rings/studs anywhere other than 1 in each earlobe.

    Repulsive.
    Tattooing, piercing and other self-mutilations are strongly associated with criminality and deliquency. They're extreme forms of graffiti and vandalism. These are just the types of inadequates that the police should filter out of selection for employment.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Another good piece from Mr Wild.

    I've changed the thread picture with a picture that's much more appropriate for this thread.

    Naughty....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    edited August 2016

    ydoethur

    " trade will continue in some form, as it always has since the days of the Celtic tribes. "

    Excuse me! Trade with europe, and indeed beyond, was happening well before the celtic tribes.

    How were you defining 'Celt', Mr Llama? I was defining it as a pre-Roman inhabitant of Western Europe.

    There is of course some discussion about what came before that, if anything, but having read innumerable books on the subject that go into exhaustive and in my view pointless detail (I think the low point was somebody who asked 'woher komme diese Kelten' for no apparent reason other than to show off his knowledge of German) I just draw the line at 'Celts' and call everything else 'an argument'.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    When I was single. Rule 1. Never asked out anyone with any sort of tatto or rings/studs anywhere other than 1 in each earlobe.

    Repulsive.
    Tattooing, piercing and other self-mutilations are strongly associated with criminality and deliquency. They're extreme forms of graffiti and vandalism. These are just the types of inadequates that the police should filter out..
    No wonder the Police Federation want them.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Miss DiCanio, whilst also not a tattoo-enthusiast, they're surprisingly common these days.

    That said, I wouldn't be too reassured if a rozzer had one. On their face.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    edited August 2016

    RobD said:

    Thanks @kle4.

    "The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually obviated any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the 'Official Opposition'; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office. "

    Interesting, so it isn't just pure numbers (assuming this is used as the definition of official opposition).

    Indeed, thanks to kle4.
    Corbyn has defied political gravity so far. There is a sort of resignation (recently with Cameron) that comes with the loss of political capital, that leads to the believe that one's own resignation is inevitable, whether you like or not. For Corbyn, as his political capital collapses to a new low, still he clings on.

    In most circumstances, the political reality would tell you who was the official opposition. But with Corbyn, he'd claim it with fifty MPs - and fourth party status - if it came to it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    When I was single. Rule 1. Never asked out anyone with any sort of tatto or rings/studs anywhere other than 1 in each earlobe.

    Repulsive.
    Tattooing, piercing and other self-mutilations are strongly associated with criminality and deliquency. They're extreme forms of graffiti and vandalism. These are just the types of inadequates that the police should filter out..
    I wouldn't go that far, but a face tattoo or piercing seems too much for a police officer. Surely a police force is allowed to mandate a certain image for its service, within the bounds or reason?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Exhibit 75 the Police Federation are dunces:

    Police officers should be allowed to have tattoos on their hands, neck and even faces, the Police Federation of England and Wales says.

    It believes a ban on visible tattoos imposed by many forces may hamper the recruitment of promising candidates


    Really? That's hampering the recruitment of promising candidates? This isn't exactly the FBI saying those really good with IT don't have to dress in suits and can have minor criminal records.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37214262

    When I was single. Rule 1. Never asked out anyone with any sort of tatto or rings/studs anywhere other than 1 in each earlobe.

    Repulsive.
    Tattooing, piercing and other self-mutilations are strongly associated with criminality and deliquency. They're extreme forms of graffiti and vandalism. These are just the types of inadequates that the police should filter out..
    No wonder the Police Federation want them.
    There are some tattoos on one's hands or forearms that might be objectionable, sure. But I think that decision can easily be left to individual recruiters to consider.
  • RobD said:

    Thanks @kle4.

    "The prevalence (on the whole) of the two-party system has usually obviated any uncertainty as to which party has the right to be called the 'Official Opposition'; it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office. "

    Interesting, so it isn't just pure numbers (assuming this is used as the definition of official opposition).

    Indeed, thanks to kle4.
    Corbyn has defied political gravity so far. There is a sort of resignation (recently with Cameron) that comes with the loss of political capital, that leads to the believe that one's own resignation is inevitable, whether you like or not. For Corbyn, as his political capital collapses to a new low, still he clings on.

    In most circumstances, the political reality would tell you who was the official opposition. But with Corbyn, he'd claim it with fifty MPs - and fourth party status - if it came to it.
    Sam Cameron has one. On a foot. So vulgar and unattractive.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    RobD said:

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    Righty-ho!
    I think it translates as "If I stick my fingers in my ears and sing lalalalalala for long enough it will all go away like a bad dream..."


    1. Denial
    2. Anger
    3. Bargaining
    4. Depression
    5. Acceptance

    He's got a long way to go.
    Oddly, most of the moaning on here is coming from leavers. Hopefully you'll soon reach stage 5, to catch up with many of the remain voters such as myself who accepted the vote on the Friday. ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    More remoaning. Now economic doom has failed to materialise they say its too difficult to do.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html.


    'Britain will never actually leave the EU because Boris Johnson and other leading Brexiteers did not realise how ‘massively complex’ the process would be, a leading expert has said.

    Professor Thom Brooks warned Article 50 – the formal process of leaving the European Union – is unlikely to ever be invoked.

    The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.

    And he dismissed Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Brexit means Brexit’ pledge as similar to saying 'gobbledygook is gobbledygook' as it did not necessarily mean exiting the EU.

    Professor Brooks, who advised the Electoral Commission on the wording of the referendum question, told MailOnline: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked.'

    Righty-ho!
    I think it translates as "If I stick my fingers in my ears and sing lalalalalala for long enough it will all go away like a bad dream..."


    1. Denial
    2. Anger
    3. Bargaining
    4. Depression
    5. Acceptance

    He's got a long way to go.
    Oddly, most of the moaning on here is coming from leavers. Hopefully you'll soon reach stage 5, to catch up with many of the remain voters such as myself who accepted the vote on the Friday. ;)
    Moaning about the Remainers moaning!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited August 2016
    Americans call for obvious thing to stop happening:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37212256

    Staggeringly, the Turks and Kurds (or their affiliates, at least) appear to be having a go at one another in Syria. Gosh.

    Edited extra bit: a very trivial aside, but Hannibal's last elephant was called Surus, Latin for Syrian. He rode it through the Arnus Marshes when he lost an eye to exposure.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    rcs1000 said:

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    OK: LDs gain NE Fife, Edinburgh West from the SNP, Cambridge from Labour (yes, Justin). Twickenham? Does that work?
    Let's wait and see shall we? I seem to recall everyone predicting a LibDem hold in Cambridge in 2015.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,773

    Miss DiCanio, whilst also not a tattoo-enthusiast, they're surprisingly common these days.

    That said, I wouldn't be too reassured if a rozzer had one. On their face.

    If he pulled you over, you'd expect that he'd start off by punching you in the face.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    justin124 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    OK: LDs gain NE Fife, Edinburgh West from the SNP, Cambridge from Labour (yes, Justin). Twickenham? Does that work?
    Let's wait and see shall we? I seem to recall everyone predicting a LibDem hold in Cambridge in 2015.
    They were just precognitive and picking up signals from 2020.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur

    " trade will continue in some form, as it always has since the days of the Celtic tribes. "

    Excuse me! Trade with europe, and indeed beyond, was happening well before the celtic tribes.

    How were you defining 'Celt', Mr Llama? I was defining it as a pre-Roman inhabitant of Western Europe.

    There is of course some discussion about what came before that, if anything, but having read innumerable books on the subject that go into exhaustive and in my view pointless detail (I think the low point was somebody who asked 'woher komme diese Kelten' for no apparent reason other than to show off his knowledge of German) I just draw the line at 'Celts' and call everything else 'an argument'.
    Doc, I think there is good evidence that England was trading with Europe and beyond as early as 2000BC, and maybe earlier. The Celts I think came later, an iron age culture., though one that survived into the Christian era

    Of course, if you want to define anything pre-(Claudian)Roman invasion as celtic you are most certainly correct, if a little misguided.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Only just seen this from Britain Elects

    If it came to pass it would be the worst defeat by any party Ever(except for the LIb Dems;)


    UK General Election Seat Forecast (29th Aug)

    CON: 420 (+89)
    LAB: 140 (-92)
    SNP: 51 (-5)
    LD: 12 (+4)
    PC: 6 (+3)
    UKIP: 3 (+2)
    GRN: 2 (+1)

    Crikey, that is a majority of 190, bigger than Bliars.
    I did point out that the size of the Tory majority vs number of Labour MP's would make an interesting wager. Would any of the PB bookies like to price it up?

    Indeed are their any markets up yet on the size of the next Tory victory?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited August 2016
    Rarefied creature that I am, I have always had a strict no-ink/pierced ears only dating rule. Yes, my middle name is 'Shallow', no I don't care. As my dating days are behind me, it's moot in any case.
This discussion has been closed.