Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Defying the odds Theresa ploughs on

1246

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people

    Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
    The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.

    By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
    Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
    More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.

    The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.

    It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
    Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
    Nope. There is not a ton of new information. There are just yet more scare stories.
    Are you saying the 585 page withdrawal agreement is not new information and just scare stories?
    It's information. Very little of it is new.
    It's apparently new information to you that avoiding any kind of border infrastructure in Ireland is an imperative and that your preferred EFTA solution is therefore not possible as an off the shelf approach.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Cox has a speaking style that is quite a lot like micheal Foot imho.

    I would vote for him as next PM
    Welcome aboard!

    (We may have to spring him from prison in Big Ben first though....)
    OT. Was the Rachel Weisz film your wife recommended 'Disobedience' or 'The Favourite'?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.
    I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
    Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people

    Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
    The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.

    By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
    Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
    Be careful what you wish for. I am hearing a latent anger from those who are not extreme brexiteers that a second referendum is unacceptable and there will be consequences if it ever happens

    It is not a silver bullet and may be a lot worse than exciting the EU in March on TM deal
    May's Brexit is the political equivalent of being shot in the nuts.

    A second vote gives us the option of being shot in the head or not shot at all.
    Why do so many like to bring violence into their arguments

    Have you learnt nothing from Jo Cox
    That's low, even for you.
    Why. You are talking of shot in the head
    Does the Big_G approved list of political idioms include "stabbed in the back"? "Knives out"? Are we allowed to talk about May "surviving"? Is being "kicked out" of a party too violent? I guess "silver bullet" is okay, since you just used it? It'd be really nice of having some way to predict what you will and won't object to.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited December 2018
    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.
  • https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1069667631182045185

    Could be another couple of votes to find...
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    There’s a reason why one can’t have subtle drafting in documents in any more. Drafting which gets you to where you want to be without signposting it. You’re highlighting it. Leavers, good at lying, bad at thinking in curves.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.
    I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
    Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.
    It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

    (Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    edited December 2018
    The thing that surprises is that TM deal sounds a really good one with fantastic opportunities during the backstop for NI. Apparently only the DUP are against it in Northern Ireland and they are not only going against industry including Bombardier but against their own core vote
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    The thing that surprises is that TM deal sounds a really good one with fantastic opportunities during the backstop for NI. Apparently only the DUP are against it in Northern Ireland and they are not only going against industry including Bombardier but against their own core vote

    You wonder as well how solid that 'core' vote is. Much of it will have switched from the UUP within the last 15 years. If they are unhappy they might well switch again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    The Labour vote in Corbyn's seat would fall from 78% to 52% if his party join the Tories in voting to Leave the EU while the LD vote would rise to 30% a new poll finds

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-labour-mps-will-lose-votes-unless-they-back-new-referendum-a4006626.html
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    The thing that surprises is that TM deal sounds a really good one with fantastic opportunities during the backstop for NI. Apparently only the DUP are against it in Northern Ireland and they are not only going against industry including Bombardier but against their own core vote

    Northern Irish politics is utterly polarised between two parties and neither cares about finding or talking to the middle. And the brighter people leave with a subsidy hungry majority left to appease. You may find an analogy there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2018
    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    As May's Deal ends free movement which was key to the Leave win and still gets us out of the EU and CFP
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited December 2018
    Jonathan said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people

    Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
    The vague nature of the referendum makes these questions very hard. I still go back and forth in my mind on whether a second referendum would be anti-democratic.

    By contrast, the government's repeated attempts to steamroll over the Commons throughout the Brexit process is very straightforward: it's bad.
    Of course a second vote is not anti democratic. More democracy is more democratic. There is simply more information now. The 2016 referendum allowed people to think again after the 1975 referendum on the basis of new information. A 2019 referendum will do the same. The fact Parliament has not been able to execute on the outcome of the first vote adds to the case.
    More democracy is not more democratic. Being told you will vote again and again and again until you vote the "right" way is not democratic.

    The difference between the 2016 and 1975 referendum is that there was ample time to see one side's policy enacted. A second referendum now would be the equivalent of the establishment declaring a government that has been fairly elected invalid and insisting the country go back to deliver a different result.

    It is not democratic. Get it into your head. It is not democratic.
    Repeating something does not make it so. There is a ton of new information. If parliament continues to fail, the people have a right to have their say.
    One of the issues is that many of the parliamentenarians making the argument are deliberately causing parliament to fail with the only sane way and available way to deliver Brexit.

    It's like lobbing a coke can of petrol onto a house fire and then saying we really must get the fire brigade involved
  • Wonderful painting by OGH's daughter-in-law!
  • Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.
    I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
    Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.
    It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

    (Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)
    Am no fan of tax credits TBH. Although UC seems to have improved the system by making it random on a monthly rather than annual basis.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1069667631182045185

    Could be another couple of votes to find...

    Not just for the meaningful vote either.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Wonderful painting by OGH's daughter-in-law!

    Who is it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.
    Just as a matter of interest - no deal or remain
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.
    I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
    Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.
    It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

    (Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)
    Am no fan of tax credits TBH. Although UC seems to have improved the system by making it random on a monthly rather than annual basis.
    I think it is fair to say they are both very bad systems.

    But I've always thought the real scandal of foodbanks was not how prevalent they have become but how many years they were not there and sorely needed.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    edited December 2018
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    Again, in teaching, yes. I had a colleague who was sacked about a year ago because she never turned up in time for the start of school. She was usually about 5-10 minutes late.

    OK, so I know other rules apply in teaching and the situation isn't strictly comparable.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Compassionate conservatism right here
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
    There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

    Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
    Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

    If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    Yes. 5 minutes is serious. The attitude it isn't is why some people struggle to hold down a job and not taking it seriously ultimately does them no favours.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Compassionate conservatism right here
    Yes getting people into the habit of work which will help them get a wage.

    In some western countries like the USA, Canada and Italy you do not get any unemployment benefits at all unless you have made sufficient insurance contributions when employed, there food bank use is significantly higher than here
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.
    Do not often agree with you but do there. Both a proper Brexit and properly remaining would be preferable to this shambles.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    Again, in teaching, yes. I had a colleague who was sacked about a year ago because she never turned up in time for the start of school. She was usually about 5-10 minutes late.

    OK, so I know other rules apply in teaching and the situation isn't strictly comparable.
    The key words there are "never turned up in time." Not once. As I'm sure you appreciate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.
    Do not often agree with you but do there. Both a proper Brexit and properly remaining would be preferable to this shambles.
    No they would both be far worse. One leading to the worst recession for decades, the other to a surge in the far righr
  • Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited December 2018
    Having watched Mrs May and this Cox bloke, you wonder why May was ever PM. She fails even the basics in public speaking. She panics, she gabbles, she is easily distracted, and she exudes a basic lack of confidence. They may both be lying, but she gives it away. Cox is a master of lying well. I assume he's an ex-barrister so he's had lots of practice.

    Jezza has been coached to speak slowly and stick to the script. One advantage is he knows he's thick and he does what he's told; he probably doesn't even know he's lying.

    Ps A very impressive picture.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    Yes. 5 minutes is serious. The attitude it isn't is why some people struggle to hold down a job and not taking it seriously ultimately does them no favours.
    Agreed
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
    There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

    Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
    Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

    If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.
    The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a
  • ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.
    I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
    Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.
    It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

    (Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)
    Am no fan of tax credits TBH. Although UC seems to have improved the system by making it random on a monthly rather than annual basis.
    I think it is fair to say they are both very bad systems.

    But I've always thought the real scandal of foodbanks was not how prevalent they have become but how many years they were not there and sorely needed.
    100% agreed.

    We should celebrate not scorn food banks. There will always be people in terrible situations. What there isn't always is enough goodwill and generosity. Or in economic terms the demand of something provided free of charge is infinite, it is the supply that is restricted. Rising food bank use is only possible if there's rising food bank donations.

    Otherwise were food banks previously sending food to landfill?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    The farce continues!

    Now we have confirmation that workers rights etc are not protected by the WA. This vote isn’t going to happen , it will be pulled in the coming days .

    The whole process is descending into chaos .

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.
    Do not often agree with you but do there. Both a proper Brexit and properly remaining would be preferable to this shambles.
    No they would both be far worse. One leading to the worst recession for decades, the other to a surge in the far righr
    Suppose we ratify this deal. It will mean at least another two years and probably longer where nothing changes at all but the Brexit arguments will go on, and at the end of the day the future relationship will probably not deliver the things that are currently claimed. The far right will have just as much raw material. It's far better to go back to the people and ensure there is a current democratic mandate, either to proceed with this or to remain in the EU.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
    We are already there.
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
    There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

    Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
    Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

    If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.
    The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a
    Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.
  • nico67 said:

    The farce continues!

    Now we have confirmation that workers rights etc are not protected by the WA. This vote isn’t going to happen , it will be pulled in the coming days .

    The whole process is descending into chaos .

    It can't be pulled. At least not permanently. It is a legal requirement.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The irony of the contempt letter is that apart from Dodds, the rest of the signatures are all remainers doing their best to try and overthrow the democratic vote of the people

    Not that old Chestnut. The referendum did not give May Carte Blanche to deliver whatever mad plan she saw fit or suspend everyone’s ability to think again if so they chose to do.
    The signatures are remainers intent on stopping brexit, not chestnuts
    The prime minister is a remainer too, is she deliberately doing a bad job to sabotage Brexit?
    No she is just naturally bad at her job. It is a Brucie Bonus for Remain.
    Honestly - I wonder if she has cunningly fucked up so badly that even remain seems better.


    I mean, no one could be that crap could they?
  • Jonathan said:

    Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
    We are already there.
    Not yet by a long way
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    This deal is hugely controversial. It is not a sensible compromise. It does not live on a line between hard Brexit an EU membership. It lives outside that spectrum in a special place of its own where we are worse off AND have less political control. It is quite an achievement and should be rejected.
    Do not often agree with you but do there. Both a proper Brexit and properly remaining would be preferable to this shambles.
    No they would both be far worse. One leading to the worst recession for decades, the other to a surge in the far righr
    Suppose we ratify this deal. It will mean at least another two years and probably longer where nothing changes at all but the Brexit arguments will go on, and at the end of the day the future relationship will probably not deliver the things that are currently claimed. The far right will have just as much raw material. It's far better to go back to the people and ensure there is a current democratic mandate, either to proceed with this or to remain in the EU.
    The Deal ends free movement unlike Remain or staying in the single market though personally I have no problem with EUref2 pitting the Deal against No Deal and the preferred Leave option against Remain
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
    There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

    Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
    Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

    If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.
    The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a
    Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.
    The DUP are alienating their core base
  • nico67 said:

    The farce continues!

    Now we have confirmation that workers rights etc are not protected by the WA. This vote isn’t going to happen , it will be pulled in the coming days .

    The whole process is descending into chaos .

    Can you provide the link on workers rights please
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    nico67 said:

    The farce continues!

    Now we have confirmation that workers rights etc are not protected by the WA. This vote isn’t going to happen , it will be pulled in the coming days .

    The whole process is descending into chaos .

    Can you provide the link on workers rights please
    We’ve led Europe on workers rights.

    That line is a canard.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited December 2018
    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.

    And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    Jonathan said:

    Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
    We are already there.
    No we are not already there. Yes the politicised war daily on twitter, in newspaper online comments sections and outside parliament but most Leave voters and those who might have voted remain but accept the referendum result are largely assuming that despite the current difficulties some form of brexit will be enacted.
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
    There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

    Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
    Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

    If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.
    The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a
    Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.
    The DUP are alienating their core base
    That's not for us to determine. That's for voters to determine.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
    We are already there.
    Not yet by a long way
    You’re happy because your preferred leader is charge. You would be content if she forced her Brexit on the rest of us. You are not in a great position to judge. There is nothing good or unifying about her deal.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned?
    That is what you appear to be suggesting.
    And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited December 2018
    I ask again … what is the point of a second referendum? Basically, some self-entitled people have been demanding this since Day 1 because they didn't like the result. If this is deemed acceptable, no democratic verdict will ever be accepted again without a re-run before it is enacted - and why should it?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2018
    CD13 said:

    Having watched Mrs May and this Cox bloke, you wonder why May was ever PM. She fails even the basics in public speaking. She panics, she gabbles, she is easily distracted, and she exudes a basic lack of confidence. They may both be lying, but she gives it away. Cox is a master of lying well. I assume he's an ex-barrister so he's had lots of practice.

    Jezza has been coached to speak slowly and stick to the script. One advantage is he knows he's thick and he does what he's told; he probably doesn't even know he's lying.

    Ps A very impressive picture.

    May was in the right place at the right time, or wrong place at the wrong time (depending on how you look at it). She is a technocrat, but is clearly whiter and whiter, no borrowing horses of media moguls or holidaying with dodgy foreign leaders.

    So when the shit show stopped and Cameron jumped off, she was basically one of the only candidates.

    I think she probably worked her way up the greasy pole in a similar fashion. The media have never found any dirt on her or her husband, they are greyer than grey, and often a vacancy opens up because of dodgy behaviour and the so a safe pair of hands is the often the obvious choice.
  • Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
    Of course not..In my company (before I retired) continued late attendence would result in a discussion with the employee to ascertain the cause and attempt to resolve it. If it continued a verbal warning would follow, then a written, then termination.

    You may realise from this no one ever left my company due to time keeping, indeed no one even received a verbal warning. My attitude to my employees was to treat them as I would like to be treated myself
  • dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned?
    That is what you appear to be suggesting.
    And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
    I suggest you get a job that you can ensure you are on time for. Either in walking or cycling distance (I know many who walk up to 40 minutes to work) or by getting a bus that will get you to work with plenty of time to cope if the bus is late.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722
    edited December 2018
    Jess Philips


    @JessPhilipsMP
    1h1 hour ago
    More
    Given the first hand experience I have with some of the most unsavoury events in parliament over the last 3 years I cannot understand why I don't have the support of my own party. This really feels like I have been stabbed in the back.

    In the front I think was her phrase Han Dodges rules OK
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    Do you think it is fair or reasonable to sack anyone for being 1 minute late? Government should not emulate the lowest standards
    Of course not..In my company (before I retired) continued late attendence would result in a discussion with the employee to ascertain the cause and attempt to resolve it. If it continued a verbal warning would follow, then a written, then termination.

    You may realise from this no one ever left my company due to time keeping, indeed no one even received a verbal warning. My attitude to my employees was to treat them as I would like to be treated myself
    Would expect nothing less from you, Sir. If all Conservatives were like you, you could count on my support.
  • nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    You may not comprehend yet just how divisive and angry it will be. Indeed remain may not win
  • nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    You may not comprehend yet just how divisive and angry it will be. Indeed remain may not win
    Indeed remain were IIRC further ahead in the polls before the vote was formally called last time than they are now.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I think May will win the vote by around 150.

    I thought for a second you meant the deal vote ans was about to do a 'are you May in disguise' joke but even she wouldn't believe that. The other possible vote? I think she has a chance of winning it I guess.
    No, I do mean the meaningful vote.
    First attempt?

    I think having been potentially right about us remaining after all you are just seeking ever more outlandish predictions!
    In order for this prediction to be correct would mean the entire ERG, all 100+ of those who've said they'll vote against the deal, everyone who has resigned in protest at the deal, the DUP, and 50+ Labour MPs on a three line whip against to vote for the deal.

    It's a very, uh, courageous prediction.
    Do we get to see williamglenn's working? Skimming the posts I'm somewhat surprised noone seems to have directly asked...
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
    There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

    Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
    Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

    If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.
    The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a
    Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.
    The DUP are alienating their core base
    That's not for us to determine. That's for voters to determine.
    They are making public statements to that effect including the DUP core farmers vote
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
    We are already there.
    Not yet by a long way
    You’re happy because your preferred leader is charge. You would be content if she forced her Brexit on the rest of us. You are not in a great position to judge. There is nothing good or unifying about her deal.
    You speak as a remainer
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    Which is why we should say no deal.

    When the PM says "no Prime Minister could ever agree to this" she too should have "really fucking meant it" and not viewed it as a commitment as meaningless as "no early election ".
    Thank goodness the Prime Minister is a grown up and therefore realised she couldn't have done as you suggest.
    There is nothing grown up in heightening sectarian tensions in seeking this backstop.

    Within the EU there was an exit clause and no permanent guarantees.
    Within the Article 50 process there are no permanent guarantees.

    If an exit agreement came with a pledge to seek an agreement but no guarantees that wouldn't be a horror it would be the same as the status quo.
    The deal is welcomed across NI apart from the DUP a
    Shame then that the DUP was elected as largest party to represent Northern Ireland. That's like saying a proposed deal is welcomed across GB except the Conservatives.
    The DUP are alienating their core base
    That's not for us to determine. That's for voters to determine.
    They are making public statements to that effect including the DUP core farmers vote
    So be it. Let them vote in future elections where they can remove the DUP and effect their rules.

    Don't take their franchise away from them and give rule setting powers to a third party overseas to which they get no vote.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr 67,

    "It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !"

    No, it's like saying you were promised a trip to America. It turns out the travel company can only manage New York instead of California, but the company who took your money say they've changed the rules (a second referendum) so you might lose after all.

    Would you ever bother with them again?


  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
    We are already there.
    Not yet by a long way
    You’re happy because your preferred leader is charge. You would be content if she forced her Brexit on the rest of us. You are not in a great position to judge. There is nothing good or unifying about her deal.
    You speak as a remainer
    Because leavers are so overjoyed at this deal? ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
  • Jess Philips


    @JessPhilipsMP
    1h1 hour ago
    More
    Given the first hand experience I have with some of the most unsavoury events in parliament over the last 3 years I cannot understand why I don't have the support of my own party. This really feels like I have been stabbed in the back.

    In the front I think was her phrase Han Dodges rules OK

    Thats not her twitter account.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    You may not comprehend yet just how divisive and angry it will be. Indeed remain may not win
    What do you mean, 'may not?' It almost certainly wouldn't.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Norm said:

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    It probably is but to many, and not even the hard brexiteers, the country voted to leave and leave we must otherwise the anger will be palpable, widespread and prolonged

    The reason I support TM deal is it is a sensible compromise and brexit happens in march

    It then is reasonable to campaign to rejoin but if leaving is stopped now, just at a time an international treaty to do so has been agreed by the EU, would be very controversial
    It is interesting to see several Labour figures and even a few Tory ones previously opposed to a 2nd referendum rowing back from their previous position sensing the new mood music. Before subsuming themselves to political expediency they of course might like to reflect on the likely nature of any second referendum campaign, the dark forces that might take advantage of it and therefore whether it is really a good idea to pass the buck back to the people.
    It is not scaremongering but I am very worried about the consequences of holding another referendum

    The campaign will be so bitter to the EU, the division and anger, on both sides could erupt into all kinds of unintended outcomes
    We are already there.
    Not yet by a long way
    You’re happy because your preferred leader is charge. You would be content if she forced her Brexit on the rest of us. You are not in a great position to judge. There is nothing good or unifying about her deal.
    You speak as a remainer
    Sure. I can understand the arguments of the hard Brexiteers better than the May loyalists.
  • ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    It’s at moments like these when you just have to marvel at the almighty mess we’re in. It will get worse before it gets better.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    You can certainly be sacked if you are late for work and not on a permanent contract ( in the latter case you might get a warning). Sanctions might just involve a cut in benefits rather than removing them altogether
    Yes, of course you can. But 5 minutes? You would hopefully also go through a proper procedure rather than what often seems like on the whim of who is deciding, and how they got out of bed that day.
    If on a temporary contract you can be sacked if just 1 minute late. Many of the unemployed will inevitably start off on temporary contracts first before getting a permanent post
    No wonder we have so many vacancies then. What do you suggest if there is one bus a day, travelling 20 miles, and it breaks down, is late, or does not appear at all? Does the entirety of that bus deserve to get sacked or sanctioned?
    That is what you appear to be suggesting.
    And that that would be the morally correct thing to boot. For their own long-term good of course.
    I suggest you get a job that you can ensure you are on time for. Either in walking or cycling distance (I know many who walk up to 40 minutes to work) or by getting a bus that will get you to work with plenty of time to cope if the bus is late.
    As I stated. One bus a day. Relatively common in these parts. How many job vacancies in Kielder? I walk 30 minutes to the nearest bus stop. That is rural life. It would be wonderful if everybody were equipped with all the mental, physical and financial resources you outline.
    But they aren't. Which is probably why they are unemployed.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
    If you think it's so important to appease rabid leavers, we better ditch May's deal, which they hate.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    edited December 2018

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I think May will win the vote by around 150.

    I thought for a second you meant the deal vote ans was about to do a 'are you May in disguise' joke but even she wouldn't believe that. The other possible vote? I think she has a chance of winning it I guess.
    No, I do mean the meaningful vote.
    First attempt?

    I think having been potentially right about us remaining after all you are just seeking ever more outlandish predictions!
    In order for this prediction to be correct would mean the entire ERG, all 100+ of those who've said they'll vote against the deal, everyone who has resigned in protest at the deal, the DUP, and 50+ Labour MPs on a three line whip against to vote for the deal.

    It's a very, uh, courageous prediction.
    Do we get to see williamglenn's working? Skimming the posts I'm somewhat surprised noone seems to have directly asked...
    I think William is wrong but (and assuming he is not simply joking)...

    The way his predicted 150 majority in favour of the MV could come about is if Labour decide to abstain*. At that point all bar the hardline Tory objectors would melt away leaving perhaps 50 Tory rebels. Assuming the smaller parties mainly vote against, that would give a majority of circa 150.

    (* Why might Labour abstain? Because they have cut a GE deal behind the scenes.)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274

    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
    But really Big_G what are they going to do? Man the barricades? In protest against being offered another democratic vote?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Either the ultra remainers or the hardcore brexiteers are using the other as their useful idiots right now.
    We shall see in time which is which
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,769

    The problem is that we're unwilling to admit to ourselves that democracy only picks the most popular outcome in the same way that the world cup picks the best football team. i.e. probabilistically. If the vote had been held a week earlier or later, or different people had been coming up with campaign ads, or different events had occurred, or any of a number of other factors, then the result could have been different.

    We don't like to think about it that way, because it feels like it deligitimises democracy- not just for that referendum, but for every vote, every election. But it's true, and for that reason rerunning a referendum- especially one that was very close- is essentially giving one side another flip of the coin. I'd be furious if the same thing had happened for a vote which went the way I wanted, e.g. Sindyref. And I'm sure that if that DID happen, the people supporting the opposing position (the SNP, following the example) would be able to come up with some sales pitch about new information, lies during the campaign, blah blah, to justify it.

    So that's one frame of mind. But here's another: if there really is a majority to stay in the EU now, isn't it perverse to the point of insanity to say we need to leave to respect the democratic will of the electorate of 2 and a half years ago? And another: given that leaving would always involve negotiating with the EU- who aren't bound by our referendums- did it ever make sense to have this setup, where we'd have a single with just one option encompassing so many different possibilities, many mutually contradictory, none of which we could predict?

    I partially resolve it by saying that the original referendum was ill-conceived, which is largely Cameron's fault. But that doesn't really give us a way forward. After that, I lean towards a second referendum for a few reasons:

    1. I want to Remain. Process is important, but so's the outcome.
    2. We have a parliamentary democracy for a reason. We voted in the referendum, but we also voted in these MPs.
    3. There remains the "ideal scenario" of public support moving significantly towards having a second referendum (say 60+% support, broadly reflected in polls). In that case I think it's very hard to argue that it's undemocratic to have one. Same goes if there's an early GE and the winning party has it in their manifesto, though I think that's unlikely.

    But I feel like whatever our stance on Brexit, we should all be able to agree that neither the in-principle case for or against a second referendum is trivially right or wrong. The in-practice arguments (e.g. may not be able to remain on the same terms, may not be able to extend/withdraw A50) is a different conversation.

    Apart from disagreeing with you regarding the need for another referendum, I think this was an excellent argued piece.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I think May will win the vote by around 150.

    I thought for a second you meant the deal vote ans was about to do a 'are you May in disguise' joke but even she wouldn't believe that. The other possible vote? I think she has a chance of winning it I guess.
    No, I do mean the meaningful vote.
    First attempt?

    I think having been potentially right about us remaining after all you are just seeking ever more outlandish predictions!
    In order for this prediction to be correct would mean the entire ERG, all 100+ of those who've said they'll vote against the deal, everyone who has resigned in protest at the deal, the DUP, and 50+ Labour MPs on a three line whip against to vote for the deal.

    It's a very, uh, courageous prediction.
    Do we get to see williamglenn's working? Skimming the posts I'm somewhat surprised noone seems to have directly asked...
    I think William is wrong but (and assuming he is not simply joking)...

    The way his predicted 150 majority in favour of the MV could come about is if Labour decide to abstain*. At that point all bar the hardline Tory objectors would melt away leaving perhaps 50 Tory rebels. Assuming the smaller parties mainly vote against, that would give a majority of circa 150.

    (* Why might Labour abstain? Because they have cut a GE deal behind the scenes.)
    The GE is now longer in the gift of the executive. It’s a power that MPs have as a body. 2/3rds majority required.
  • Marco1Marco1 Posts: 34
    Mike, I think you are still trying to make May a heroine for our times when really she has been v naive or arrogant to think that she would push through something with so many holes and so unpopular. Anyone from a distance could see that she has been heading for a brick wall. Politics is also the art of the achievable. For the sake of the country and her party, IF she holds a vote on the 11th and loses she should step down asap. Hope that she does not become the G Brown of the Conservative Party as she leaves through the door...
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
    But really Big_G what are they going to do? Man the barricades? In protest against being offered another democratic vote?
    Boycott it, and if enough Leavers did so it would undermine the legitimacy of any Remain win.

    But then, plenty of Remainers consider the legitimacy of the 2016 vote to be compromised by Cambridge Analytica, funding shenanigans and Russian interference.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    Why? Only two things can happen. Either we override the previous referendum and Remain, or we accept "No Deal". In either case the country will have spoken.
  • Jess Philips


    @JessPhilipsMP
    1h1 hour ago
    More
    Given the first hand experience I have with some of the most unsavoury events in parliament over the last 3 years I cannot understand why I don't have the support of my own party. This really feels like I have been stabbed in the back.

    In the front I think was her phrase Han Dodges rules OK

    Thats not her twitter account.
    But it's close enough in corbynista-land
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2018
    dixiedean said:

    As I stated. One bus a day. Relatively common in these parts. How many job vacancies in Kielder? I walk 30 minutes to the nearest bus stop. That is rural life. It would be wonderful if everybody were equipped with all the mental, physical and financial resources you outline.
    But they aren't. Which is probably why they are unemployed.

    One bus a day? Then how do they get home? Serious question.

    I would suggest either getting your own transport, finding someone who can share transport or moving to somewhere less remote.

    We have 300k a year moving here from across the globe mainly from nations poorer than ours but moving within this country seems to be a shocking suggestion if made.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    RE food banks. I am probably the only PBer who volunteers at one. So here goes.
    Major reasons are wait for UC, sanctions as mentioned. Sanctions are not voluntary. They can and often are handed out for being 5 minutes late. Given that trains and buses round here are infrequent and often cancelled or on strike this is not surprising. The system is supposed to mirror being at work. Can anyone name an employer who would refuse to pay your entire salary for a single offence of lateness?
    The really big one though is mental health. Services are almost non-existent, other than handing out drugs. Waiting lists are long.
    We don't use vouchers, but I believe the Trussell Trust does. (They are around half. The other half are independent). Referrals are often made in the absence of anything else.
    Oh. And the food would be in landfills otherwise. I'd prefer it to be eaten.

    Trussell Trust own research said that the major reason for use of food banks was delays in benefit payments.
    I am speaking only from my own experience. Sanctions are very common and ludicrously random. If they give you a 9am appointment and the only bus of the day is at 9:30 you can be sanctioned. And many round here travel 20 to 30 miles or more to sign on.
    Mistakes in UC payments are also shockingly common.
    It is worth noting however that when I worked for one back in 2009 the chief problem was that tax credits appeared to have been designed by a blind mouse that had failed Mouse Academy exams in basic arithmetic and had been appointed with the express intent of buggering up the whole system to create as much hardship, poverty and stress as possible.

    (Or in plain language, that HMRC were randomly paying out more or less random sums and then arbitrarily seizing them back.)
    Am no fan of tax credits TBH. Although UC seems to have improved the system by making it random on a monthly rather than annual basis.
    I think it is fair to say they are both very bad systems.

    But I've always thought the real scandal of foodbanks was not how prevalent they have become but how many years they were not there and sorely needed.
    UC is a disgrace.. We had to go thro the process when my wife took ill. The whole system seems designed to stop people claiming/lose the will to live, holding to waiting to be answered by their interminable keep em on hold switchboard, with music so repetitious that Hari Kara would not be a surprise. You have go thro this just to claim ESA even though you are excluded for the first week. As I say an utter disgrace.. Corby has a point about this shambolic disgrace
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Marco1 said:

    Mike, I think you are still trying to make May a heroine for our times when really she has been v naive or arrogant to think that she would push through something with so many holes and so unpopular. Anyone from a distance could see that she has been heading for a brick wall. Politics is also the art of the achievable. For the sake of the country and her party, IF she holds a vote on the 11th and loses she should step down asap. Hope that she does not become the G Brown of the Conservative Party as she leaves through the door...

    She does need to step down, and Mike is perhaps a bit too glowing about her at times, but it may not be that she is naiive or arrogant to think she would push through something so unpopular - she might know she cannot push it through but believe it to be the best option available and so she must fight tooth and nail to try.
  • Jess Philips


    @JessPhilipsMP
    1h1 hour ago
    More
    Given the first hand experience I have with some of the most unsavoury events in parliament over the last 3 years I cannot understand why I don't have the support of my own party. This really feels like I have been stabbed in the back.

    In the front I think was her phrase Han Dodges rules OK

    Thats not her twitter account.
    Not enough Ls in her name, for a start. I thought twitter (of which I know little) had a system of verified accounts for public figures: is that not the case?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    O/T Just watched the 3-part fly-on-the-wall BBC series about the Foreign Office.

    All the civil servants from the very junior to the very top come across as genuine people trying to do difficult jobs in difficult circumstances; some appear to be real heroes.

    Boris Johnson on the other hand has gone down in my estimation... I wouldn't have thought that was possible but he managed it. What a prize twat he is.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,769

    Jonathan said:

    The important point, is that Brexit will cause financial and political pain. May's Brexit reduces the financial pain compared to hard Brexit, the trade off is less political control than we would have if we stayed in the EU.

    If nothing else, having less political control does not deliver on the 2016 vote.

    So why leave on May's terms? We would be better off and have more poltical control. I just don't get it at all. It is just mad.

    Nope that is rubbish. The 'pain' that you refer to for May's deal is less than the rounding error on each quarter's growth figures. Even the No Deal scenario suggested by the Treasury is only a reduction in growth of 0.15% per quarter (actually it is even less than that as the real numbers result from being compounded.

    And if you think we have any control inside the EU then you are genuinely deluded. But then you are a Remainer so we already knew that.
    Over 50 years, the impact from No Deal will likely be negligible.

    But over three years? It might be pretty serious.
  • ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    Why? Only two things can happen. Either we override the previous referendum and Remain, or we accept "No Deal". In either case the country will have spoken.
    Such naivety.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
    I think people worry too much. This isn't France. If we abrogate the Brexit vote in some fashion, all that will happen is that turnout for general elections will be much lower for a time, we may have a Labour administration or perhaps even a recasting of the political parties. No political party has a right to eternal life.

    In terms of Brexit, if we believe NIESR (who are plausible imo), then we're talking 4-5% lower growth over the next 12 years or so. Given that the '08 crash not only cost us around £1.3 trillion in additional debt, but lost us at least 7% economic growth in only 4 years we should keep a sense of proportion. The financial industry fucked the country over far more thoroughly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Pulpstar said:

    Either the ultra remainers or the hardcore brexiteers are using the other as their useful idiots right now.
    We shall see in time which is which

    Surely both think they are though. I wonder at what point the one's who are wrong will wake up and how little self reflection they will do when that happens. Speaking from experience, it ain't easy!
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    rpjs said:

    ydoethur said:

    nico67 said:

    The argument against another vote is desperate !

    It’s like saying you were promised a holiday to New York and get the tickets saying it’s really a week in Skegness! But you still have to pay up and go !

    Leavers are frightened of another vote and are screaming betrayal !

    I'm a remainer and I'm truly terrified of the political and economic consequences of another vote.
    It really is the biggest worry I have now. From some in my family's circle the fury at even the thought of it is palpable. Goodness only knows how it will manifest itself but it will be very nasty
    But really Big_G what are they going to do? Man the barricades? In protest against being offered another democratic vote?
    Boycott it, and if enough Leavers did so it would undermine the legitimacy of any Remain win.

    But then, plenty of Remainers consider the legitimacy of the 2016 vote to be compromised by Cambridge Analytica, funding shenanigans and Russian interference.
    The boycott idea is so weird to me. Like, if they have enough votes to win, wouldn't they do that instead? And if not, why should we care that an insignificant number of people chose not to vote? And how do you wrangle millions of voters to act against their own interests? And even if they did, how would anyone actually know it had happened? If a bunch of people claimed to be Remainers who had boycotted the first vote on some point of principle, nobody would give them the time of day.

    The whole thing seems like a total red herring
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    CD13 said:

    I ask again … what is the point of a second referendum? Basically, some self-entitled people have been demanding this since Day 1 because they didn't like the result. If this is deemed acceptable, no democratic verdict will ever be accepted again without a re-run before it is enacted - and why should it?

    Because the majority really do not give a ****
This discussion has been closed.