Scenario 1: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year before Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
Figures with undecideds and refused excluded: Con: 23% LDem: 23% Brex: 21% Lab: 17% Grn: 8%
I suspect some Remainers will go back to Labour from the LDs after Corbyn's backing for EUref2 this morning but not all given Corbyn has only said Labour will campaign for Remain against No Deal or a Tory Deal not against a Labour Deal
Scenario 2: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year after Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
The highly spun article in the Sun yesterday suggests Jeremy Hunt has a good idea who was responsible for the leak and is VERY keen that attention is diverted to the Russians
Surely it suggests Hunt was just answering a silly question about whether the Russians leaked it: Of course it would be massively concerning if it was the act of a foreign, hostile state. I’ve seen no evidence that that’s the case.
The idea (or misdirection) it was a foreign state comes from a different, unnamed "senior government figure" elsewhere in the article.
I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.
What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.
Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?
The first sentence you quote is calling on the new PM to call a referendum. How much more support do you want?
Priest: "Do you, Jeremy Corbyn, take Referenda to be your lawful wedded policy?" Corbyn: "I, Jeremy Palestine Corbyn, do probably expect that the new PM will call for a referendum in which I may support it unless I won't" Referenda: "What the fuck is that? Do you love me or don't you?" Corbyn: "I've made my position quite clear" Referenda: "Aargh!" (Runs out of church) Priest: "Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
Lots of people bitching about Labour's new position but I think it's what they need.
All but the most remainiacest remainiacs can tolerate the it since they get their referendum, but it's also something an MP in a leave-voting seat can reasonably defend: They're trying for a better deal, Brexit can still happen, Labour may even support it if it protects jobs.
Leaving those little bits of air on either side means they won't get much credit from very EU-focused people of a Leave or a Remain persuasion, but the job isn't to impress them, it's to avoid hamstringing incumbent Labour MPs running for reelection.
But they don't necessarily get their referendum
Parliament has voted against a second vote on a number of occasions now
The only way Labour can force won is to win a GE. This new fudge makes no attempt to answer the question as to what they would campaign for in that election manifesto.
There is no outline of how a Labour deal would come about.
This is not a credible position and it is clearly unravelling already.
I don't really understand Labour's "prolong the agony" stance.
It'd be very odd going into a General Election saying, "we'll drag this out with a further long period of negotiation AND a referendum..." It's incredibly unattractive to people who are tired of the whole thing, and has the oddity mentioned by Chris Leslie that, if they win an election then they are pro-Brexit, and if they lose it they are anti-Brexit, which is hard to explain and sell.
Labour's Brexit policy will be up for grabs at conference in September anyway so today's announcement needs to cover only the situation where Boris (or Hunt) somehow contrives to call an election before then.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
'Was May merely the fall guy for an inevitable failure or was she utterly incompetent? The answer is of course both – May was doomed to fail but she and her government sure managed, to adapt Samuel Beckett, to fail better.'
On the ideas floating around in Whitehall for the Border, one official asks Cook: “Has someone told you about facial recognition for pigs?”
Fucking hell. However bad you think this is in the repining hours before dawn; it's actually worse.
Is there any precedent for a nation going through a years long fubar with its politicians aware of how disastrous it is and will be, yet seemingly unable to do anything to sort it? Vietnam?
This is more broad spectrum dysfunction that smacks of the Weimar Republic.
"Violated, dishonored, wading in blood, dripping filth. There stands bourgeois society," as Rosa Luxemburg observed.
Scenario 2: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year after Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
Parliament has voted against a second vote on a number of occasions now
The only way Labour can force won is to win a GE. This new fudge makes no attempt to answer the question as to what they would campaign for in that election manifesto.
There is no outline of how a Labour deal would come about.
This is not a credible position and it is clearly unravelling already.
It will not help them at all.
They get their referendum if Labour wins a GE, that's what it's about.
A Labour deal would theoretically come about by going back to the EU and saying we'd like to renegotiate a new deal without being bound by TMay's red lines. I think this negotiation probably would actually happen in a way that the Boris "we'd like to recommence banging our heads on the same brick wall we've been banging it against for the last 3 years" wouldn't, but as a Remainiac I'm not particularly bothered if it doesn't and we end up with a referendum on Remain vs TMay-Barnier.
Not being able to say whether they'd be for the result of their deal or not has *some* potential to make them look shifty in an election campaign, but TBF since this theoretical deal hasn't yet been negotiated it's not an unreasonable stance. Cameron won a majority on something similar: He was going to ask for a negotiation, then a referendum, and recommend Leave or Remain depending on the outcome of the negotiation. Cynical observers may have said that he was obviously going to recommend Remain no matter what the outcome, but the line was enough to get him through the campaign.
The highly spun article in the Sun yesterday suggests Jeremy Hunt has a good idea who was responsible for the leak and is VERY keen that attention is diverted to the Russians
Surely it suggests Hunt was just answering a silly question about whether the Russians leaked it: Of course it would be massively concerning if it was the act of a foreign, hostile state. I’ve seen no evidence that that’s the case.
The idea (or misdirection) it was a foreign state comes from a different, unnamed "senior government figure" elsewhere in the article.
One reason to think it wasn't the Russians, is that the emails weren't dumped on the internet, they were passed to Oakeshott but someone who was presumably checked out by her editors. They would have to be extraordinarily dozy to publish them without being highly confident of their origin.
Scenario 1: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year before Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
Scenario 2: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year after Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
Figures with undecideds and refused excluded: Con: 28% LDem: 20% Brex: 14% Lab: 17% Grn: 9%
But what is this "Brexit" which has been "delivered"? This is the nub of the problem, and one which makes me sceptical of any such polls.
Exactly. How did it go? Disruption, chaos and shortages filling the media -> Tory wipeout. The world appears normal -> Tory honeymoon. Any poll that tries to embrace both of these scenarios is worthless.
You have to imagine Twitter is just seen as some sort of safety valve by whatever grown-ups Trump has around him.. y'know.. picking your battles. "Well, I suppose it's better than the Big Red Button when he's got one on him".
One assumes that if he *did* reach for the Big Red Button in the same sort of mood, someone would put him on the naughty step and take his electronic devices away until he calmed down.
I don't think that Labour have actually said what people think they have said. Corbyn's letter to party members says this:
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
In other words, IF there is a referendum on Revoke vs No Deal (or a wicked Tory-branded deal indistinguishable from the warm cuddly Labour-branded deal which Corbyn could magic up if he were PM), then Labour would campaign for Revoke. But they've always said they would oppose No Deal or a wicked Tory-branded deal, so there doesn't seem much new here.
What is very conspicuously missing is a commitment to support such a referendum in the first place.
Is it me that has missed something, or is it every journalist reporting on this who has failed to spot this?
The first sentence you quote is calling on the new PM to call a referendum. How much more support do you want?
Priest: "Do you, Jeremy Corbyn, take Referenda to be your lawful wedded policy?" Corbyn: "I, Jeremy Palestine Corbyn, do probably expect that the new PM will call for a referendum in which I may support it unless I won't" Referenda: "What the fuck is that? Do you love me or don't you?" Corbyn: "I've made my position quite clear" Referenda: "Aargh!" (Runs out of church) Priest: "Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
Well, I think he's been pretty clear this time, but I suppose he only has himself to blame if he doesn't get credit for it, given what a mess he's got into on the issue to date.
The highly spun article in the Sun yesterday suggests Jeremy Hunt has a good idea who was responsible for the leak and is VERY keen that attention is diverted to the Russians
Surely it suggests Hunt was just answering a silly question about whether the Russians leaked it: Of course it would be massively concerning if it was the act of a foreign, hostile state. I’ve seen no evidence that that’s the case.
The idea (or misdirection) it was a foreign state comes from a different, unnamed "senior government figure" elsewhere in the article.
One reason to think it wasn't the Russians, is that the emails weren't dumped on the internet, they were passed to Oakeshott but someone who was presumably checked out by her editors. They would have to be extraordinarily dozy to publish them without being highly confident of their origin.
The Russian business is absolute balls. Hunt thinks the rest of us are as fucking thick as the tory membership.
Scenario 1: Imagine that a General Election is held later this year before Brexit has been delivered. Boris Johnson is the leader of the Conservatives, Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage is leader of the Brexit Party. How do you think you would then vote?
Figures with undecideds and refused excluded: Con: 23% LDem: 23% Brex: 21% Lab: 17% Grn: 8%
An LD/Green agreement as in Brecon gets very interesting in that scenario.
Looks pretty pointless hypothetical polling reinforced by 'pushing' Brexit and the leadership of the various parties. Voters can decide for themselves how important those issues are to them.
How would a Corbyn created Customs Union deal do in a referendum? Remainers would vote remain as there's no benefits to leaving, Brexiteers wouldn't be satisfied on immigration/giving up control. It'd be a landslide surely.
Pretty clear Trump's mental decline is accelerating as he loses touch with any reality other than his own sense of being slighted.
The US needs to act on 25th amendment and remove him from office before complete disaster befalls the world.
From the stuff in the Mueller report, it seems like the officials just ignore most of his damaging requests, from get Mueller fired to immediate withdrawal from Syria.
Those who were furious when a President with brown skin talked about the back of the queue, must be incandescent with rage now.
I would be, if the sitting Prime Minister had explicitly asked Trump to say this in an attempt to swing votes as part of the second referendum campaign we aren't having right now.
Some confusion . 4 out of 5 Grieve amendments have been selected . I think the issue with NC14 might be that it could involve the Queen .
What do the 4 amendments do and what did the 5th (Ruled out by Laing, not Bercow) do ?
The 4 put some blocks against suspending Parliament . The NC14 I think would have def stopped that but it would have involved the Queen.
If I’m reading this right then if the PM wanted to suspend parliament they’d have to do it before September 4th because one of the other amendments require a statement and amendable motion on NI progress .
And of course if Bozo did that there would be weeks before October 31 st so plenty of time for a lot of political pressure to happen .
Ironic if the rumour's true about the cretin doing the leaking being pro-American. This unedifying hissyfit only harms the US-UK relationship and helps those who want us to remain in the EU.
Not to mention, even were that not that case, such a leak is a wretched act in and of itself.
Sometimes I think modern politics is like Sideshow Bob and a road full of rakes.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it
- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not - Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life” - Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
It would be a coup, nothing less. Parliament is sovereign and suspending parliament to enact a major change from the status quo would be a coup.
You have to imagine Twitter is just seen as some sort of safety valve by whatever grown-ups Trump has around him.. y'know.. picking your battles. "Well, I suppose it's better than the Big Red Button when he's got one on him".
One assumes that if he *did* reach for the Big Red Button in the same sort of mood, someone would put him on the naughty step and take his electronic devices away until he calmed down.
The truth is way more scary. Opportunities for intervention are minimal.
Comments
Mr. Tokyo, I agree. This will help Labour.
[Obviously I could be decapitated by a low-flying flamingo, but that's less predictable].
This is complicating the issue and the maths .
The idea (or misdirection) it was a foreign state comes from a different, unnamed "senior government figure" elsewhere in the article.
Corbyn: "I, Jeremy Palestine Corbyn, do probably expect that the new PM will call for a referendum in which I may support it unless I won't"
Referenda: "What the fuck is that? Do you love me or don't you?"
Corbyn: "I've made my position quite clear"
Referenda: "Aargh!" (Runs out of church)
Priest: "Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
Parliament has voted against a second vote on a number of occasions now
The only way Labour can force won is to win a GE. This new fudge makes no attempt to answer the question as to what they would campaign for in that election manifesto.
There is no outline of how a Labour deal would come about.
This is not a credible position and it is clearly unravelling already.
It will not help them at all.
It'd be very odd going into a General Election saying, "we'll drag this out with a further long period of negotiation AND a referendum..." It's incredibly unattractive to people who are tired of the whole thing, and has the oddity mentioned by Chris Leslie that, if they win an election then they are pro-Brexit, and if they lose it they are anti-Brexit, which is hard to explain and sell.
Hope your woes get resolved asap.
"Violated, dishonored, wading in blood, dripping filth. There stands bourgeois society," as Rosa Luxemburg observed.
https://twitter.com/BBCVickiYoung/status/1148560546322681856
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148559442885185536
How perceptive a little earlier from Sopel:
https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1148523728298500096
A Labour deal would theoretically come about by going back to the EU and saying we'd like to renegotiate a new deal without being bound by TMay's red lines. I think this negotiation probably would actually happen in a way that the Boris "we'd like to recommence banging our heads on the same brick wall we've been banging it against for the last 3 years" wouldn't, but as a Remainiac I'm not particularly bothered if it doesn't and we end up with a referendum on Remain vs TMay-Barnier.
Not being able to say whether they'd be for the result of their deal or not has *some* potential to make them look shifty in an election campaign, but TBF since this theoretical deal hasn't yet been negotiated it's not an unreasonable stance. Cameron won a majority on something similar: He was going to ask for a negotiation, then a referendum, and recommend Leave or Remain depending on the outcome of the negotiation. Cynical observers may have said that he was obviously going to recommend Remain no matter what the outcome, but the line was enough to get him through the campaign.
One assumes that if he *did* reach for the Big Red Button in the same sort of mood, someone would put him on the naughty step and take his electronic devices away until he calmed down.
4 out of 5 Grieve amendments have been selected . I think the issue with NC14 might be that it could involve the Queen .
The US needs to act on 25th amendment and remove him from office before complete disaster befalls the world.
Trump will be fine with Boris as he tweeted last night, it is the May administration and soon to retire Ambassador who insulted him
If I’m reading this right then if the PM wanted to suspend parliament they’d have to do it before September 4th because one of the other amendments require a statement and amendable motion on NI progress .
And of course if Bozo did that there would be weeks before October 31 st so plenty of time for a lot of political pressure to happen .
Not to mention, even were that not that case, such a leak is a wretched act in and of itself.
Sometimes I think modern politics is like Sideshow Bob and a road full of rakes.
https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar
FIRED
Still, it beats thinking about Perimetr.