Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A cunning ruse to persuade Corbyn to give Boris Johnson his ea

123457

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2019

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    And good to see you dissing the hereditary principle.

    I trust this extends to the Head of State.
    I did not say he could not be in the Lords along with the few remaining hereditary peers, just that like the royals he holds his family history on his shoulders as a hereditary peer.

    He is there by ancestry not by personal merit as such
    So just like the queen then. No personal merit for the office they hold.
    The monarchy is based on the institution not the person (though the Queen has done an excellent job) and as it is a constitutional monarchy lets the elected Parliament make the decisions as shown again today when the Queen gave royal assent to the Benn Bill
  • spudgfsh said:

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    Good for them. Another clear policy
    Yes, but they can have a clear policy that is not so divisive. they could say, we'll accept the referendum so we think that EFTA will satisfy it. unfortunately, there is no-one willing to accept compromise on this issue anymore.
    It has to be no deal or revoke on the 31st October if no GE first
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,850
    Pulpstar said:

    A bizarre speech from Blackford given he's about to vote against an election on October 14th.

    Who is the main opposition to Blackford in his seat? They can have all my money.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited September 2019
    spudgfsh said:

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    Good for them. Another clear policy
    Yes, but they can have a clear policy that is not so divisive. they could say, we'll accept the referendum so we think that EFTA will satisfy it. unfortunately, there is no-one willing to accept compromise on this issue anymore.
    Most people who argue for ‘compromise’ seem to propose the solution they favoured all along. (Not sure if this applies to you.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    Did one of your ancestors advise him to bugger off and join the Whigs?
    The 1832 Wellington was a proper Tory not a fake Tory liberal Whig like Peel but other proper Tory leaders in the 19th century like Pitt, Disraeli and Salisbury were far more successful Tory leaders than he was
    So he was an ERGer?
    I am sure Jacob Rees Mogg would have happily stood as a Tory candidate in 1832
  • Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    I don't know why they haven't been saying this openly for a long time - it is what most of them believe
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news
    Losing Churchill's and Wellington's descendants in one week is not a good tory look. I imagine the current D of Marl is not a working peer, so he won't be getting the full set.
    You do know Soames is also descended from Marlborough?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    edited September 2019
    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.
  • G

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    You never go straight to revocation...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Roger said:

    Anyone know the name of the 'Pettyfogger' from a sedentary position who Bercow took a dislike to?

    To whom Bercow took a dislike, surely?
    I was taking my lead from the Rt Honourable Member from Buckingham whose English flatters to deceive.

    But what's the answer? Gavin Williamson? He called him 'young man'

  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    Did one of your ancestors advise him to bugger off and join the Whigs?
    The 1832 Wellington was a proper Tory not a fake Tory liberal Whig like Peel but other proper Tory leaders in the 19th century like Pitt, Disraeli and Salisbury were far more successful Tory leaders than he was
    So he was an ERGer?
    I am sure Jacob Rees Mogg would have happily stood as a Tory candidate in 1832
    I thought he did
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2019
    egg said:

    Byronic said:

    egg said:

    Nigelb said:

    egg said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Swinson 8% more popular than Corbyn with Labour 2017 voters - no details though!

    https://order-order.com/2019/09/09/swinson-popular-corbyn-labour-2017-voters/

    2017 Tory voters though give Boris huge +43% rating
    How much lower by the end of the month though?
    The longer it goes the worse Tory ratings will get. It’s like the German tactics from WW1 get victory in a month or we are in trouble.
    Makes a welcome change from the WWII references....
    The game plan had to be strong and stable in one hand, love bombs in the other, secure early election win or else the fires now started will burn them. Boris government didn’t drip feed magicmoneytree spending announcements hard to imagine what was hold any back for a manifesto.

    Is the window for an election receding? Can we realistically have GE in December or January (when this terrible weather bomb predicted?). Or even later November or early Feb?

    In which case like the fluid first month of WW1 when Germany had to reach Paris, what follows for Boris is months without an election. And following the trench warfare?

    The being made to se deal transfers votes from con column to brexitparty.

    Time to start betting on a change of government.
    That’s bollocks. All the evidence says the public really don’t want no deal, and will happily accept a compromise.
    But the impact on the Conservative Party? Does anyone care? 😕

    incessant spin from HY is robust denial to the true road they are on.

    Conservatives are being deselected and thrown out on basis of voting remain and fearing no deal. This is their only “crime”

    It’s a huge moment in looking at the slow decline of the Conservative Party over the last 30 years (no decent majority since eighty-seven) The road they are on is being disguised by the opiate of brexit that’s in the system. As your short post actually proves.
    It would be a fast road to oblivion and replacement by the Brexit Party if the Tories do not remain committed to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal as the Tories were heading for under May after she extended past March 31st with the Tories frequently 3rd in the polls rather than leading every poll as now
  • Pulpstar said:

    A bizarre speech from Blackford given he's about to vote against an election on October 14th.

    Who is the main opposition to Blackford in his seat? They can have all my money.
    Lib Dems. It's Charles Kennedy's old seat. I'd take one Kennedy to five Blackfords any day.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    This is tremendous viewing - venal MPs confirming everything the public think of them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    @HYUFD - the Duke of Wellington was not the leader of the Tory party in 1832. By convention, peers took no part in elections. Moreover, Wellington had publicly announced he would not be returning to the premiership, a pledge he honoured in 1834.

    So although he was the more prestigious of the two party leaders, your ire should be directed at the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons - Robert Peel.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,300
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    And good to see you dissing the hereditary principle.

    I trust this extends to the Head of State.
    I did not say he could not be in the Lords along with the few remaining hereditary peers, just that like the royals he holds his family history on his shoulders as a hereditary peer.

    He is there by ancestry not by personal merit as such
    So just like the queen then. No personal merit for the office they hold.
    The monarchy is based on the institution not the person (though the Queen has done an excellent job) and as it is a constitutional monarchy lets the elected Parliament make the decisions as shown again today when the Queen gave royal assent to the Benn Bill
    If you watch the C4 program 'the queens lost family' it shows quite clearly that the institution of the monarchy has not been so stable over the years. the fear is that Charles wants to be more (small p) political than the queen. he has certainly been much more political than the queen has. if you look at how Edward VIII was during the 20s and 30s up to his coronation there are a lot of parallels with Charles
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    Did one of your ancestors advise him to bugger off and join the Whigs?
    The 1832 Wellington was a proper Tory not a fake Tory liberal Whig like Peel but other proper Tory leaders in the 19th century like Pitt, Disraeli and Salisbury were far more successful Tory leaders than he was
    So he was an ERGer?
    I am sure Jacob Rees Mogg would have happily stood as a Tory candidate in 1832
    He thinks he is standing in 1832.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,850

    Pulpstar said:

    A bizarre speech from Blackford given he's about to vote against an election on October 14th.

    Who is the main opposition to Blackford in his seat? They can have all my money.
    Lib Dems. It's Charles Kennedy's old seat. I'd take one Kennedy to five Blackfords any day.
    Ditto.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    In other positive news Scotland have not conceded another goal for 9 minutes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    I don't know why they haven't been saying this openly for a long time - it is what most of them believe
    Timing. A lot of MPs were never going to accept any form of leave, but said they were willing to accept it because initially that was the 'right' thing to say, then as time wore on and things escalated the logic of so many objections (like 'the best deal is the one we have') made it clear they would never support any form of leaving, and that is opening up to revoking if needs be, as the length of time from the referendum and extremism of the sides increases.

    Yes, some actually meant it, but the votes don't lie.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,300

    spudgfsh said:

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    Good for them. Another clear policy
    Yes, but they can have a clear policy that is not so divisive. they could say, we'll accept the referendum so we think that EFTA will satisfy it. unfortunately, there is no-one willing to accept compromise on this issue anymore.
    Most people who argue for ‘compromise’ seem to propose the solution they favoured all along. (Not sure if this applies to you.)
    That was never my position, but it is the only position where no-one wins. I would much rather have remained.
  • ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news
    Losing Churchill's and Wellington's descendants in one week is not a good tory look. I imagine the current D of Marl is not a working peer, so he won't be getting the full set.
    You do know Soames is also descended from Marlborough?
    The bloke on the horse who advertised fags?
  • TGOHF said:

    This is tremendous viewing - venal MPs confirming everything the public think of them.

    I simply have swirched them off .
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    And good to see you dissing the hereditary principle.

    I trust this extends to the Head of State.
    Monarchy = Socialism :lol:
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news
    Losing Churchill's and Wellington's descendants in one week is not a good tory look. I imagine the current D of Marl is not a working peer, so he won't be getting the full set.
    You do know Soames is also descended from Marlborough?
    I knew they were both Churchills, obv, didn't know whether Winston was a direct or collateral descendant.
  • Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    That brings them into line with the Soubry grouping. The SNP and Plaid will follow. By October Labour MPs in very Remainy seats will join them. Given the 6m + Revoke petition in March it's no surprise. As long as they are still promising another referendum at some point I think ' Revoke if it's tge only way to avoid no deal ' will be mainstream opinion after conference season.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    edited September 2019

    Gabs2 said:

    kle4 said:

    This latest defeat is particularly embarrassing for the government. Like Barnesian I thought it would have failed, it did seem a bit overeachy at casual glance

    A significant number of members didn't vote - not sure whether they were abstentions or something else.

    I am really not a fan of the SO24 nonsense. Emergency debates are all well and good - and have their place. But substantive motions that have real impact need time to be discussed - not rushed through.

    It is Bercow who has allowed this change. And it really isn't for the better.

    This is a fishing expedition - and not a healthy one.
    1) the government draws its power from the legislature. If it has lost the legislature, that body should be given every opportunity to have its say.

    2) it’s a bit more than a fishing expedition. The whole manoeuvre stinks to high heaven.

    3) the government really cannot complain about rush on this occasion.
    If it has lost the legislature it should be replaced as a government. The refusal to appoint another government or hold an election is a ridiculous situation caused by the terribly written FTPA.
    I completely disagree. Eventually even the dimmest politicians will appreciate that they need to build stable majorities before forming governments. If that means they have to compromise more, well that’s not the worst thing in the world.
    A slight hint of special pleading here. An election and the power of persuasive argument in campaigns, for which opposition parties presently have such disdain, is the democratic means of building stable majorities.

    I think it is fair to say that no-one in their wildest dreams thought the purpose of the FTPA was to allow opposition parties to hold and capture a minority government in office but not in power while those same parties avoided an election through fear that they might lose it, and an equal fear that they might win it.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    Did one of your ancestors advise him to bugger off and join the Whigs?
    The 1832 Wellington was a proper Tory not a fake Tory liberal Whig like Peel but other proper Tory leaders in the 19th century like Pitt, Disraeli and Salisbury were far more successful Tory leaders than he was
    So he was an ERGer?
    I am sure Jacob Rees Mogg would have happily stood as a Tory candidate in 1832
    He thinks he is standing in 1832.
    I thought that he preferred a lying position ( see what I did there?)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    spudgfsh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    And good to see you dissing the hereditary principle.

    I trust this extends to the Head of State.
    I did not say he could not be in the Lords along with the few remaining hereditary peers, just that like the royals he holds his family history on his shoulders as a hereditary peer.

    He is there by ancestry not by personal merit as such
    So just like the queen then. No personal merit for the office they hold.
    The monarchy is based on the institution not the person (though the Queen has done an excellent job) and as it is a constitutional monarchy lets the elected Parliament make the decisions as shown again today when the Queen gave royal assent to the Benn Bill
    If you watch the C4 program 'the queens lost family' it shows quite clearly that the institution of the monarchy has not been so stable over the years. the fear is that Charles wants to be more (small p) political than the queen. he has certainly been much more political than the queen has. if you look at how Edward VIII was during the 20s and 30s up to his coronation there are a lot of parallels with Charles
    Was he crowned? Surely the plug was pulled - an unhappy potential analogy there.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Nigelb said:

    GIN1138 said:

    "John Bercow resignation statement: Speaker warns 'We degrade this Parliament at our peril'"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/09/john-bercow-resignation-statement-speaker-warns-degrade-parliament/

    Sorry sweet cheeks in the eyes of the public Parliament is already degraded to such a point it can't get any lower.

    If someone burned the whole place down right now I'd shed no tears for it.

    So much for the Brexit take back control prospectus.

    You’re a self declared revolutionary anarchist.
    Well not quite as I wouldn't light the match personally... But if I heard someone else had done it I'd just shrug and carry on with my buisness.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news
    Losing Churchill's and Wellington's descendants in one week is not a good tory look. I imagine the current D of Marl is not a working peer, so he won't be getting the full set.
    You do know Soames is also descended from Marlborough?
    The bloke on the horse who advertised fags?
    Was always a good view when landing n Hong Kong as you past the Marlborough advert
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    HYUFD said:

    egg said:

    Byronic said:

    egg said:

    Nigelb said:

    egg said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    2017 Tory voters though give Boris huge +43% rating
    How much lower by the end of the month though?
    It’s like the German tactics from WW1 get victory in a month or we are in trouble.
    Makes a welcome change from the WWII references....
    The game plan had to be strong and stable in one hand, love bombs in the other, secure early election win or else the fires now started will burn them. Boris government didn’t drip feed magicmoneytree spending announcements hard to imagine what was hold any back for a manifesto.

    Is the window for an election receding? Can we realistically have GE in December or January (when this terrible weather bomb predicted?). Or even later November or early Feb?

    In which case like the fluid first month of WW1 when Germany had to reach Paris, what follows for Boris is months without an election. And following the trench warfare?

    The being made to look powerless by parliament isn’t helping his leadership image at all. Also, for all the talk of the Labour Party taken over by extremists who will deselect moderate MPs to replace with one of their own, it’s the conservatives actually doing this, on a scale worthy of mention in history books.

    All opinion poll is distorted by a brexit prism, onefact we know failure to deliver or any sniff of a compromise deal transfers votes from con column to brexitparty.

    Time to start betting on a change of government.
    That’s bollocks.
    But the impact on the Conservative Party? Does anyone care? 😕

    incessant spin from HY is robust denial to the true road they are on.

    Conservatives are being deselected and thrown out on basis of voting remain and fearing no deal. This is their only “crime”

    It’s a huge moment in looking at the slow decline of the Conservative Party over the last 30 years (no decent majority since eighty-seven) The road they are on is being disguised by the opiate of brexit that’s in the system. As your short post actually proves.
    It would be a fast road to oblivion and replacement by the Brexit Party if the Tories do not remain committed to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal as the Tories were heading for under May rather than leading every poll as now
    That’s where we disagree. Fundamental for the Conservatives to remain a broad church not just for the moment the country comes off its brexit opiate, but in relation to the decline in Conservative support for three decades that will become existential if not addressed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    I think we can chalk Ian Austin up voting against any Corbyn Queen Speech.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news
    Losing Churchill's and Wellington's descendants in one week is not a good tory look. I imagine the current D of Marl is not a working peer, so he won't be getting the full set.
    You do know Soames is also descended from Marlborough?
    The bloke on the horse who advertised fags?

    I remember reading After Blenheim at school. Great poem.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.

    Are you sure the people of Buckingham will respond well to Funny Tinge Smith?

    Like may of the detritus that the LibDems are happy to scoop up, she does not have a good record (pro-fracking, wanted to keep MPs expenses private, nepotism).

    Still, it is up to the LibDems, if they wish to defile themselves.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Pulpstar said:

    I think we can chalk Ian Austin up voting against any Corbyn Queen Speech.

    Who was the deeply unpleasant old shrew behind him? 'You're not welcome here'
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,300
    Carnyx said:

    spudgfsh said:

    If you watch the C4 program 'the queens lost family' it shows quite clearly that the institution of the monarchy has not been so stable over the years. the fear is that Charles wants to be more (small p) political than the queen. he has certainly been much more political than the queen has. if you look at how Edward VIII was during the 20s and 30s up to his coronation there are a lot of parallels with Charles

    Was he crowned? Surely the plug was pulled - an unhappy potential analogy there.
    He was king, but never crowned. it's a subtle distinction. the other parallel between Charles and Edward VIII is that they both (followed/will follow) well respected and studiously neutral predecessors.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news
    Losing Churchill's and Wellington's descendants in one week is not a good tory look. I imagine the current D of Marl is not a working peer, so he won't be getting the full set.
    You do know Soames is also descended from Marlborough?
    The bloke on the horse who advertised fags?
    Didn't know he did that.

    Must say I feel sorry for any horse with Nicholas Soames riding it.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.


    Did he actually say he was standing down as an MPs?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news
    Losing Churchill's and Wellington's descendants in one week is not a good tory look. I imagine the current D of Marl is not a working peer, so he won't be getting the full set.
    You do know Soames is also descended from Marlborough?
    I knew they were both Churchills, obv, didn't know whether Winston was a direct or collateral descendant.
    Grandson of the 7th Duke.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 926


    Its 'Kinnocks' deal sponsored by Stephen Kinnock, Rory Stewart, Norman Lamb and others plus the NI issue.

    And under the no deal act it has to come back to the house

    I don't think that last part is right. Kinnock &co put down a set of amendments which were really intended to work together: one adds a note saying "the purpose of the extension is to pass a deal", one is an entire new clause requiring the government to put down a motion for a withdrawal agreement bill reflecting the outcome of the earlier multiparty talks, and one changes the text of the letter to the EU to say the extension is to pass a deal. But only one of these got applied -- the first one, which has no legal effect. The important ones that actually require the deal to be put to the house or mention it in the EU letter were separate amendments which didn't get through. So if we do see a deal coming back to the Commons it'll be because Boris chooses to bring it, not because the law requires it.

    (You can see this in the docs at https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawalno6/documents.html -- the 'Committee of the Whole House Amendments' doc has the various Kinnock amendments, and the HL Bill doc has the text that got sent to the Lords and eventually made law.)
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited September 2019
    Keir Starmer reselected by Holbron & St Pancras CLP. All ward branches and affiliates in favour. In ward branches, he generally got 90% of members backing him.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Olly Robbins joining Goldman Sachs. That will go down well.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,089

    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.

    Are you sure the people of Buckingham will respond well to Funny Tinge Smith?

    Like may of the detritus that the LibDems are happy to scoop up, she does not have a good record (pro-fracking, wanted to keep MPs expenses private, nepotism).

    Still, it is up to the LibDems, if they wish to defile themselves.
    The 2010 result for Penistown suggests it's not a complete write off for the LibDems. Probably hangs on whether she has a personal vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    nichomar said:

    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.


    Did he actually say he was standing down as an MPs?
    I don't think he'll have much choice in the matter.
  • algarkirk said:

    Gabs2 said:

    kle4 said:

    This latest defeat is particularly embarrassing for the government. Like Barnesian I thought it would have failed, it did seem a bit overeachy at casual glance

    A significant number of members didn't vote - not sure whether they were abstentions or something else.

    I am really not a fan of the SO24 nonsense. Emergency debates are all well and good - and have their place. But substantive motions that have real impact need time to be discussed - not rushed through.

    It is Bercow who has allowed this change. And it really isn't for the better.

    This is a fishing expedition - and not a healthy one.
    1) the government draws its power from the legislature. If it has lost the legislature, that body should be given every opportunity to have its say.

    2) it’s a bit more than a fishing expedition. The whole manoeuvre stinks to high heaven.

    3) the government really cannot complain about rush on this occasion.
    If it has lost the legislature it should be replaced as a government. The refusal to appoint another government or hold an election is a ridiculous situation caused by the terribly written FTPA.
    I completely disagree. Eventually even the dimmest politicians will appreciate that they need to build stable majorities before forming governments. If that means they have to compromise more, well that’s not the worst thing in the world.
    A slight hint of special pleading here. An election and the power of persuasive argument in campaigns, for which opposition parties presently have such disdain, is the democratic of building stable majorities.

    I think it is fair to say that no-one in their wildest dreams thought the purpose of the FTPA was to allow opposition parties to hold and capture a minority government in office but not in power while those same parties avoided an election through fear that they might lose it, and an equal fear that they might win it.

    It’s not special pleading at all. Elections are regularly delivering hung Parliaments. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act stops Prime Ministers pulling the handle of a fruit machine. It requires them instead to construct stable majorities. I don’t see anything problematic about that. If politicians haven’t worked that out, that’s on them.
  • Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    That brings them into line with the Soubry grouping. The SNP and Plaid will follow. By October Labour MPs in very Remainy seats will join them. Given the 6m + Revoke petition in March it's no surprise. As long as they are still promising another referendum at some point I think ' Revoke if it's tge only way to avoid no deal ' will be mainstream opinion after conference season.
    Revoke Article 50 to avoid No Deal would probably get to about 210 MPs at present.

    It got 191 MPs (in principle) earlier this year.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,300
    nichomar said:

    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.


    Did he actually say he was standing down as an MPs?
    Yes. I think he decided to stand down because the tories said that they'd put a candidate against him and he decided to step down rather than be voted out.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,089
    Oops predictive text blooper there
  • pm215 said:


    Its 'Kinnocks' deal sponsored by Stephen Kinnock, Rory Stewart, Norman Lamb and others plus the NI issue.

    And under the no deal act it has to come back to the house

    I don't think that last part is right. Kinnock &co put down a set of amendments which were really intended to work together: one adds a note saying "the purpose of the extension is to pass a deal", one is an entire new clause requiring the government to put down a motion for a withdrawal agreement bill reflecting the outcome of the earlier multiparty talks, and one changes the text of the letter to the EU to say the extension is to pass a deal. But only one of these got applied -- the first one, which has no legal effect. The important ones that actually require the deal to be put to the house or mention it in the EU letter were separate amendments which didn't get through. So if we do see a deal coming back to the Commons it'll be because Boris chooses to bring it, not because the law requires it.

    (You can see this in the docs at https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawalno6/documents.html -- the 'Committee of the Whole House Amendments' doc has the various Kinnock amendments, and the HL Bill doc has the text that got sent to the Lords and eventually made law.)
    I am not an expert but I do know Kinnock asked the government when he could see his amendment in the house. And the main point is the wide cross party backing from respected mps ( Yes we do have a few !!!)
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    That brings them into line with the Soubry grouping. The SNP and Plaid will follow. By October Labour MPs in very Remainy seats will join them. Given the 6m + Revoke petition in March it's no surprise. As long as they are still promising another referendum at some point I think ' Revoke if it's tge only way to avoid no deal ' will be mainstream opinion after conference season.
    This would be terrible for democracy. Leaving doesn't happen even with a referendum but remaining happens without one? People would rightly feel our democracy was just for show.

    The best approach is CU + SM. Then the referendum result would be implemented and we could join again in a few years.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    IanB2 said:

    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.

    Are you sure the people of Buckingham will respond well to Funny Tinge Smith?

    Like may of the detritus that the LibDems are happy to scoop up, she does not have a good record (pro-fracking, wanted to keep MPs expenses private, nepotism).

    Still, it is up to the LibDems, if they wish to defile themselves.
    The 2010 result for Penistown suggests it's not a complete write off for the LibDems. Probably hangs on whether she has a personal vote.
    What is this result the LibDems are bragging about in .. err .. Penistown?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Bozo winning bigly !

    Not surprised he wants to shut Parliament . Just how much winning can one man cope with !
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    HYUFD said:

    While talking of my predictions....
    A a legal and post legislative referendum on a NI backstop will take some time. It would be Spring at the earliest. So much for Boris' Do or Die 31/10 deadline.
    I heard him speak tonight and he was absolutely definitive on leaving on 31/10, deal or no deal.

    It was curious that he left himself no wiggle room.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2019
    egg said:

    HYUFD said:

    egg said:

    Byronic said:

    egg said:

    Nigelb said:

    egg said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    2017 Tory voters though give Boris huge +43% rating
    How much lower by the end of the month though?
    It’s like the German tactics from WW1 get victory in a month or we are in trouble.
    Makes a welcome change from the WWII references....
    The game plan had to be strong and stable in one hand, love bombs magine what was hold any back for a manifesto.

    Is the window for an election receding? Can we

    All opinion poll is distorted by a brexit prism, onefact we know failure to deliver or any sniff of a compromise deal transfers votes from con column to brexitparty.

    Time to start betting on a change of government.
    That’s bollocks.
    But the impact on the Conservative Party? Does anyone care? 😕

    incessant spin from HY is robust denial to the true road they are on.

    Conservatives are being deselected and thrown out on basis of voting remain and fearing no deal. This is their only “crime”

    It’s a huge moment in looking at the slow decline of the Conservative Party over the last 30 years (no decent majority since eighty-seven) The road they are on is being disguised by the opiate of brexit that’s in the system. As your short post actually proves.
    It would be a fast road to oblivion and replacement by the Brexit Party if the Tories do not remain committed to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal as the Tories were heading for under May rather than leading every poll as now
    That’s where we disagree. Fundamental for the Conservatives to remain a broad church not just for the moment the country comes off its brexit opiate, but in relation to the decline in Conservative support for three decades that will become existential if not addressed.
    Wrong, if the Tories refuse to deliver Brexit they will face wipeout on a Scottish Labour 2015 or LDs 2015 or Canadian Progressive Conservatives 1993 scale.

    At least 25 to 30% of the electorate have always and will always vote for a conservative, right of centre party and more if the Tories win power. However the 9% May's Tories got in the European Parliament elections compared to 32% for the Brexit Party shows the Tories face extinction if they abandon Brexit, likely eventually taken over by the Brexit Party anyway as the Progressive Conservatives in Canada were ultimately by the Canadian Alliance, the successor of the populist right Reform Party that beat them in 1993, eventually returning to Government as the Conservative Party of Canada in 1993
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    It’s given me pause for thought.
  • This Portillo: The Trouble with the Tories documentary on Channel 5 is bloody good.

    It’s a month old now, but I’m getting it on catch up and it’s very informative.
  • Keir Starmer reselected by Holbron & St Pancras CLP. All ward branches and affiliates in favour. In ward branches, he generally got 90% of members backing him.

    Yep - that one was never, ever in doubt.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    egg said:

    HYUFD said:

    egg said:

    Byronic said:

    egg said:

    Nigelb said:

    egg said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    2017 Tory voters though give Boris huge +43% rating
    How much lower by the end of the month though?
    It’s like the German tactics from WW1 get victory in a month or we are in trouble.
    Makes a welcome change from the WWII references....
    The game plan had to be strong and stable in one hand, love bombs magine what was hold any back for a manifesto.

    Is the window for an election receding? Can we

    All opinion poll is distorted by a brexit prism, onefact we know failure to deliver or any sniff of a compromise deal transfers votes from con column to brexitparty.

    Time to start betting on a change of government.
    That’s bollocks.
    But the impact on the Conservative Party? Does anyone care? 😕

    incessant spin from HY is robust denial to the true road they are on.

    Conservatives are being deselected and thrown out on basis of voting remain and fearing no deal. This is their only “crime”

    It’s a huge moment in looking at the slow decline of the Conservative Party over the last 30 years (no decent majority since eighty-seven) The road they are on is being disguised by the opiate of brexit that’s in the system. As your short post actually proves.
    It would be a fast road to oblivion and replacement by the Brexit Party if the Tories do not remain committed to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal as the Tories were heading for under May rather than leading every poll as now
    That’s where we disagree. Fundamental for the Conservatives to remain a broad church not just for the moment the country comes off its brexit opiate, but in relation to the decline in Conservative support for three decades that will become existential if not addressed.
    Wrong, if the Tories refuse to deliver Brexit they will face wipeout on a Scottish Labour 2015 or LDs 2015 or Canadian Progressive Conservatives 1993 scale.
    You say that like it’s a bad thing.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Hilarious .

    The apparent so called terrible NI only backstop is now back in fashion . Looks like they might give NI a referendum on it.

    Go for it , I hate Brexit but seeing the DUP implode would be marvelous .
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    And good to see you dissing the hereditary principle.

    I trust this extends to the Head of State.
    Monarchy = Socialism :lol:
    There are over 7.5 billion people in the world Sunil and you are probably the only person who thinks that.
  • Gabs2 said:

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    That brings them into line with the Soubry grouping. The SNP and Plaid will follow. By October Labour MPs in very Remainy seats will join them. Given the 6m + Revoke petition in March it's no surprise. As long as they are still promising another referendum at some point I think ' Revoke if it's tge only way to avoid no deal ' will be mainstream opinion after conference season.
    This would be terrible for democracy. Leaving doesn't happen even with a referendum but remaining happens without one? People would rightly feel our democracy was just for show.

    The best approach is CU + SM. Then the referendum result would be implemented and we could join again in a few years.
    Revoke ≠ Remain. It will take a new referendum or other material change to extinguish the mandate from the first. Revoking would just get us out of the immediate mire.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    edited September 2019

    HYUFD said:

    egg said:

    HYUFD said:

    egg said:

    Byronic said:

    egg said:

    Nigelb said:

    egg said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    2017 Tory voters though give Boris huge +43% rating
    How much lower by the end of the month though?
    It’s like the German tactics from WW1 get victory in a month or we are in trouble.
    Makes a welcome change from the WWII references....
    The game plan had to be strong and stable in one hand, love bombs magine what was hold any back for a manifesto.

    Is the window for an election receding? Can we

    All opinion poll is distorted by a brexit prism, onefact we know failure to deliver or any sniff of a compromise deal transfers votes from con column to brexitparty.

    Time to start betting on a change of government.
    That’s bollocks.
    But the impact on the Conservative Party? Does anyone care? 😕

    incessant spin from HY is robust denial to the true road they are on.

    Conservatives are being deselected and thrown out on basis of voting remain and fearing no deal. This is their only “crime”

    It’s a huge moment in looking at the slow decline of the Conservative Party over the last 30 years (no decent majority since eighty-seven) The road they are on is being disguised by the opiate of brexit that’s in the system. As your short post actually proves.
    It would be a fast road to oblivion and replacement by the Brexit Party if the Tories do not remain committed to deliver Brexit Deal or No Deal as the Tories were heading for under May rather than leading every poll as now
    That’s where we disagree. Fundamental for the Conservatives to remain a broad church not just for the moment the country comes off its brexit opiate, but in relation to the decline in Conservative support for three decades that will become existential if not addressed.
    Wrong, if the Tories refuse to deliver Brexit they will face wipeout on a Scottish Labour 2015 or LDs 2015 or Canadian Progressive Conservatives 1993 scale.
    You say that like it’s a bad thing.
    I've got a very special bottle of Veuve, and a particularly wonderful Cognac unopened to toast in this event...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    nico67 said:

    Hilarious .

    The apparent so called terrible NI only backstop is now back in fashion . Looks like they might give NI a referendum on it.

    Go for it , I hate Brexit but seeing the DUP implode would be marvelous .

    It's not going to buy off the BXP is it?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343

    algarkirk said:

    Gabs2 said:

    kle4 said:

    This latest defeat is particularly embarrassing for the government. Like Barnesian I thought it would have failed, it did seem a bit overeachy at casual glance

    A significant number of members didn't vote - not sure whether they were abstentions or something else.

    I am really not a fan of the SO24 nonsense. Emergency debates are all well and good - and have their place. But substantive motions that have real impact need time to be discussed - not rushed through.

    It is Bercow who has allowed this change. And it really isn't for the better.

    This is a fishing expedition - and not a healthy one.
    1) the government draws its power from the legislature. If it has lost the legislature, that body should be given every opportunity to have its say.

    2) it’s a bit more than a fishing expedition. The whole manoeuvre stinks to high heaven.

    3) the government really cannot complain about rush on this occasion.
    If it has lost the legislature it should be replaced as a government. The refusal to appoint another government or hold an election is a ridiculous situation caused by the terribly written FTPA.
    I completely disagree. Eventually even the dimmest politicians will appreciate that they need to build stable majorities before forming governments. If that means they have to compromise more, well that’s not the worst thing in the world.
    A slight hint of special pleading here. An election and the power of persuasive argument in campaigns, for which opposition parties presently have such disdain, is the democratic of building stable majorities.

    I think it is fair to say that no-one in their wildest dreams thought the purpose of the FTPA was to allow opposition parties to hold and capture a minority government in office but not in power while those same parties avoided an election through fear that they might lose it, and an equal fear that they might win it.

    It’s not special pleading at all. Elections are regularly delivering hung Parliaments. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act stops Prime Ministers pulling the handle of a fruit machine. It requires them instead to construct stable majorities. I don’t see anything problematic about that. If politicians haven’t worked that out, that’s on them.
    I see your point - and it would be nice if it happened. But I can't see the stable majority in a timely way, and the FTPA allows for elections in exactly those circumstances. Like now.

  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    nico67 said:

    Hilarious .

    The apparent so called terrible NI only backstop is now back in fashion . Looks like they might give NI a referendum on it.

    Go for it , I hate Brexit but seeing the DUP implode would be marvelous .

    It's not going to buy off the BXP is it?
    Nope and given the choice of a NI only backstop or a border vote the border vote is going to win it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    IanB2 said:

    Oops predictive text blooper there

    I think it fair to say you cocked that up.
  • spudgfsh said:

    nichomar said:

    Do we know if any PPCs have been selected for Buckingham?

    I wonder if it might be a parachute landing spot for one of the new Lib Dems - perhaps Angela Smith, who I can't imagine having much of a future in Penistone & Stockbridge. Buckingham voted narrowly remain, and is on the fringe of the Chiltern-Cotswold belt which is starting to swing LD. It would still be a big ask, though.


    Did he actually say he was standing down as an MPs?
    Yes. I think he decided to stand down because the tories said that they'd put a candidate against him and he decided to step down rather than be voted out.
    He might have to wait a long time for that peerage
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    Basically all these defeats meaning nothing if Boris comes back to the commons next month with a deal that gets voted through. He's then getting a landslide in an election very shortly afterwards. I fear the remainers have blundered by not taking the election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    And good to see you dissing the hereditary principle.

    I trust this extends to the Head of State.
    Monarchy = Socialism :lol:
    There are over 7.5 billion people in the world Sunil and you are probably the only person who thinks that.
    I was discussing only today the extreme similarities between North Korea and Tsarist Russia.

    But that is a rather isolated comparison.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    nico67 said:

    Hilarious .

    The apparent so called terrible NI only backstop is now back in fashion . Looks like they might give NI a referendum on it.

    Go for it , I hate Brexit but seeing the DUP implode would be marvelous .

    It's not going to buy off the BXP is it?
    As long as Brexit happens Bozo will get lauded and Farage becomes irrelevant . Wouldn’t it be funny if the DUP VONC the Tories with the opposition.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    This Portillo: The Trouble with the Tories documentary on Channel 5 is bloody good.

    It’s a month old now, but I’m getting it on catch up and it’s very informative.


    Yes we enjoyed that one. Presumably it's being dismissed by the No Deal extremists as another example of Remoaner MSM propaganda lol!
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    nico67 said:

    Hilarious .

    The apparent so called terrible NI only backstop is now back in fashion . Looks like they might give NI a referendum on it.

    Go for it , I hate Brexit but seeing the DUP implode would be marvelous .

    It's not going to buy off the BXP is it?
    If the Brexit Party can't back a deal where the backstop only affects 3% of the population, who have specifically voted for it in a referendum, after all of this mess, then they don't really want Brexit.

    I think Farage might be in that position but I suspect Annunziata and others would undercut him.
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Considering his ancestor led the Tory Party to the worst defeat and lowest voteshare in its history in 1832 not sure that is too bad news

    Bit harsh to hold that against him!
    Well he is only in the Lords mainly because of who his ancestor was anyway, Wellington was a brilliant general but a crap politician.

    The Tories got an even worse voteshare than 1997 under his leadership in 1832
    And good to see you dissing the hereditary principle.

    I trust this extends to the Head of State.
    Monarchy = Socialism :lol:
    There are over 7.5 billion people in the world Sunil and you are probably the only person who thinks that.
    You should know by now it's just to troll HYUFD :lol:
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Gabs2 said:



    A significant number of members didn't vote - not sure whether they were abstentions or something else.

    I am really not a fan of the SO24 nonsense. Emergency debates are all well and good - and have their place. But substantive motions that have real impact need time to be discussed - not rushed through.

    It is Bercow who has allowed this change. And it really isn't for the better.

    This is a fishing expedition - and not a healthy one.

    1) the government draws its power from the legislature. If it has lost the legislature, that body should be given every opportunity to have its say.

    2) it’s a bit more than a fishing expedition. The whole manoeuvre stinks to high heaven.

    3) the government really cannot complain about rush on this occasion.
    If it has lost the legislature it should be replaced as a government. The refusal to appoint another government or hold an election is a ridiculous situation caused by the terribly written FTPA.
    I completely disagree. Eventually even the dimmest politicians will appreciate that they need to build stable majorities before forming governments. If that means they have to compromise more, well that’s not the worst thing in the world.
    A slight hint of special pleading here. An election and the power of persuasive argument in campaigns, for which opposition parties presently have such disdain, is the democratic of building stable majorities.

    I think it is fair to say that no-one in their wildest dreams thought the purpose of the FTPA was to allow opposition parties to hold and capture a minority government in office but not in power while those same parties avoided an election through fear that they might lose it, and an equal fear that they might win it.

    It’s not special pleading at all. Elections are regularly delivering hung Parliaments. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act stops Prime Ministers pulling the handle of a fruit machine. It requires them instead to construct stable majorities. I don’t see anything problematic about that. If politicians haven’t worked that out, that’s on them.
    I see your point - and it would be nice if it happened. But I can't see the stable majority in a timely way, and the FTPA allows for elections in exactly those circumstances. Like now.

    I should note that Labour seem as oblivious to this consideration as the Conservatives.

    The election will come when it is in the interests of a majority in Parliament. That may be some time.
  • Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    You never go straight to revocation...
    The defenestration of Margaret Thatcher by Parliamentary chicanery, despite her election victories, in 1990 is still causing huge ripples in the Conservative Party almost 30 years later. In fact, it’s arguably the original sin that’s led inexorably to the current divisions.

    If that was the case for simply changing a successful Prime Minister, imagine what it’d be like for overturning a democratic vote unilaterally.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    nico67 said:

    Hilarious .

    The apparent so called terrible NI only backstop is now back in fashion . Looks like they might give NI a referendum on it.

    Go for it , I hate Brexit but seeing the DUP implode would be marvelous .

    There are some Brexit dividends already banked...the catastrophic breakdown of the Tories is a hoot...
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Gabs2 said:

    kle4 said:

    del.

    A significant number of members didn't vote - not sure whether they were abstentions or something else.

    I am really not a fan of the SO24 nonsense. Emergency debates are all well and good - and have their place. But substantive motions that have real impact need time to be discussed - not rushed through.

    It is Bercow who has allowed this change. And it really isn't for the better.

    This is a fishing expedition - and not a healthy one.
    1) the government draws its power from the legislature. If it has lost the legislature, that body should be given every opportunity to have its say.

    2) it’s a bit more than a fishing expedition. The whole manoeuvre stinks to high heaven.

    3) the government really cannot complain about rush on this occasion.
    If it has lost the legislature it should be replaced as a government. The refusal to appoint another government or hold an election is a ridiculous situation caused by the terribly written FTPA.
    I completely disagree. Eventually even the dimmest politicians will appreciate that they need to build stable majorities before forming governments. If that means they have to compromise more, well that’s not the worst thing in the world.
    A slight hint of special pleading here. An election and the power of persuasive argument in campaigns, for which opposition parties presently have such disdain, is the democratic of building stable majorities.

    I think it is fair to say that no-one in their wildest dreams thought the purpose of the FTPA was to allow opposition parties to hold and capture a minority government in office but not in power while those same parties avoided an election through fear that they might lose it, and an equal fear that they might win it.

    It’s not special pleading at all. Elections are regularly delivering hung Parliaments. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act stops Prime Ministers pulling the handle of a fruit machine. It requires them instead to construct stable majorities. I don’t see anything problematic about that. If politicians haven’t worked that out, that’s on them.
    I see your point - and it would be nice if it happened. But I can't see the stable majority in a timely way, and the FTPA allows for elections in exactly those circumstances. Like now.

    I don't want stable majorities, aka elected dictatorships. I want PR and coalitions or C&S.

    Hung parliaments aren't PR. We haven't yet grown up and accepted that seats should be proportional to votes, as they are in 26 EU countries.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Gabs2 said:

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    That brings them into line with the Soubry grouping. The SNP and Plaid will follow. By October Labour MPs in very Remainy seats will join them. Given the 6m + Revoke petition in March it's no surprise. As long as they are still promising another referendum at some point I think ' Revoke if it's tge only way to avoid no deal ' will be mainstream opinion after conference season.
    This would be terrible for democracy. Leaving doesn't happen even with a referendum but remaining happens without one? People would rightly feel our democracy was just for show.

    The best approach is CU + SM. Then the referendum result would be implemented and we could join again in a few years.
    Revoke ≠ Remain. It will take a new referendum or other material change to extinguish the mandate from the first. Revoking would just get us out of the immediate mire.
    Revoke is clearly Remain. That is like saying we didm't join the EU until 1975.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    DanSmith said:

    Basically all these defeats meaning nothing if Boris comes back to the commons next month with a deal that gets voted through. He's then getting a landslide in an election very shortly afterwards. I fear the remainers have blundered by not taking the election.

    At this point I’ll accept a deal . The transition period gives me time to escape the lunacy .
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    While talking of my predictions....
    A a legal and post legislative referendum on a NI backstop will take some time. It would be Spring at the earliest. So much for Boris' Do or Die 31/10 deadline.
    I heard him speak tonight and he was absolutely definitive on leaving on 31/10, deal or no deal.

    It was curious that he left himself no wiggle room.
    Where was he speaking?
  • New market

    Next GE - Wimbledon (Con Maj 5,622, Stephen Hammond MP)

    Con 4/7
    LD 5/4
    Lab 25/1

    (Shadsy)

    Shadsy looks to have priced that about right to me.
    Yes, he is annoying.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Raab tells the house that Boris will got to the EU on 17th and negotiate to leave on the 31/10 deal or no deal.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    BoZo finds another bus

    https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1171138084576120832

    to throw the DUP under...
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    Scott_P said:
    So in the case of no deal, if the economic forecasts are in the ball park for the Irish economy and there is serious unemployment there will be at least one person in the EU hierarchy desperate for a quick deal with the UK. Seems like a poison chalice to me.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited September 2019

    Liberal Democrats just stated they’d go straight for revocation in a deadline emergency.

    You never go straight to revocation...
    The defenestration of Margaret Thatcher by Parliamentary chicanery, despite her election victories, in 1990 is still causing huge ripples in the Conservative Party almost 30 years later. In fact, it’s arguably the original sin that’s led inexorably to the current divisions.

    If that was the case for simply changing a successful Prime Minister, imagine what it’d be like for overturning a democratic vote unilaterally.
    It would have all been so different if the Tory party had replaced Mrs Thatcher over the Poll Tax.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited September 2019
    DanSmith said:

    Basically all these defeats meaning nothing if Boris comes back to the commons next month with a deal that gets voted through. He's then getting a landslide in an election very shortly afterwards. I fear the remainers have blundered by not taking the election.

    This House Of Commons will never vote for any deal.
  • GIN1138 said:

    DanSmith said:

    Basically all these defeats meaning nothing if Boris comes back to the commons next month with a deal that gets voted through. He's then getting a landslide in an election very shortly afterwards. I fear the remainers have blundered by not taking the election.

    This House Of Common will never vote for any deal.
    Indeed. There is no form of a deal that can get through this House.
  • GIN1138 said:

    DanSmith said:

    Basically all these defeats meaning nothing if Boris comes back to the commons next month with a deal that gets voted through. He's then getting a landslide in an election very shortly afterwards. I fear the remainers have blundered by not taking the election.

    This House Of Common will never vote for any deal.
    Well, they like to think of themselves as very cultured.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TGOHF said:

    Raab tells the house that Boris will got to the EU on 17th and negotiate to leave on the 31/10 deal or no deal.

    And Corbyn could stop him by voting for an election on the 15th this evening. Frightening that he should not take that opportunity.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_P said:

    BoZo finds another bus

    https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1171138084576120832

    to throw the DUP under...

    I've joked about it being a good idea, but I really don't see the political upside for Boris. Theoretically if he could get it through then he can hope in an election that the Faragist cry of betrayal will not prevent leavers showering him with praise and a majority, and with a majority the DUP can go back to moaning to themselves about how righteous they and they alone are, but discarding them like this, pissing off the ERG spartans in the process (since anything but no deal does that) and those who were genuinely against the NI only backstop, and with no Labour incentive to back a deal, and it is just ruining his good polling for no gain.

    It's only potential is the long mooted theory which applied to May's deal, which is that if Labour let it through then they would have a good chance of winning an election as angry leavers deserted the Tories. But it didn't work for May and won't work here surely?
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Gabs2 said:



    A significant number of members didn't vote - not sure whether they were abstentions or something else.

    I am really not a fan of the SO24 nonsense. Emergency debates are all well and good - and have their place. But substantive motions that have real impact need time to be discussed - not rushed through.

    It is Bercow who has allowed this change. And it really isn't for the better.

    This is a fishing expedition - and not a healthy one.

    1) the government draws its power from the legislature. If it has lost the legislature, that body should be given every opportunity to have its say.

    2) it’s a bit more than a fishing expedition. The whole manoeuvre stinks to high heaven.

    3) the government really cannot complain about rush on this occasion.
    If it has lost the legislature it should be replaced as a government. The refusal to appoint another government or hold an election is a ridiculous situation caused by the terribly written FTPA.
    I completely disagree. Eventually even the dimmest politicians will appreciate that they need to build stable majorities before forming governments. If that means they have to compromise more, well that’s not the worst thing in the world.
    A slight hint of special pleading here.

    It’s not special pleading at all.
    I see your point - and it would be nice if it happened. But I can't see the stable majority in a timely way, and the FTPA allows for elections in exactly those circumstances. Like now.

    I should note that Labour seem as oblivious to this consideration as the Conservatives.

    The election will come when it is in the interests of a majority in Parliament. That may be some time.
    The maximum window I can see for an election this year, now, is from Tuesday 26th November to Thursday 19th December. And that’s going some when it’s going to be dark before 4pm, each day, and most people will have better things to think about.

    And yet, you can still lay an election this year right now at 1.25 on Betfair, which implies an 80% chance when I’m not sure it’s even a 5/2 shot now.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    ..
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    Raab tells the house that Boris will got to the EU on 17th and negotiate to leave on the 31/10 deal or no deal.

    And Corbyn could stop him by voting for an election on the 15th this evening. Frightening that he should not take that opportunity.
    Lol.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    DanSmith said:

    Basically all these defeats meaning nothing if Boris comes back to the commons next month with a deal that gets voted through. He's then getting a landslide in an election very shortly afterwards. I fear the remainers have blundered by not taking the election.

    What deal?
This discussion has been closed.