Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An unconventional carry-on

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An unconventional carry-on

Ravi Ashwin might not be the first name you think of as being of particular relevance to the Brexit denouement this October. However, his dismissal of Josh Buttler in the IPL this March is an excellent example of one side playing to the rules while the other played to the conventions of the game – and who went on to lose.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,633
    Carry On Downing Street .... A 21st Century Farce ....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 50,091
    Zoomer wants to join in the fun...

    Scotland’s most controversial blogger is in talks to create a political party to fight the next Holyrood election and split the independence vote.

    Stuart Campbell, writer of Wings Over Scotland, said that his party would exploit unhappiness in the Yes movement at Nicola Sturgeon’s caution over Scottish independence. Mr Campbell said that he had discussed the idea with a number of potential candidates.

    “I think the SNP is a shambles at the moment,” he told The Times. “It doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

    It is understood that the Wings party would aim to emulate the success of populist, anti-elite movements in the United States, the UK and elsewhere.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/wings-over-scotland-independence-blogger-stuart-campbell-plans-to-take-on-snp-fxg7z3t30
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    Scott_P said:

    Zoomer wants to join in the fun...

    Scotland’s most controversial blogger is in talks to create a political party to fight the next Holyrood election and split the independence vote.

    Stuart Campbell, writer of Wings Over Scotland, said that his party would exploit unhappiness in the Yes movement at Nicola Sturgeon’s caution over Scottish independence. Mr Campbell said that he had discussed the idea with a number of potential candidates.

    “I think the SNP is a shambles at the moment,” he told The Times. “It doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

    It is understood that the Wings party would aim to emulate the success of populist, anti-elite movements in the United States, the UK and elsewhere.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/wings-over-scotland-independence-blogger-stuart-campbell-plans-to-take-on-snp-fxg7z3t30

    Are non-residents even allowed to set up political parties?

    *innocent face*
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,409
    Scott_P said:

    Zoomer wants to join in the fun...

    Scotland’s most controversial blogger is in talks to create a political party to fight the next Holyrood election and split the independence vote.

    Stuart Campbell, writer of Wings Over Scotland, said that his party would exploit unhappiness in the Yes movement at Nicola Sturgeon’s caution over Scottish independence. Mr Campbell said that he had discussed the idea with a number of potential candidates.

    “I think the SNP is a shambles at the moment,” he told The Times. “It doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

    It is understood that the Wings party would aim to emulate the success of populist, anti-elite movements in the United States, the UK and elsewhere.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/wings-over-scotland-independence-blogger-stuart-campbell-plans-to-take-on-snp-fxg7z3t30

    Just what Scotland needs! Being told what to do by someone in England!
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 1,398
    More variables:

    Civil unrest if Boris games the variables.
    The mechanism of terminating a Corbyn government, even just one for A50 extension, are in Boris's hands - he might like to make the minor parties sweat by not acting to remove Corbyn from office immediately.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    The lead nicely summarises much of recent debate.

    The political consequences - short and long - will be key. And will hang upon how the story ends. I can see a scenario where in the short term Bozo is cheered along for his ruthless desperation by those keen to see the deed done, but in the long term as everything starts to unravel both he and his party sink to the absolute bottom of popularity and reputation.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    edited August 10
    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not seeking an extension - Brexiting on Oct 31 is the status quo at the moment. Essentially - as you acknowledge - Remainers are complaining that the government is going to implement the law that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    All of the above are within both the rules AND the spirit / convention of our system. I’m no fan of Boris (or leaving without a deal) but I’m struggling to see what he is doing wrong on these technical issues

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Good morning, everyone.

    Just seen a headline about a fishing e-mail being 'accidentally' sent to the BBC. Aye. Whoops, indeed.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,123
    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    Because they freakishly over-performed seat-wise at the previous election.

    They still seem pretty well-placed to me. A few tight races against the Lib Dems, but some soft Tory targets to pick up too.
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 1,188
    edited August 10
    I agree with the spirit of the header. And the reason for that is what I see in the spirit of Cumming's blog ; he seems to see this an opportunity for root-and-branch upheaval, whatever the costs.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    edited August 10
    Meanwhile to pound is getting ever closer to parity with the Euro.There was a bitter complaint on a holiday makers website yesterday about the increasing cost of transfers from airport to site in the Canaries. The site in question is, admittedly, quite a long way from the airport.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    Super article.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538
    Charles said:

    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not seeking an extension - Brexiting on Oct 31 is the status quo at the moment. Essentially - as you acknowledge - Remainers are complaining that the government is going to implement the law that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    All of the above are within both the rules AND the spirit / convention of our system. I’m no fan of Boris (or leaving without a deal) but I’m struggling to see what he is doing wrong on these technical issues

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    What we are seeing is a government with a majority of one and a PM elected by a small self selected unrepresentative group (Tory party members) taking a hugely damaging step against the wishes of a majority of citizens and a majority of MPs. That's what he's doing wrong.

    It's a very British coup. He and his party will suffer mightily for it but that's no consolation. The rest of us will too.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,833

    Super article.

    How are you feeling after last nights demolition job on the Canaries? Philosophical?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,549

    Meanwhile to pound is getting ever closer to parity with the Euro.There was a bitter complaint on a holiday makers website yesterday about the increasing cost of transfers from airport to site in the Canaries. The site in question is, admittedly, quite a long way from the airport.

    Some of the soft Leavers that I know are the Phillipino nurses that I work with. Quite a few naturalized and voted Leave (they didn't think it fair that the Spanish and Portuguese nurses got in visa free), but are now finding their remittances home much dimininished. We seem to struggle now to recruit internationally from anywhere, EU or non EU. Reduced salaries are quite a disincentive. I suppose this is to be regarded as a success of Brexit, as a major plank of it is getting rid of the dastardly foreigners.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    Sadly no more news on the North Carolina emu.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673

    Super article.

    How are you feeling after last nights demolition job on the Canaries? Philosophical?
    There are learning points.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 26,253

    Off-topic, and following on from conversations on here earlier in the week:

    So, over three days, the litttle 'un and I:
    *) Went hut-dwelling at Stonehenge
    *) Stayed in a luxury hotel (any hotel is 'luxury' to a 5-year old)
    *) Went for dinner via a ferry and pier-train
    *) Scaled Portchester Castle
    *) Swum around the Mary Rose
    *) Fired cannons on board HMS Warrior
    *) Went mosaic hunting at Fishbourne Roman Palace
    He seemed to love all of it, and we have enough arts and crafts activities out of it to last us until next summer.
    And when we finally see mummy, and I asked: "What did you like best about the trip?"
    Guess what he said.
    Go on, guess.
    I bet you cannot.
    It was:


    "Seeing mummy!"

    :smile:

    It has been a wonderfully politics-free few days, just me, a five-year old and traffic on the M25. Blessed times.

    What a delightful story
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743

    Off-topic, and following on from conversations on here earlier in the week:

    So, over three days, the litttle 'un and I:
    *) Went hut-dwelling at Stonehenge
    *) Stayed in a luxury hotel (any hotel is 'luxury' to a 5-year old)
    *) Went for dinner via a ferry and pier-train
    *) Scaled Portchester Castle
    *) Swum around the Mary Rose
    *) Fired cannons on board HMS Warrior
    *) Went mosaic hunting at Fishbourne Roman Palace
    He seemed to love all of it, and we have enough arts and crafts activities out of it to last us until next summer.
    And when we finally see mummy, and I asked: "What did you like best about the trip?"
    Guess what he said.
    Go on, guess.
    I bet you cannot.
    It was:


    "Seeing mummy!"

    :smile:

    It has been a wonderfully politics-free few days, just me, a five-year old and traffic on the M25. Blessed times.

    What a delightful story
    And he timed it well, before this weekend's gales.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626

    Meanwhile to pound is getting ever closer to parity with the Euro.There was a bitter complaint on a holiday makers website yesterday about the increasing cost of transfers from airport to site in the Canaries. The site in question is, admittedly, quite a long way from the airport.

    A first world problem.

    The Uk just look very attractive place to come on holiday for Euro earners. And exporters.

    It’s not great for Uk boozers abroad but well - Cornwall and Scotland are available.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626
    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    Much too late the Remoaners have cottoned on that the public want to move on and their offer of further months and years of dither, meaningful votes and further referendums does not appeal to the voters.

    So now they are telling us that Brexit doesn’t mean Brexit.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I agree that most people just want this done. But that does cut the other way too. If pro-EU MPs could get another referendum and win it, that'd settle the matter for decades, in their favour.

    They could formally offer to back the deal in return for a referendum. That would entail doing something, though...

    The Clown might actually like the offer. If he lost, he could pretend he's a statesman respecting democracy. If he wins, then it's another victory. And it averts no deal (I'm assuming he doesn't actually want no deal but painted himself into that corner). Would require a fig leaf from the EU but the political declaration could handle that.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 1,188
    edited August 10

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo blooody hoo.

    The governing party, which proposed and passed the Brexit legislation, was unable to agree amongst itself on what kind of Brexit to proceed with, and then was found to be utterly inept in its preparations for any kind of Brexit. The result was that Brexit was delayed. Grieve, amongst others, only got involved once it was clear that no-deal was a real possibility, largely because of this internal failure to agree.

    What has changed is simply that the preparations for the hardest and most last-resort kind of Brexit seem to be becoming more professionalised ; bureaucratic reform is Cumming's selling point and raison d'etre. The underlying fissures within the conservative party that set this entire crisis in mention from 2016 remain, to use a choice phrase.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,626

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I agree that most people just want this done. But that does cut the other way too. If pro-EU MPs could get another referendum and win it, that'd settle the matter for decades, in their favour.

    They could formally offer to back the deal in return for a referendum. That would entail doing something, though...

    The Clown might actually like the offer. If he lost, he could pretend he's a statesman respecting democracy. If he wins, then it's another victory. And it averts no deal (I'm assuming he doesn't actually want no deal but painted himself into that corner). Would require a fig leaf from the EU but the political declaration could handle that.

    Yes but their offer is another GE , 6 more months of referendum haggling and campaigning, then a vote - which may or may not be enacted upon as referendums have now been debased which would either take us back here or to revoke which offers the EU laughing in our faces and years of patronising commentary.

    I’ve seen more attractive offers to the public to be honest.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    edited August 10
    Mr TGIHF, I wouldn't dispute your analysis for a moment. The issue is that something that people enjoyed is being taken away from them, or made more difficult; no idea incidentally, whether the complainers were Leavers or Remainers..... overt discussion of Brexit is banned on that website.
    Cornwall, Wales and other parts of UK are, I agree, excellent for holidays; the only downside is the weather. If for whatever reason one wants warmth and sunshine the UK isn't as good a bet as further South. Maybe in the future, given global warming, of course.
    The OKC's, when we want guaranteed sunshine, can head for Thailand, where we have family, but the pound is in trouble against the baht as well as the Euro; whereas a year or so ago a pound bought 45 baht, now it only buys 37. Five years ago it was over 50!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,549
    TGOHF said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    Much too late the Remoaners have cottoned on that the public want to move on and their offer of further months and years of dither, meaningful votes and further referendums does not appeal to the voters.

    So now they are telling us that Brexit doesn’t mean Brexit.

    Well, the public are going to be disappointed then. The unflushable turd of Brexit is not going away, just moving to another festering phase. Same would happen with Revoke though too.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,549

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he has no trousers?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,780
    My reading of the ridiculous FTPA is that it is no longer contemplated that a government that loses a VoNC resigns. Instead that government has 2 weeks to have a motion of confidence passed and if it is they carry on. To take David's example if a government lost a VoNC because Ministers were abroad they would be able to have the confidence motion passed on their return. And they would remain in office pending the expiry of the 14 days unless some other grouping was able to win a vote of confidence (something the Act is completely silent on the mechanics of and which would probably come down to the Speaker to facilitate).

    I agree with David that this gives the government more control of the agenda than is being appreciated. It is frankly fairly appalling that Parliament is in recess right now and when they come back time is going to be very short. I struggle to see how Parliament requires the government to seek a further extension. I also struggle to see where the EU get the time to agree it. The only way now that Brexit can be stopped is for Parliament to pass legislation requiring the government to revoke the Article 50 notice. That seems...unlikely.

    So the opposition has a choice. Do they confirm that they now want May's deal after all and that they will vote for it or do they let this government take us out on a no deal Brexit and take the blame for the consequences? Its a tough one to call.
    Getting the government to pass May's deal would undoubtedly split the Tory party wide open yet again. A no deal Brexit is very unlikely to boost the Tory's popularity. Which way will Corbyn jump? I'm really not sure.

    And Ashwin is a disgrace by the way.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 145

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 779

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo blooody hoo.

    The governing party, which proposed and passed the Brexit legislation, was unable to agree amongst itself on what kind of Brexit to proceed with, and then was found to be utterly inept in its preparations for any kind of Brexit. The result was that Brexit was delayed. Grieve, amongst others, only got involved once it was clear that no-deal was a real possibility, largely because of this internal failure to agree.

    What has changed is simply that the preparations for the hardest and most last-resort kind of Brexit seem to be becoming more professionalised ; bureaucratic reform is Cumming's selling point and raison d'etre. The underlying fissures within the conservative party that set this entire crisis in mention from 2016 remain, to use a choice phrase.
    You choose to ignore that Labour MPs have chosen to play for political advantage, rather than implement their commitment to the voters. If they were honest, they would have signed up to May's Deal - or at least tried to make meaningful proress on shaping it when invited to do so. The current House is full of MPs intent on cheating the voters. As long as Boris plays a straight bat, it will serve him well in the upcoming election. Where wickets will tumble.....
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 1,188
    edited August 10

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo blooody hoo.

    The governing party, which proposed and passed the Brexit legislation, was unable to agree amongst itself on what kind of Brexit to proceed with, and then was found to be utterly inept in its preparations for any kind of Brexit. The result was that Brexit was delayed. Grieve, amongst others, only got involved once it was clear that no-deal was a real possibility, largely because of this internal failure to agree.

    What has changed is simply that the preparations for the hardest and most last-resort kind of Brexit seem to be becoming more professionalised ; bureaucratic reform is Cumming's selling point and raison d'etre. The underlying fissures within the conservative party that set this entire crisis in mention from 2016 remain, to use a choice phrase.
    In *motion* that should read, at the climax ! Autocorrect strikes again.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    In court? What agreement has he broken? What ongoing commitments continue once we are out the EU?
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 779

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I agree that most people just want this done.d.

    Leaving in any form is not going to get anything done.

    To paraphrase BJohnsons favourite PM, it's just the end of the beginning.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,780

    Off-topic, and following on from conversations on here earlier in the week:

    So, over three days, the litttle 'un and I:
    *) Went hut-dwelling at Stonehenge
    *) Stayed in a luxury hotel (any hotel is 'luxury' to a 5-year old)
    *) Went for dinner via a ferry and pier-train
    *) Scaled Portchester Castle
    *) Swum around the Mary Rose
    *) Fired cannons on board HMS Warrior
    *) Went mosaic hunting at Fishbourne Roman Palace
    He seemed to love all of it, and we have enough arts and crafts activities out of it to last us until next summer.
    And when we finally see mummy, and I asked: "What did you like best about the trip?"
    Guess what he said.
    Go on, guess.
    I bet you cannot.
    It was:


    "Seeing mummy!"

    :smile:

    It has been a wonderfully politics-free few days, just me, a five-year old and traffic on the M25. Blessed times.

    Sounds fantastic. The list of things more important than politics is long.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 10,549
    DavidL said:

    Off-topic, and following on from conversations on here earlier in the week:

    So, over three days, the litttle 'un and I:
    *) Went hut-dwelling at Stonehenge
    *) Stayed in a luxury hotel (any hotel is 'luxury' to a 5-year old)
    *) Went for dinner via a ferry and pier-train
    *) Scaled Portchester Castle
    *) Swum around the Mary Rose
    *) Fired cannons on board HMS Warrior
    *) Went mosaic hunting at Fishbourne Roman Palace
    He seemed to love all of it, and we have enough arts and crafts activities out of it to last us until next summer.
    And when we finally see mummy, and I asked: "What did you like best about the trip?"
    Guess what he said.
    Go on, guess.
    I bet you cannot.
    It was:


    "Seeing mummy!"

    :smile:

    It has been a wonderfully politics-free few days, just me, a five-year old and traffic on the M25. Blessed times.

    Sounds fantastic. The list of things more important than politics is long.
    Yep, sounds better than PB Brexit Groundhog day!
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 779

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    In court? What agreement has he broken? What ongoing commitments continue once we are out the EU?
    Because he has his name on a joint mortgage and hasn't agreed a settlement to continue the analogy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,780
    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    I don't think that anyone could dispute that May's government has already given the definitive exemplar of how not to do politics. Her incompetence and inability to build any kind of consensus gave remainers the belief that they could stop Brexit and, as dishonourably as Ashwin, they took it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. L, she also introduced into political thinking the idea of leaving without a deal, which also played a substantial role sinking her efforts.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,673
    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Leavers trash democratic norms and it’s all Remainers’ fault? Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that Leavers will take responsibility for.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he's already blown that several times over, and never really had it in the first place.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    TGOHF said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    Much too late the Remoaners have cottoned on that the public want to move on and their offer of further months and years of dither, meaningful votes and further referendums does not appeal to the voters.

    So now they are telling us that Brexit doesn’t mean Brexit.

    No, Brexit means never ending Brexit.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...

    I suspect that there was a majority support in parliament for May's deal subject to a referendum. But she never offered it. It wasn't available. It would have been a sensible move on her part. Her deal might have won in the referendum. It would certainly have resolved the uncertainty, and avoided the chaos of No Deal.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,302
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not seeking an extension - Brexiting on Oct 31 is the status quo at the moment. Essentially - as you acknowledge - Remainers are complaining that the government is going to implement the law that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    All of the above are within both the rules AND the spirit / convention of our system. I’m no fan of Boris (or leaving without a deal) but I’m struggling to see what he is doing wrong on these technical issues

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    What we are seeing is a government with a majority of one and a PM elected by a small self selected unrepresentative group (Tory party members) taking a hugely damaging step against the wishes of a majority of citizens and a majority of MPs. That's what he's doing wrong.

    It's a very British coup. He and his party will suffer mightily for it but that's no consolation. The rest of us will too.
    My gut feeling is that they wont suffer for it. They will end up as the winners.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:



    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not seeking an extension - Brexiting on Oct 31 is the status quo at the moment. Essentially - as you acknowledge - Remainers are complaining that the government is going to implement the law that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    All of the above are within both the rules AND the spirit / convention of our system. I’m no fan of Boris (or leaving without a deal) but I’m struggling to see what he is doing wrong on these technical issues

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    What we are seeing is a government with a majority of one and a PM elected by a small self selected unrepresentative group (Tory party members) taking a hugely damaging step against the wishes of a majority of citizens and a majority of MPs. That's what he's doing wrong.

    It's a very British coup. He and his party will suffer mightily for it but that's no consolation. The rest of us will too.
    No, we really are not.

    The PM is the individual who can command a majority of the HoC. How they were identified is irrelevant. It could be the best juggler in the HoC if that’s what MPs wanted.

    MPs voted to make leaving on October 31 law. If they are that opposed to it they have the absolute right to sack the government and choose a new one. Until/unless they do that Boris is entitled to pursue whatever policy he thinks is right. The voters will have opportunity to judge him in due course.

    That’s the system working as it is intended to. The fact that a majority of our MPs are preening fuckwits is not the fault of the system or of the government.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he has no trousers?
    That's really witty.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 15,851
    On the available evidence it can also be the sign of some pretty shit leadership.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Barnesian, I was very surprised she didn't offer that either as a deal or threat in case her second Commons attempt failed.

    Someone else here, forget who, sorry, suggested that the idea of a second referendum made her extremely hostile. Given she also seemed genuinely opposed to a no deal departure, it seems a bit odd.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    In the context of governments £39bn is nothing (btw I assume the bill was set in Euros...)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 24,677
    Barnesian said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...

    I suspect that there was a majority support in parliament for May's deal subject to a referendum. But she never offered it. It wasn't available. It would have been a sensible move on her part. Her deal might have won in the referendum. It would certainly have resolved the uncertainty, and avoided the chaos of No Deal.
    So why didn’t someone amend the motion?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,833
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    In the context of governments £39bn is nothing (btw I assume the bill was set in Euros...)
    You must be a Labour voter..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Charles, assuming that were possible, I'd guess pro-deal Conservatives didn't want to risk splitting their party more, no deal Conservatives didn't want to risk remaining, and Opposition/pro-EU MPs thought, er...

    Not sure, actually.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:



    [snip for space]

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    What we are seeing is a government with a majority of one and a PM elected by a small self selected unrepresentative group (Tory party members) taking a hugely damaging step against the wishes of a majority of citizens and a majority of MPs. That's what he's doing wrong.

    It's a very British coup. He and his party will suffer mightily for it but that's no consolation. The rest of us will too.
    No, we really are not.

    The PM is the individual who can command a majority of the HoC. How they were identified is irrelevant. It could be the best juggler in the HoC if that’s what MPs wanted.

    MPs voted to make leaving on October 31 law. If they are that opposed to it they have the absolute right to sack the government and choose a new one. Until/unless they do that Boris is entitled to pursue whatever policy he thinks is right. The voters will have opportunity to judge him in due course.

    That’s the system working as it is intended to. The fact that a majority of our MPs are preening fuckwits is not the fault of the system or of the government.
    The system is not working as it is intended to. I suspect the Queen agrees with me!

    You are touchingly loyal. Defender of the faith. You are one of a small and diminishing group of loyal followers. And you are probably insulated from the coming pain.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    edited August 10
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...

    I suspect that there was a majority support in parliament for May's deal subject to a referendum. But she never offered it. It wasn't available. It would have been a sensible move on her part. Her deal might have won in the referendum. It would certainly have resolved the uncertainty, and avoided the chaos of No Deal.
    So why didn’t someone amend the motion?
    I don't recall the MVs being amendable? The amendment would have been played into the WAIB but the debate never got that far.

    Edit/ Indeed I recall there were a few suggesting that Labour could pass the MV specifically to get to the next stage and the opportunity to put down a PV amendment.

    Had Mrs May been a clever tactician she might have offered it. And at last knockings there were suggestions she was going to try (in her offer to Labour) but was vetoed by Cabinet. As it was her wording went too far for the Tories and was the straw that broke the camel. But there we are.
  • trawltrawl Posts: 137
    Good morning. Totally off topic. Just having a nose at the footie on Sporting Index and they are now offering fixed odds as well as spreads. “Our heritage is spread betting. Our future is all betting.” Just for info for anyone else who hadn’t noticed.
  • This is a very useful header, and I think likely to be prescient.
    What strikes me is how much of the current political playbook on the right seems to have been imported from the US (not surprisingly given that's the source of much of the money). So we have shadowy oligarch class money, all powerful advisors being political figureheads, and now too the trashing of normal parliamentary convention in the pursuit of raw political advantage. Not to mention the "culture war" BS designed to get the White working classes to vote for tax cuts and a shrunken welfare state.
    Most likely we end up in the same place as the US too - with a debased and polarised political culture, disintegrating public services and a seething mass of rage on all sides. At least we're not armed.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786
    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...

    I suspect that there was a majority support in parliament for May's deal subject to a referendum. But she never offered it. It wasn't available. It would have been a sensible move on her part. Her deal might have won in the referendum. It would certainly have resolved the uncertainty, and avoided the chaos of No Deal.
    So why didn’t someone amend the motion?
    That's a good question. Did someone attempt to amend it and it was defeated, or did no one attempt an amendment for some tactical reason, or was the motion not amendable?
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 779
    edited August 10
    Charles said:

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
    He still owes money. If he defaults then he will end up in a shitty place to live paid up front because he won't get a mortgage in future.

    Reputations are hard won and lost quickly. Does the UK want to be known asa country that defaults on its obligations?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786
    edited August 10

    This is a very useful header, and I think likely to be prescient.
    What strikes me is how much of the current political playbook on the right seems to have been imported from the US (not surprisingly given that's the source of much of the money). So we have shadowy oligarch class money, all powerful advisors being political figureheads, and now too the trashing of normal parliamentary convention in the pursuit of raw political advantage. Not to mention the "culture war" BS designed to get the White working classes to vote for tax cuts and a shrunken welfare state.
    Most likely we end up in the same place as the US too - with a debased and polarised political culture, disintegrating public services and a seething mass of rage on all sides. At least we're not armed.

    The US influence arguably started with New Labour, but the right's sense of grievance (the other side cheats so we need to play dirty) and oppositionism (which there saw the rise of the Tea Party and its shutting down government, and also impeachment of the President Clinton over a sex scandal after its long investigation of corruption failed to find a smoking gun) was imported by Cameron and Osborne. Can the genie be returned to the bottle? I doubt it.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 779

    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf

    Anyone know why the conferences are always in that order?

    For years I assumed the governing party came last and was only disabused in 1997!
  • Thanks David. That's a good summary.

    You might like to consider the point that was discussed here briefly last nite that a more promising route for Remainers in the House might be to take control of the Order Papers. This would enable it to put forward its own legislation. For example, it could propose a motion to revoke Article 50 in the absence of an agreed deal (not No Deal) by such and such a date.

    This would tie the PM's hands and he couldn't get out of it except by resigning.

    It is something that Cummungs may well fear. VONC gives him a chance of winning, or at least defying the will of Parliament in the ways you suggest. Losing control of the House's business agenda permits no such manouevring.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786
    Tabman said:

    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf

    Anyone know why the conferences are always in that order?

    For years I assumed the governing party came last and was only disabused in 1997!
    No but presumably a desire for BBC coverage would have meant parties would not want their conferences to overlap with each other (or with the CBI and TUC conferences) which would limit opportunities to reshuffle.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...

    I suspect that there was a majority support in parliament for May's deal subject to a referendum. But she never offered it. It wasn't available. It would have been a sensible move on her part. Her deal might have won in the referendum. It would certainly have resolved the uncertainty, and avoided the chaos of No Deal.
    So why didn’t someone amend the motion?
    That's a good question. Did someone attempt to amend it and it was defeated, or did no one attempt an amendment for some tactical reason, or was the motion not amendable?
    The MVs were in "neutral form" so not amendable. Hence the unsuccessful Grieve initiative. It's surprising how quickly one forgets.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...

    I suspect that there was a majority support in parliament for May's deal subject to a referendum. But she never offered it. It wasn't available. It would have been a sensible move on her part. Her deal might have won in the referendum. It would certainly have resolved the uncertainty, and avoided the chaos of No Deal.
    So why didn’t someone amend the motion?
    That's a good question. Did someone attempt to amend it and it was defeated, or did no one attempt an amendment for some tactical reason, or was the motion not amendable?
    See my comment downthread
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538
    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), true, but it's worth noting that any specific form of departure will put off part of the original Leave vote, whereas those who like the EU are much more fired up. Their chances of winning another referendum would be significantly better.

    So why not ask for one in return for backing the deal/a deal?

    It remains [ahem] bizarre that pro-EU MPs have managed to back leaving, oppose any deal, are very upset that their actions have highly predictable consequences, yet haven't done anything but moan about the current state of affairs.

    Maybe they're biding their time. And maybe they'll run out. And complain about that too...

    I suspect that there was a majority support in parliament for May's deal subject to a referendum. But she never offered it. It wasn't available. It would have been a sensible move on her part. Her deal might have won in the referendum. It would certainly have resolved the uncertainty, and avoided the chaos of No Deal.
    So why didn’t someone amend the motion?
    That's a good question. Did someone attempt to amend it and it was defeated, or did no one attempt an amendment for some tactical reason, or was the motion not amendable?
    See my comment downthread
    Yes - thanks
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,743
    edited August 10

    Tabman said:

    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf

    Anyone know why the conferences are always in that order?

    For years I assumed the governing party came last and was only disabused in 1997!
    No but presumably a desire for BBC coverage would have meant parties would not want their conferences to overlap with each other (or with the CBI and TUC conferences) which would limit opportunities to reshuffle.
    It was agreed informally between the three parties and the TUC in the 1950s (when the season moved from Easter to autumn), and the convention has remained ever since. No-one is really bothered about the ordering since any conference boost is usually very short lived, and the main thing is that they don't clash. Smaller parties do sometimes clash their conferences with others - I recall both SNP and UKIP conferences having been in LibDem conference week, for example.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 779
    IanB2 said:

    Tabman said:

    Some added spice might be added by the party conferences running through the likely VONC season and run-up to Brexit.

    Lib Dems: 14 to 17/9
    Labour: 21 to 25/9
    Conservatives: 29/9 to 2/10
    SNP: 13 to 15/10
    DUP: could not see anything on their web site.

    The Cabinet Manual (see 2.19 on page 15 for VONCs and resignations) can be found at:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf

    And a Select Committee review of it, including complaints that remind us the Cabinet Manual is not handed down on tablets of stone, as does DH's header:
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/233/233.pdf

    Anyone know why the conferences are always in that order?

    For years I assumed the governing party came last and was only disabused in 1997!
    No but presumably a desire for BBC coverage would have meant parties would not want their conferences to overlap with each other (or with the CBI and TUC conferences) which would limit opportunities to reshuffle.
    It was agreed informally between the three parties and the TUC in the 1950s (when the season moved from Easter to autumn), and the convention has remained ever since. No-one is really bothered about the ordering since any conference boost is usually very short lived, and the main thing is that they don't clash. Smaller parties do sometimes clash their conferences with others - I recall both SNP and UKIP conferences having been in LibDem conference week, for example.
    Thanks. I did wonder.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    Tabman said:

    Charles said:

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
    He still owes money. If he defaults then he will end up in a shitty place to live paid up front because he won't get a mortgage in future.

    Reputations are hard won and lost quickly. Does the UK want to be known asa country that defaults on its obligations?
    Or....does the UK want to be known as a country that isn't a soft touch for everyone holding their hand out?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278
    I think David is spot on. Cummings is a wrecking ball. Johnson wants to be PM. They will do whatever it takes to get No Deal over the line.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,696
    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he has no trousers?
    That's really witty.
    Except, where else is his back pocket if nt in his trousers?

    Duh......
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278

    Tabman said:

    Charles said:

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
    He still owes money. If he defaults then he will end up in a shitty place to live paid up front because he won't get a mortgage in future.

    Reputations are hard won and lost quickly. Does the UK want to be known asa country that defaults on its obligations?
    Or....does the UK want to be known as a country that isn't a soft touch for everyone holding their hand out?

    Post-Brexit the UK will be entirely at the mercy of others. They will decide how we are perceived and treated. We will do as is dictated.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,678

    Tabman said:

    Charles said:

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
    He still owes money. If he defaults then he will end up in a shitty place to live paid up front because he won't get a mortgage in future.

    Reputations are hard won and lost quickly. Does the UK want to be known asa country that defaults on its obligations?
    Or....does the UK want to be known as a country that isn't a soft touch for everyone holding their hand out?
    Precisely.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 800
    The anti no deal MPs who repeatedly voted against May’s deal must now be wishing that they could turn back the clock.

    I suspect that if some lipstick was now applied to the pig they would leap at the chance to embrace it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,437

    Tabman said:

    Charles said:

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
    He still owes money. If he defaults then he will end up in a shitty place to live paid up front because he won't get a mortgage in future.

    Reputations are hard won and lost quickly. Does the UK want to be known asa country that defaults on its obligations?
    Or....does the UK want to be known as a country that isn't a soft touch for everyone holding their hand out?
    The ratings agencies will take a view on this.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Observer, possibly.

    But the Clown Prince's great sun around which all his deeds and thoughts orbit is not No Deal, but his own ambition. Those seeking to avert said departure should harness the fool's egocentrism to the chariot of either a deal, or a referendum.

    Or just take Parliamentary action, of course.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 779

    Tabman said:

    Charles said:

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
    He still owes money. If he defaults then he will end up in a shitty place to live paid up front because he won't get a mortgage in future.

    Reputations are hard won and lost quickly. Does the UK want to be known asa country that defaults on its obligations?
    Or....does the UK want to be known as a country that isn't a soft touch for everyone holding their hand out?
    Good luck with that next time you stay at a hotel. "The proprietor was holding his hand out and I was refusing to be a soft touch, officer."
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538

    I think David is spot on. Cummings is a wrecking ball. Johnson wants to be PM. They will do whatever it takes to get No Deal over the line.

    Johnson is already PM! He needs a large secure majority for a successful five year term. That means a GE very soon. No Deal might give him a majority by attracting Brexit party members. But it won't give him a successful five year term. Nothing but pain.

    He needs parliament to get him off the hook of No Deal so he can go on a Betrayal Who Governs? GE campaign.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    Scott_P said:

    Zoomer wants to join in the fun...

    Scotland’s most controversial blogger is in talks to create a political party to fight the next Holyrood election and split the independence vote.

    Stuart Campbell, writer of Wings Over Scotland, said that his party would exploit unhappiness in the Yes movement at Nicola Sturgeon’s caution over Scottish independence. Mr Campbell said that he had discussed the idea with a number of potential candidates.

    “I think the SNP is a shambles at the moment,” he told The Times. “It doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

    It is understood that the Wings party would aim to emulate the success of populist, anti-elite movements in the United States, the UK and elsewhere.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/wings-over-scotland-independence-blogger-stuart-campbell-plans-to-take-on-snp-fxg7z3t30

    LOL, idiot insults people by using childish jibes. Grow up. Is it any wonder unionists are getting thrashed when the best they can do is call people childish names. Perhaps for once you could actually post a cogent argument.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,118

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Leavers trash democratic norms and it’s all Remainers’ fault? Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that Leavers will take responsibility for.
    Well, given that the whole point of Brexit now seems to be on the basis that everything was the EU’s fault, even when it wasn’t, of course anything else that goes wrong is going to be someone’s else’s fault.

    It is odd that one of the justified criticisms of Mrs May is that she failed to get, or even try to get, a consensus for her Brexit policy across the House or in the country. And yet when Johnson and Cummings threaten to ignore all conventions and push through a version of Brexit without any sort of consensus then it is all fine and dandy and no-one should be bothered.

    Quite how such a Brexit is going to stick who can say. A 52/48 result is no basis for pushing through the most extreme version of Brexit you can find. A wise government would understand this.

    Quite how such people will feel when a hard Left government ignores or abuses conventions is another matter. The wailing will be immense, I suspect. Their own role in creating these conditions will be forgotten.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,118

    Tabman said:

    Charles said:

    Tabman said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    ....but with £39 billion in his back pocket, why would he be the one shouting through the letterbox?
    Because he'll be in court being forced to hand over what he owes in order to get a reference to rent a bedsit.
    Yes but (a) about £25bn of the £39bn refers to transition payments and (b) arbitration would likely come up with a lower number than the balance of the £14bn as we gave up ground there (eg on valuation of our EIB shares) to facilitate a deal
    He still owes money. If he defaults then he will end up in a shitty place to live paid up front because he won't get a mortgage in future.

    Reputations are hard won and lost quickly. Does the UK want to be known asa country that defaults on its obligations?
    Or....does the UK want to be known as a country that isn't a soft touch for everyone holding their hand out?
    Precisely.
    The UK is not being viewed as a soft touch. Soft in the head would be more accurate.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 572
    The prospect of Scottish Independence grows every day the Westminster parliament appears to be more corrupt. I have started my planning for the break up of the Union. An event I never thought I would see.

    A month or so ago I posted that I felt the country was in recession. I see it has got worse since last month. The service sector in particular has hit the rocks
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,585
    David Herdson - the Ashwin/Buttler example is an excellent one for a second reason: the rules on what Ashwin did changed quite recently - in 2017.
    Before that rule change, Buttler would have been safe. The bowler could only turn and run out a non-striking batsman out of his ground if the bowler had not yet entered his delivery stride.
    The 2017 rule change altered that to before "the moment the bowler would have been expected to deliver the ball"

    If you watch the video, Buttler steps out of his ground just after Ashwin's foot lands in his delivery stride. Under the rules Buttler grew up playing, he's safe. Under the recently changed rules, he's not.

    With the politicians, the rules they grew up playing were changed under the FTPA, and many of them haven't yet adjusted.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,451
    TGOHF said:

    IanB2 said:

    ”That’s right, after a no-deal Brexit, we’d be back where we started. The last three years would come to seem like an argument between a husband and wife that’s raged in the kitchen. After 31 October, as my colleague Rafael Behr likes to put it, it’d be the same argument – except now the husband would be standing on the street, the front door slammed in his face, shouting his demands through the letterbox.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/09/no-deal-brexit-negotiations-brussels

    Much too late the Remoaners have cottoned on that the public want to move on and their offer of further months and years of dither, meaningful votes and further referendums does not appeal to the voters.

    So now they are telling us that Brexit doesn’t mean Brexit.

    So we leave without a deal on Oct 31st, what do you believe will happen next vis-a-vis UK-EU trade relations? I am genuinely interested to know how a hardline leaver sees it playing out.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,278
    nielh said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    All of the above are within both the rules AND the spirit / convention of our system. I’m no fan of Boris (or leaving without a deal) but I’m struggling to see what he is doing wrong on these technical issues

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    What we are seeing is a government with a majority of one and a PM elected by a small self selected unrepresentative group (Tory party members) taking a hugely damaging step against the wishes of a majority of citizens and a majority of MPs. That's what he's doing wrong.

    It's a very British coup. He and his party will suffer mightily for it but that's no consolation. The rest of us will too.
    My gut feeling is that they wont suffer for it. They will end up as the winners.

    Short-term, without doubt. Unless there is epic tactical voting the Tories look nailed on to win the next general election. But they cannot solve the problems the No Deal they are set to inflict on us will create. And they will not be forgiven for that. I’d expect a priority for the Johnson government after the next GE will be more GOP imports: a focus on ways to gerrymander the constituency map and aggressive voter suppression. But even that may not be enough to save them.

  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 954
    There are lots of speculative and long-winded words being written about Brexit at the moment, together with plenty of ranting - mostly from the right.

    We don’t yet know what’s going to happen. It’s far too soon to say that Remainers have been outplayed. An alternative analysis is that Johnson has been boxed into a corner. In order to win the leadership he had to promise an Oct 31st exit and that, basically, meant No Deal. What we can state about No Deal is that 1. It wasn’t what was offered in 2016 (so MM’s cricket analogy falls at the first hurdle), 2. Parliament is implacably opposed 3. The country doesn’t want it and will increasingly head that way and 4. It’s pretty obviously not in the national interest.

    Given those things, I suggest Parliament will prevent it. Where there’s a will, there’ll be a way.

    A separate footnote. I don’t think a November election is practical. It’s so dark and dreary. But if there is an election shortly after the alleged Brexit day, the EU are now suggesting that a cooling off period could mean the whole thing is simply reversed. Just one more speculative suggestion to throw onto the already enormous pile.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,285

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Leavers trash democratic norms and it’s all Remainers’ fault? Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that Leavers will take responsibility for.
    It was a Remainer (Gina Miller) who allowed the MPs to play silly beggars and keep "no deal" alive.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:



    [snip for space]

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    What we are seeing is a government with a majority of one and a PM elected by a small self selected unrepresentative group (Tory party members) taking a hugely damaging step against the wishes of a majority of citizens and a majority of MPs. That's what he's doing wrong.

    It's a very British coup. He and his party will suffer mightily for it but that's no consolation. The rest of us will too.
    No, we really are not.

    The PM is the individual who can command a majority of the HoC. How they were identified is irrelevant. It could be the best juggler in the HoC if that’s what MPs wanted.

    MPs voted to make leaving on October 31 law. If they are that opposed to it they have the absolute right to sack the government and choose a new one. Until/unless they do that Boris is entitled to pursue whatever policy he thinks is right. The voters will have opportunity to judge him in due course.

    That’s the system working as it is intended to. The fact that a majority of our MPs are preening fuckwits is not the fault of the system or of the government.
    The system is not working as it is intended to. I suspect the Queen agrees with me!

    You are touchingly loyal. Defender of the faith. You are one of a small and diminishing group of loyal followers. And you are probably insulated from the coming pain.
    They would rather sun their flabby arses on a foreign beach than handle the crisis, kind of says it all. The greedy millionaires are rubbing their hands at the opportunities their chums are lining up.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,451

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.


    As you say, nobody acknowledges it and nobody acknowledges it because it is not true.

    Cummings and Johnson are trying to hijack the referendum result and impose an outcome that we were told would not happen.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 828
    Charles said:

    David

    I know that you want to justify your decision to quit, but I think you are being unfair to the government here

    The tone of your piece is unremitting negative towards the government but when you look at the individual steps all of their actions are reasonable/justifiable (as you acknowledge)

    1. They won’t (even if out of fear of the Speaker) try to prevent a VoNC. I’ve not seen anyone suggest that they will

    2. They won’t resign until it is clear someone else can command a majority. That is in line with precedent. They are not going to try to hang on afterwards. My guess is that Times article was a decoy by Cummings to get the Remainers wasting time and energy on something that’s not going to happen

    3. Corbyn is the most likely alternative - I agree with your assessment (and think it’s entirely logical and reasonable behaviour by Labour) but that’s not really the government’s fault

    4. Not seeking an extension - Brexiting on Oct 31 is the status quo at the moment. Essentially - as you acknowledge - Remainers are complaining that the government is going to implement the law that parliament passed and not stop it (in an act that would cause great political harm). This is reinforced by the fact that the FTPA give Parliament 14 days to select a new government and - in this scenario - they will have chosen not to

    All of the above are within both the rules AND the spirit / convention of our system. I’m no fan of Boris (or leaving without a deal) but I’m struggling to see what he is doing wrong on these technical issues

    What we are seeing is a bunch of Remainers (not you specifically) in politics and the media thrashing about trying to make mud stick. They’ve been outplayed - there is a small window where they can do something effective to get what they want but they are wasting their time whinging about things that really don’t matter instead.

    Spot on. In particular the PM is the PM until someone else is. We have got so used to everyone getting away with having opinions about what they don't want and not what they do that we have forgotten it's not enough not to want Boris and the Tories, you have to decide what you want instead - in some detail. Boris and co are the government until there is another option that the PM believes could command confidence (Gordon Brown 2010). We are not anarchists (yet).

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,538
    Cyclefree said:

    moonshine said:

    What this header does not acknowledge - in fact, nobody acknowledges - is that what drives Boris and Cummings is that very sense of fair play. Parliament entered into a compact with the voters. Once and for all, we will put the issue of the EU to bed with a referendum, MPs said. PM Cameron said he would implement the outcome of that referndum. Startled by that outcome they may have been, but Parliament undertook to serve the Article 50 notice. At the election in 2017, 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging to implment Brexit.

    But then, MPs cheated. The likes of Grieve and Soubry and Wollaston, not to mention dozens of Labour MPs, took out the sandpaper and - in full view of the umpire - tampered with the ball. Despite pledges made to voters, they demonstrated they had no intention of passing ANY form of Brexit.

    And now those same cheating MPs are bitching that they are facing bodyline bowling. Well boo bloody hoo.

    Super stuff. This summer is beginning to look like the final unedifying thrashing of the Remainer corpse. In years to come this will be seen as the textbook case in how not to do politics. If they had deliberately set out to maximise the chances of a No Deal exit, the Remain campaign could scarcely have done a more effective job than they have these past years. We’re heading in a slightly regrettable and unnecessary direction and it’s all their fault.
    Leavers trash democratic norms and it’s all Remainers’ fault? Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that Leavers will take responsibility for.
    Well, given that the whole point of Brexit now seems to be on the basis that everything was the EU’s fault, even when it wasn’t, of course anything else that goes wrong is going to be someone’s else’s fault.

    It is odd that one of the justified criticisms of Mrs May is that she failed to get, or even try to get, a consensus for her Brexit policy across the House or in the country. And yet when Johnson and Cummings threaten to ignore all conventions and push through a version of Brexit without any sort of consensus then it is all fine and dandy and no-one should be bothered.

    Quite how such a Brexit is going to stick who can say. A 52/48 result is no basis for pushing through the most extreme version of Brexit you can find. A wise government would understand this.

    Quite how such people will feel when a hard Left government ignores or abuses conventions is another matter. The wailing will be immense, I suspect. Their own role in creating these conditions will be forgotten.
    They should remember the Golden Rule. The basis of morality.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 2,247
    edited August 10
    Scott_P said:

    Zoomer wants to join in the fun...

    Scotland’s most controversial blogger is in talks to create a political party to fight the next Holyrood election and split the independence vote.

    Stuart Campbell, writer of Wings Over Scotland, said that his party would exploit unhappiness in the Yes movement at Nicola Sturgeon’s caution over Scottish independence. Mr Campbell said that he had discussed the idea with a number of potential candidates.

    “I think the SNP is a shambles at the moment,” he told The Times. “It doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

    It is understood that the Wings party would aim to emulate the success of populist, anti-elite movements in the United States, the UK and elsewhere.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/wings-over-scotland-independence-blogger-stuart-campbell-plans-to-take-on-snp-fxg7z3t30

    Looks like an opportunity to get some of the nutter wing out of the SNP. Would the rump be any more sane?

    Presumably Rev Stu would leave the South-West, unless he was consciously modelling himself on the Young Pretender.

    I can see him in a Jacobean Uniform, carrying a light-sabre down the Royal Mile, demanding that he be interviewed by other than Comics Today.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    eristdoof said:

    Mango said:


    Why do you think the SNP seats collapsed at the last general election?

    Because they freakishly over-performed seat-wise at the previous election.

    They still seem pretty well-placed to me. A few tight races against the Lib Dems, but some soft Tory targets to pick up too.
    Claiming the SNP vote collapsed in 2017 is like claiming the Labour vote collapsed in 2005
    That is your Scottish unionist for you , like other bitter Scots Scottp, Carlotta , etc , Briskin just cannot see past the hatred of the SNP . Rather than address reality they just hurl childish insults and say SNPBAD. Nothing to say about why their parties are languishing and being ignored by the voters. Bet none of them could come up with a policy for Scotland from the unionist parties.
This discussion has been closed.