Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This looks like a spectacular bust up between the SNP and the

1235»

Comments

  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,938
    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Switzerland isn't on the EEA, it's in EFTA.

    I stated on here before the referendum my preference was for the UK to rejoin EFTA and seek to re-invigorate that organisation as a counterbalance to the EU.

    The Swiss have a network of bilateral arrangements with the EU and I've always thought we could have something similar.

    Instead of making trite observations how about engaging in some debate for a change - would you support a Swiss-style arrangement for the UK (in EFFA, outside the EEA and with bespoke bilateral deals with the EU) ?
    I meant to reply to your posting on this vein last night (I think it was). I thought your programme is very good and certainly a good destination (as far as I am concerned). I would still probably prefer an EEA Brexit as it is simpler but if not then an EFTA Brexit which can be modified to suit the bilateral needs of ourselves and the EU does seem to me to be a good alternative.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    edited June 2018
    Charles said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    FFS Douglas! Grow up!

    (Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual :wink: )
    Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.
    He never claimed expenses for the moat...
    So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm

    Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate

    Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork

    Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office

    Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    In fairness May seems to have, intentionally or not, deceived some of her MPs about what she promised them.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,938
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,284

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.
    Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than that
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,938

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    The fact that knee jerk legislation leads to bad law.

    Any proposals to change the House of Lords should be made as a result of an extensive consultation and ideally agreement between the parties. It should not be made because the Lords have upset one side or another in a debate.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.
    Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than that
    Monomaniac cretins deserve both barrels when they seek to upend the constitution because they find it inconvenient.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
    His follow up says:

    s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force

    Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    The fact that knee jerk legislation leads to bad law.

    Any proposals to change the House of Lords should be made as a result of an extensive consultation and ideally agreement between the parties. It should not be made because the Lords have upset one side or another in a debate.
    Well said. Reform of some kind of the Lords is definitely overdue, but sudden stacking or abolition is hardly going to be a good reaction to frustration. As of yet they've not actually done anything other than send a set of amendments to the Commons, which is part of the job.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,850


    I meant to reply to your posting on this vein last night (I think it was). I thought your programme is very good and certainly a good destination (as far as I am concerned). I would still probably prefer an EEA Brexit as it is simpler but if not then an EFTA Brexit which can be modified to suit the bilateral needs of ourselves and the EU does seem to me to be a good alternative.

    Thank you for the kind word, Richard.

    I don't know why this wasn't enunciated as Government policy from an early stage. I fear the EEA door has been slammed shut tonight but the EFTA door is still open and I don't understand why this Government won't consider rejoining EFTA (a Conservative Government took us in back in 1960).

    I have heard the notion the Swiss got some very good deals out of the EU but do we have such little confidence in our negotiators we couldn't try for something similar ?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,284

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.
    Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than that
    Monomaniac cretins deserve both barrels when they seek to upend the constitution because they find it inconvenient.
    They have a right to their views and you have a right to oppose them but you have lost me when you resort to your unnecessary language
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,938
    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
    His follow up says:

    s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force

    Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
    The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    FFS Douglas! Grow up!

    (Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual :wink: )
    Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.
    He never claimed expenses for the moat...
    So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm

    Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate

    Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork

    Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office

    Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
    What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claims

    He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).

    What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
    His follow up says:

    s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force

    Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
    The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.
    I can't see what the pretext could be for such an act, and when even a pretext is hard to find, it is almost certainly a bad idea no matter the partisan gain someone thinks might come from it.
  • Options
    There seems inherent hypocrisy in a three line whip to abstain for any reason other than thinking there is some constitutional impediment to voting on the matter in hand?

    Breaking it is apparently undermining the determination to show that the party in question has made its mind up that it can't make its mind up.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    SeanT said:

    10%. If this is repeated across the City (and I think it will be less, firms like MS are more exposed) it means London will lose about 30,000 jobs, out of 350,000 frontline finance sector jobs. Yes a lot of them are high paying blah blah, but it is hardly the Somme.

    Well he says himself its meaningful but not life changing, which seems reasonable enough. Most people are not Brexit at any Cost supporters, they're Brexit at some Cost supporters (or believing there will be no cost, but are there still many who think there will be no cost) I suspect, though hard to judge how much cost is too much for many people.
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.
    Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than that
    No. Antifrank was better than that.

    But he hadn't been driven absolutely mental by a referendum.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,639

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.
    Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than that
    Monomaniac cretins
    Self awareness, much?
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,814
    edited June 2018



    Monomaniac cretins deserve both barrels

    Channeling your "Inner Malc" there Alastair? :D
  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    HYUFD said:

    Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?

    I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Labour
    So says our tame Conservative PB expert on everything to do with the Lib Dems and Labour.

    Stand by for some elderly Tories crying in their milk tomorrow. I have the impression that something wonderful is happening in Lewisham.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    There seems inherent hypocrisy in a three line whip to abstain for any reason other than thinking there is some constitutional impediment to voting on the matter in hand?

    Breaking it is apparently undermining the determination to show that the party in question has made its mind up that it can't make its mind up.

    An amusing way of putting it. I'm not generally a fan of abstentions, I feel like parties should be able to come down on side or against something, and abstaining is an easy route to avoiding blame, even when if they'd backed one side or another it could have been decisive so it is still partly their fault, for better and worse. It's always small p political of course, but somehow abstentions feel even more so than usual to me, though idon't think that makes sense in fairness.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,923
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    FFS Douglas! Grow up!

    (Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual :wink: )
    Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.
    He never claimed expenses for the moat...
    So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm

    Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate

    Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork

    Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office

    Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
    What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claims

    He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).

    What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
    If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited June 2018

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    So the Lords is reduced to being "mischief makers for Remain".

    Remind me - what precisely is the case for not abolishing them?
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    Two unhinged Leavers complaining that the House of Lords might seek to ensure that the House of Commons gets the chance to consider amendments previously dropped because the Prime Minister appears to have been deceptive. No doubt this makes sense in their befuddled peabrains.
    Why not make your case without the abusive comments. You are better than that
    No. Antifrank was better than that.

    But he hadn't been driven absolutely mental by a referendum.
    Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s pretty clear which side is mental.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,076
    Today's Tesco Strawberry score is eight:

    Aberdeenshire
    Perthshire
    Staffordshire
    Norfolk
    Kent
    Surrey
    Somerset
    Herefordshire


    Changes from yesterday are gains of Perthshire and Staffordshire and losses of Angus, Cambridgeshire and West Sussex.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    PClipp said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?

    I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Labour
    So says our tame Conservative PB expert on everything to do with the Lib Dems and Labour.

    Stand by for some elderly Tories crying in their milk tomorrow. I have the impression that something wonderful is happening in Lewisham.
    Good luck! Anything for an exciting by-election. Or at least some measure of exciting - LDs coming second is good for them of course given where they were just a year ago, but it's not what we all hope for when it comes to By-elections and excitement.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
    His follow up says:

    s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force

    Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
    The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.
    Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.

    It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,938
    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
    His follow up says:

    s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force

    Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
    The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.
    Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.

    It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.
    I agree. But more than that it seems fundamentally wrong to me that the Government should have the right or ability to impose an election on Scotland unless the franchise had come to its end and the Parliament refused to hold due elections. Under any other circumstances it should surely be a matter purely for the Scottish Parliament.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    Any interesting also-rans in Lewisham btw? I see Anne Marie Waters is standing for Britain. Sorry, that's 'For Britain'. To think she came second to Henry Bolton not that long ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Britain
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited June 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    FFS Douglas! Grow up!

    (Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual :wink: )
    Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.
    He never claimed expenses for the moat...
    So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm

    Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate

    Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork

    Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office

    Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
    What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claims

    He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).

    What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
    If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.
    Of course he can afford it* - he just wanted someone else to pay for it.

    * his great-grandfather was Quintin Hogg who had a very profitable stint as chairman of the East India company. He gave most of the money to found and endow the University of Westminster but kept enough back Douglas doesn’t need to worry where the next meal is coming from.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited June 2018
    90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548



    Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s prety clear which side is mental.

    You're the one who has quite obviously lost it since the referendum went against you. You've become bitter and nasty. And you want to blame it on 17m xenophobes. Because of a poster. You rant like a nutcase about it.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,056
    So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=21
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,060
    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
    His follow up says:

    s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force

    Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
    The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.
    Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.

    It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.
    Wasn't Smarty one of those salivating over the inevitable destruction of the SNP after losing Indyref? His Scottish political insights are unparalleled.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,923
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    FFS Douglas! Grow up!

    (Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual :wink: )
    Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.
    He never claimed expenses for the moat...
    So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm

    Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate

    Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork

    Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office

    Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
    What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claims

    He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).

    What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
    If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.
    Of course he can afford it* - he just wanted someone else to pay for it.

    * his great-grandfather was Quintin Hogg who had a very profitable stint as chairman of the East India company. He gave most of the money to found and endow the University of Westminster but kept enough back Douglas doesn’t need to worry where the next meal is coming from.
    Quite honestly I can't believe he was given the cash in the first place. I don't submit an expenses receipt for a lawnmower to my work !
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,599

    So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=21

    To be fair; this is probably the first accurate statement that he has made on the matter!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    Roger said:

    90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.

    Actually that might be just about within his limit. May could lend him a hand.

    It is almost fascinating that neither leader really has consistent command over their own MPs. Corbyn's on the whole don't tend to be as noisy as they used to be since he at least is personally popular with those that elect him, but they still ignore him when they feel like it, and we know how rough May is finding it at present.

    Does Cable manage to generally lead his MPs or is he having problems too?
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    HYUFD said:

    Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?

    I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Labour
    Is there any evidence of that actually happening rather than wishful thinking? The local elections suggest a Labour landslide.

    The Labour candidate is pretty pro remain/SM/CU as well isn't she.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,850

    So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=21

    Though we are told that IF the Government stopped the A50 process, a new UKIP party would rise up and rampage across the land with civil unrest in its wake.

    When I told a certain individual who suggested this apocalyptic scenario he was talking nonsense and most people would shrug their shoulders and carry on I was admonished and told 17 million patriotic British LEAVE voters (of whom I'm one apparently) were ready to wreak havoc on the political classes.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,060

    So much for the threat of a new Banks/Farage party.
    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1006978600447430656?s=21

    Interesting that Banks considers bankrolling various mountebanks as 'being in politics'. A shame that his huge ego hadn't encouraged him to attempt to get people to vote for him.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,076
    Does anyone know much about the new ONS owner-occupier housing cost inflation:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/may2018

    Is it affected by house price changes ?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    .

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    FFS Douglas! Grow up!

    (Edit: Sarah is close to Major, so I suspect Douglas is just doing what he’s told. As usual :wink: )
    Moat man Hogg to grow up? Sounds unlikely.
    He never claimed expenses for the moat...
    So I have heard. He got money for it though, as the BBC report he agreed to pay it back.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051027.stm

    Conservative MP Douglas Hogg has agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing his moat at his country estate

    Best case scenario from that story he is really stupid and couldn't handle his paperwork

    Mr Hogg maintained he had not claimed the money but agreed it had not been "positively excluded" from paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office

    Weasel words if ever there was. Particularly as his overall defence was the same childish 'It was within the rules'.
    What he did was write a letter to the expenses team saying that the cost of running Kettlethorpe is way above the expenses cap and could they kindly send him the full amount by monthly standing order without him submitting any claims

    He then added a list of expenditure - including the moat - as evidence (in fact the staff costs were greater than the expenses cap).

    What he did in practice was ok, but politically indefensible and lazy. He really is a blithering tone deaf idiot sometimes
    If he can't afford the upkeep of his estate then he should come to an arrangement with English Heritage, the National Trust or open it up in some other manner for public enjoyment to aid with the costs.
    Of course he can afford it* - he just wanted someone else to pay for it.

    * his great-grandfather was Quintin Hogg who had a very profitable stint as chairman of the East India company. He gave most of the money to found and endow the University of Westminster but kept enough back Douglas doesn’t need to worry where the next meal is coming from.
    Quite honestly I can't believe he was given the cash in the first place. I don't submit an expenses receipt for a lawnmower to my work !
    Staff for the second home (live in gardener/cleaver couple) was an allowable expense
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    SeanT said:

    10%. If this is repeated across the City (and I think it will be less, firms like MS are more exposed) it means London will lose about 30,000 jobs, out of 350,000 frontline finance sector jobs. Yes a lot of them are high paying blah blah, but it is hardly the Somme.

    And, this, of course, presumes that London will not fight back with better regulation, bankers' bonuses, etc.

    I don't want this Hard No Deal Brexit, and it WILL damage London in the short term, but the sheer weight and magnetism of the London economy means we will survive. And quite possibly prosper more than before, over time, IF we hold our nerve.

    I am liking some of the new talk coming from Javid's department over migration, Nobody minds Singaporean scientists, French chefs, or Brazilian doctors coming here, it is uneducated Pakistani/Bangladeshi Muslim and freeloading Roma that gets everyone riled. To be perfectly blunt.
    Job losses they've already announced four times.

    The truth is, the city has added something like 10% since June 2016 - it's wiping a couple of years growth off, not more
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340



    Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s prety clear which side is mental.

    You're the one who has quite obviously lost it since the referendum went against you. You've become bitter and nasty. And you want to blame it on 17m xenophobes. Because of a poster. You rant like a nutcase about it.
    I assume you accept my last point since you have no answer to it.

    And your reading comprehension skills are woeful. I blame race-baiting Leave activists for degrading Britain because they regarded leaving the EU as more important than protecting Britain’s civic society. Since the referendum they have continued in the same vein, seeking to pull apart the BBC, the judiciary, the House of Lords and the civil service in pursuit of their obsession.

    But the bad man said a few unpleasant words, and that’s more important.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,599
    kle4 said:

    Any interesting also-rans in Lewisham btw? I see Anne Marie Waters is standing for Britain. Sorry, that's 'For Britain'. To think she came second to Henry Bolton not that long ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Britain

    She also ran for UKIP in Lewisham before, in 2015 and got 9.1% of the vote, so does have some local connections.

    I think Shadsy's 5/2 match bet For Britain over UKIP is worth a punt

  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,850
    SeanT said:

    Go Javid

    Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust

    But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.

    Overdue common sense but all we've done is give ourselves a chance to attract the best. There's a world of opportunity (literally) for skilled individuals and their families - might we have to do even more to attract the very best here ?

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,599
    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is it too late for Labour's shambles today to lead to a Lib Dem surge tomorrow in Lewisham?

    I can certainly see a lot of Labour Remain voters in the more middle class areas of the seat like Blackheath switching to the LDs to protest Corbyn's failure to support staying in the EEA but the more working class Leave areas of the seat will likely stay Labour
    Is there any evidence of that actually happening rather than wishful thinking? The local elections suggest a Labour landslide.

    The Labour candidate is pretty pro remain/SM/CU as well isn't she.
    16/1 with Shadsy at over 70%...
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,295
    SeanT said:

    Go Javid

    https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1007012034016358400

    Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust

    But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.

    Excellent. The EU vote was worth it if it’s going to keep out cheap arranged brides from Pakistan.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,203
    Roger said:

    90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.

    Yes, it’s interesting that after all the talk of Tory rebels it is Labour which has faced the biggest rebellion.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,912

    The SNP were hollow and pathetic today. Is this the best they can do?
    I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.

    I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.
    Fanny of the day award
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725
    malcolmg said:

    The SNP were hollow and pathetic today. Is this the best they can do?
    I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.

    I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.
    Fanny of the day award
    There's still an hour left to snatch the award folks, let's see what we can do.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    stodge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Switzerland isn't on the EEA, it's in EFTA.

    I stated on here before the referendum my preference was for the UK to rejoin EFTA and seek to re-invigorate that organisation as a counterbalance to the EU.

    The Swiss have a network of bilateral arrangements with the EU and I've always thought we could have something similar.

    Instead of making trite observations how about engaging in some debate for a change - would you support a Swiss-style arrangement for the UK (in EFFA, outside the EEA and with bespoke bilateral deals with the EU) ?
    Oh yes, absolutely. I've said many times that we should get the Swiss in to do Brexit for us.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,203



    Your fellow travellers are so desperate to avoid scrutiny of legislation that they would abolish the House of Lords because one of its members might have sought to ensure that legislation was properly considered by the House of Commons. It’s prety clear which side is mental.

    You're the one who has quite obviously lost it since the referendum went against you. You've become bitter and nasty. And you want to blame it on 17m xenophobes. Because of a poster. You rant like a nutcase about it.
    I assume you accept my last point since you have no answer to it.

    And your reading comprehension skills are woeful. I blame race-baiting Leave activists for degrading Britain because they regarded leaving the EU as more important than protecting Britain’s civic society. Since the referendum they have continued in the same vein, seeking to pull apart the BBC, the judiciary, the House of Lords and the civil service in pursuit of their obsession.

    But the bad man said a few unpleasant words, and that’s more important.
    No, it’s not more important.

    But it does tend to detract from the good points you make.

    I also think you tend to underestimate the extent to which a lack of effective control over immigration can itself also risk harming Britain’s civic society. But that is a discussion for another time.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,912
    Alistair said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Scott_P said:
    Honestly don't get what he's on about.
    Nope. I've got nothing.
    Nope I agree with you. I took a look. Section 3 is all about elections to the Scottish Parliament and Section 72 (4) is about statutory instruments.


    Is he suggesting there should be a GE in Scotland?
    His follow up says:

    s.3 brings forward the next Holyrood election to May 2020. It’s not in force. s 74(4) gives @DavidMundellDCT by SI the power to bring it into force

    Not sure why they would want to do that. I think the polls are saying the SNP would not have an indy supporting majority in Holyrood based on current polls, but 2020 would still be some way off and plenty of time for things to change.
    The idea that a minister in London should have the right to impose an election in the Scottish Parliament when one is not needed and simply because it will undermine one party seems perverse to me.
    Maybe Iain Smart wants an SNP super majority or something because that would be the only possible outcome of Westminster forcing elections on Scotland.

    It would be a catastrophic blunder to end all blunders.
    There are very few thicker halfwitted cretinous nutjobs at large than that dumpling
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,912
    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.

    Yes, it’s interesting that after all the talk of Tory rebels it is Labour which has faced the biggest rebellion.
    Tory rebels was always a joke, they cannot risk not having someone to change their nappies.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,912
    stodge said:

    SeanT said:

    Go Javid

    Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust

    But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.

    Overdue common sense but all we've done is give ourselves a chance to attract the best. There's a world of opportunity (literally) for skilled individuals and their families - might we have to do even more to attract the very best here ?

    Need to be soft in the head to want to come here given the xenophobia.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,203
    Brexit is beginning to turn into the Schleswig-Hostein question of our time.

    Few understand it and those that do are driven mad by it.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,912
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    The SNP were hollow and pathetic today. Is this the best they can do?
    I don't think it will help their cause apart from the headbangers who go on and on about Scotland becoming Independent.

    I dislike all this Constitutional stuff as the bread and butter issues are neglected and Governments get away with selling the population short.
    Fanny of the day award
    There's still an hour left to snatch the award folks, let's see what we can do.
    Be very hard to top that one, barking is being polite.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,850
    SeanT said:


    Perhaps. But the problem with Freedom of Movement is that we were getting tens of thousands of the very worst, from Eastern Europe, with literally no way of controlling them.

    Now we will be able to pick and choose. I fully expect us to have an open, liberal and welcoming immigration regime, selecting the best of the applicants, and with a net migration rate of around 150,000-200,000. High, but not the 350,000 a year of migration at its crazy EU peak.

    Moreover I expect us to introduce seasonal workers visas for people from Eastern Europe/Ukraine/Belarus etc who want to pick fruit for six months. Then go home.

    A controlled and managed system like this will see immigration sink in the list of voters' concerns. Very swiftly.

    There is obviously the issue of housing and other infrastructure to consider though obviously not as serious as under the current arrangements. Should we be looking at firms wishing to bring in skilled workers to contribute toward transport, education and other service costs ?

    As for "seasonal" workers, I suppose the analogy is the "Gastarbeiter" programme that operated in West Germany in the 70s and 80s. The problem is unless the visa system is properly policed individuals will go into the black economy on visa expiry.
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Any interesting also-rans in Lewisham btw? I see Anne Marie Waters is standing for Britain. Sorry, that's 'For Britain'. To think she came second to Henry Bolton not that long ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Britain

    She also ran for UKIP in Lewisham before, in 2015 and got 9.1% of the vote, so does have some local connections.

    I think Shadsy's 5/2 match bet For Britain over UKIP is worth a punt

    2 cheeks of the same arse.It;s 50-50 left cheek ,right cheek so 5-2 is indeed value for an even money shot.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    4.3 on Betfair for the Tories to come second in Lewisham East tomorrow looks too long.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,076
    stodge said:

    SeanT said:


    Perhaps. But the problem with Freedom of Movement is that we were getting tens of thousands of the very worst, from Eastern Europe, with literally no way of controlling them.

    Now we will be able to pick and choose. I fully expect us to have an open, liberal and welcoming immigration regime, selecting the best of the applicants, and with a net migration rate of around 150,000-200,000. High, but not the 350,000 a year of migration at its crazy EU peak.

    Moreover I expect us to introduce seasonal workers visas for people from Eastern Europe/Ukraine/Belarus etc who want to pick fruit for six months. Then go home.

    A controlled and managed system like this will see immigration sink in the list of voters' concerns. Very swiftly.

    There is obviously the issue of housing and other infrastructure to consider though obviously not as serious as under the current arrangements. Should we be looking at firms wishing to bring in skilled workers to contribute toward transport, education and other service costs ?
    Yes.

    And even more so those who want unskilled migrants as skilled migrants will create more wealth and pay more tax than unskilled.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,599
    Cyclefree said:

    Brexit is beginning to turn into the Schleswig-Hostein question of our time.

    Few understand it and those that do are driven mad by it.

    For all its seeming complexity, the Schleswig-Holstein question was the issue that provoked the Prussian- Denmark war, and the following two wars that led to the unification of modern Germany. It was also the time that Britain and Prussia started to become rivals and enemies in place of longstanding alliance. Out of these little acorns great troubles arose...
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,203
    SeanT said:

    RIGHT: I am watching the last episode of Patrick Melrose.

    Anyone else watched it? Superb. Benedict Cumberbatch does the best portrayal of a smack addict I have ever seen (and I know whereof I speak). The later episodes are actually and seriously better than the books (which decline speedily in quality).

    Recommended.

    Neither the books nor the programme (nor, frankly, Cumberbatch) appealed. A bit like string trios or quartets. I recognise the talent, admire the virtuosity but it leaves me cold. So it is with this programme.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,660
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Go Javid

    https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1007012034016358400

    Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust

    But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.

    Excellent. The EU vote was worth it if it’s going to keep out cheap arranged brides from Pakistan.
    Indeed, the nasty EU obviously stopped us doing that in the past.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,304
    SeanT said:

    RIGHT: I am watching the last episode of Patrick Melrose.

    Anyone else watched it? Superb. Benedict Cumberbatch does the best portrayal of a smack addict I have ever seen (and I know whereof I speak). The later episodes are actually and seriously better than the books (which decline speedily in quality).

    Recommended.

    I saw that John Crace in The Guardian, a former addict himself I was surprised to learn, was also full of praise.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/22/patrick-melrose-captures-heroin-addiction-perfectly-it-brought-my-memories-flooding-back
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,203
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Brexit is beginning to turn into the Schleswig-Hostein question of our time.

    Few understand it and those that do are driven mad by it.

    For all its seeming complexity, the Schleswig-Holstein question was the issue that provoked the Prussian- Denmark war, and the following two wars that led to the unification of modern Germany. It was also the time that Britain and Prussia started to become rivals and enemies in place of longstanding alliance. Out of these little acorns great troubles arose...
    Well. That’s cheered me up no end.
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Roger said:

    90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.

    A divided party loses elections.If you think this means Corbyn having to go then think on.Let's be clear,George Eaton reports Chuka Umunna is setting up his new "centrist party" with his fellow militarist neoliberal Chris Leslie called "Back Together",the only purpose of which is to make sure of a Tory majority rather than a Labour one led by Corbyn.
    The SDP always was a wrecking venture to stop a Labour government and so will this mob be.
    The starting point for a realignment of UK politics is to get rid of FPTP and this new party makes that possibility even less likely.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,395

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,046
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Go Javid

    https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1007012034016358400

    Prediction: students will be dropped from migration stats and the absurd 100,000 commitment will gather dust

    But cheap arranged brides from Pakistan and Roma Big Issue Sellers will find it very much harder to get in. Win win.

    Excellent. The EU vote was worth it if it’s going to keep out cheap arranged brides from Pakistan.
    I take the point though a large number of young men with little marriage prospects is a potential problem of its own.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,599

    4.3 on Betfair for the Tories to come second in Lewisham East tomorrow looks too long.

    Yes, I think (based on hunch only as I do not know the area) the Tories will edge second place.

    Tory voters turn out, there is no serious Leave alternative, and do not Tactically vote even in seats that they cannot win. Value bet IMO.
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    edited June 2018
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    A manifesto that did not achieve a majority of MPs. And do you have a copy of the constitution?
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Roger said:

    90 Labour MPs vote against their leadership and 6 shadow cabinet ministers resign. Is this for real? What a jerk Corbyn is. He couldn't run a whelk stall.

    None of them were shadow cabinet ministers!
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,114

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    After today does it go to being "ping pong" with the Lords?

    If I was a Lords mischief-making Remainer I'd propose an amendment that is remarkably similar to the Grieve amendment that got dropped yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1006973624958504960
    May just needs to stack the Lords already. They are completely vandalising our constitution. The government was elected on a manifesto of CU and SM exit.
    A manifesto that did not achieve a majority of MPs. And do you have a copy of the constitution?
    But 86.6% of the votes at the June 2017 General Election were cast for parties pledging CU and SM exit. That's more of a mandate on the matter than anybody in the House of Lords has.
This discussion has been closed.