I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
But if Labour wants to take the electoral hit, it's up to them. What almost everyone (except Big G and a few others here) are failing to take into account is the massive sigh of relief from business if a deal is agreed. The pound will rise and the airwaves will be stuffed full of people saying how this is good for employment and the economy. Will Labour really be wise to kibosh that in a naked piece of partisan dice-rolling?
Yep, I agree with that. A deal is better than No Deal. And no party should put its own interests before those of the country. We have had enough of that over recent years. It must stop.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
O'Rourke would only have been a contender in 2020 had he won. As it is he will likely run for Texas governor in 2022 or Senate again in 2020 and if Trump is reelected President in 2024 when Trump cannot run age. Though Congressman Joseph Patrick Kennedy May be a Senator and contender too by then
I cited them because they indicated, after the briefing notes emerged, that they wouldn't oblige. The only people who will be saying that the deal is good are May loyalists, who would be unlikely to swing many Labour MPs over to the Flint position.
No they didn't. They indicated, sensibly enough, that they'd wait to see what any deal contained before giving their view. What on earth else would do you expect them to say?
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
What a partisan approach.
So you would rather have No Deal and wreck the economy and possibly the Union just on the off chance you could force a No Confidence vote and general election which Labour may lose anyway?
Not at all. I simply have no confidence whatsoever in this govt or its deal. They have been an unmitigated disaster and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised when they eventually say something. But I doubt it somehow.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Corbyn's position is a thin rizla away from May's (And will be even closer once negotiations will finish on any customs arrangements). Defeat of the deal in parliament won't lead to a change of government, it'll lead to no deal.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
What a partisan approach.
So you would rather have No Deal and wreck the economy and possibly the Union just on the off chance you could force a No Confidence vote and general election which Labour may lose anyway?
Not at all. I simply have no confidence whatsoever in this govt or its deal. They have been an unmitigated disaster and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised when they eventually say something. But I doubt it somehow.
If you back No Deal and the economy collapses and Scotland votes for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland you and your fellow Labour partisans will go down in history for all eternity as having put party politics over the national interest
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Corbyn's position is a thin rizla away from May's (And will be even closer once negotiations will finish on any customs arrangements). Defeat of the deal in parliament won't lead to a change of government, it'll lead to no deal.
I think there will be 30-40 Labour rebels with the tacit support of the leadership, so that the bill passes but Corbyn can continue to attack the government whenever things don't go to plan
If you back No Deal you and the economy collapses and Scotland votes for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland you and your fellow Labour partisans will go down in history for all eternity as having put party politics over the national interest
Indeed, the sickening partisanship of many labourites is disgusting. Parliament needs more Nick Cleggs ! Country before party.
If you back No Deal you and the economy collapses and Scotland votes for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland you and your fellow Labour partisans will go down in history for all eternity as having put party politics over the national interest
Indeed, the sickening partisanship of many labourites is disgusting. Parliament needs more Nick Cleggs ! Country before party.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Who cares? A decent deal with a CU would give business stability for the foreseeable future and that's the main thing. The utter chaos visited on employers by the Brexiteers cannot be allowed continue. The needs of the nation come first, party-political concerns a distant second.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Corbyn's position is a thin rizla away from May's (And will be even closer once negotiations will finish on any customs arrangements). Defeat of the deal in parliament won't lead to a change of government, it'll lead to no deal.
I think there will be 30-40 Labour rebels with the tacit support of the leadership, so that the bill passes but Corbyn can continue to attack the government whenever things don't go to plan
Yes fortunately Flint and others seem to be sensible on this. The votes the Gov't really don't want to lose, but might, are the DUP's. The Government could end up with their confidence, but not their supply of votes for legislation.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Who cares? A decent deal with a CU would give business stability for the foreseeable future and that's the main thing. The utter chaos visited on employers by the Brexiteers cannot be allowed continue. The needs of the nation come first, party-political concerns a distant second.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it per Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
What a partisan approach.
So you would rather have No Deal and wreck the economy and possibly the Union just on the off chance you could force a No Confidence vote and general election which Labour may lose anyway?
Not at all. I simply have no confidence whatsoever in this govt or its deal. They have been an unmitigated disaster and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised when they eventually say something. But I doubt it somehow.
If you back No Deal and the economy collapses and Scotland votes for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland you and your fellow Labour partisans will go down in history for all eternity as having put party politics over the national interest
The national interest is best served by the immediate extirpation of this wretched goverment. All else is less relevant.
A 32C Ireland would be a handsome Brexit bonus though.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
Hence why I say it's a gamble. But one worth taking.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
I think I would be cautious of thinking the winning strategy is getting Trump all wound up.
The West Coast elite types see Trump all wound up, spouting about this, that and other as a sign of having him on the ropes and the public will see him for what he really is...Most outside of the US see it at best cringe-worthy, at worst a lying bully.
However, during 2016, many ordinary American's saw it as a candidate more close to them than your typical professional politician. Telling it like it really is, one of us, etc. He won the GOP primary by going nutso on Lyin Ted, Low Energy Bush etc.
Its a bit like thinking revealing Corbyn's history of being a terrorist sympathizer is an instant winner.
If you back No Deal you and the economy collapses and Scotland votes for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland you and your fellow Labour partisans will go down in history for all eternity as having put party politics over the national interest
Indeed, the sickening partisanship of many labourites is disgusting. Parliament needs more Nick Cleggs ! Country before party.
The whole Brexit farrago results from the Tories putting party before country over many years. They are in no position to appeal to opposition MPs on the basis of the national interest when they have trashed it so comprehensively themselves.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
I think I would be cautious of thinking the winning strategy is getting Trump all wound up.
The West Coast elite types see Trump all wound up, spouting about this, that and other as a sign of having him on the ropes and the public will see him for what he really is...Most outside of the US see it at best cringe-worthy, at worst a lying bully.
However, during 2016, many ordinary American's saw it as a candidate more close to them than your typical professional politician. He won the GOP primary by going nutso on Lyin Ted, Low Energy Bush etc.
Its a bit like thinking revealing Corbyn's history of being a terrorist sympathizer is an instant winner.
Instead of a political strategist, the Dems should hire a WWF scriptwriter to work out a strategy to beat Trump.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
Agreed. They also need someone who can play the power politics and create a coherent large-scale campaign. Kirsten Gillibrand will presumably be one contender, but I have a hunch she's too east-coast liberal to be the best choice. Same might be true of Cory Booker. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone with close links to the unions. Sherrod Brown?
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
What a partisan approach.
So you would rather have No Deal and wreck the economy and possibly the Union just on the off chance you could force a No Confidence vote and general election which Labour may lose anyway?
Not at all. I simply have no confidence whatsoever in this govt or its deal. They have been an unmitigated disaster and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised when they eventually say something. But I doubt it somehow.
If you back No Deal and the economy collapses and Scotland votes for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland you and your fellow Labour partisans will go down in history for all eternity as having put party politics over the national interest
And if Labour backs the deal that May gets and the economy collapses, then the charge that will be tabled against Labour is that they enabled it to happen by supporting May's deal.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
But if Labour wants to take the electoral hit, it's up to them. What almost everyone (except Big G and a few others here) are failing to take into account is the massive sigh of relief from business if a deal is agreed. The pound will rise and the airwaves will be stuffed full of people saying how this is good for employment and the economy. Will Labour really be wise to kibosh that in a naked piece of partisan dice-rolling?
Yep, I agree with that. A deal is better than No Deal. And no party should put its own interests before those of the country. We have had enough of that over recent years. It must stop.
Indeed but atm it's near impossible to predict what's gonna happen.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Who cares? A decent deal with a CU would give business stability for the foreseeable future and that's the main thing. The utter chaos visited on employers by the Brexiteers cannot be allowed continue. The needs of the nation come first, party-political concerns a distant second.
I have no confidence whatsoever that this government can deliver a decent deal or stability. All the evidence points to continued, deepening chaos with May.
I could be surprised, but again, I have no confidence in this lot at all.
If May wants Labour votes, they should bring Labour into the cabinet.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
I think I would be cautious of thinking the winning strategy is getting Trump all wound up.
The West Coast elite types see Trump all wound up, spouting about this, that and other as a sign of having him on the ropes and the public will see him for what he really is...Most outside of the US see it at best cringe-worthy, at worst a lying bully.
However, during 2016, many ordinary American's saw it as a candidate more close to them than your typical professional politician. He won the GOP primary by going nutso on Lyin Ted, Low Energy Bush etc.
Its a bit like thinking revealing Corbyn's history of being a terrorist sympathizer is an instant winner.
Instead of a political strategist, the Dems should hire a WWF scriptwriter to work out a strategy to beat Trump.
LOL...wouldn't be a bad idea.
I think probably what they should think about it is that many of the rust belt voted Trump over Clinton, but would have voted Bernie over Trump. Much that I think Bernie is wrong like Corbyn, in the rust belt there is an big issue that the globalized world is passing them by.
We are seeing it now, the US economy is going well, the coastal areas doing fantastically well, rust belt not seeing anywhere near that. They are less concerned about SJW hot button topics like what bathroom rights for trans people etc, and more about what the f##k am I going to do for a living that doesn't just pay minimum wage.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
Agreed. They also need someone who can play the power politics and create a coherent large-scale campaign. Kirsten Gillibrand will presumably be one contender, but I have a hunch she's too east-coast liberal to be the best choice. Same might be true of Cory Booker. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone with close links to the unions. Sherrod Brown?
I've spent £4 backing Avenatti. This is more a bet of amusement than science and certainly not a tip
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Who cares? A decent deal with a CU would give business stability for the foreseeable future and that's the main thing. The utter chaos visited on employers by the Brexiteers cannot be allowed continue. The needs of the nation come first, party-political concerns a distant second.
This may be the only time ever I agree with you - life plays some fun tricks1
And if Labour backs the deal that May gets and the economy collapses, then the charge that will be tabled against Labour is that they enabled it to happen by supporting May's deal.
Highly unlikely that happens if we have a deal. The deal might be perceived as national humiliation if we're trapped in vassalage to the EU forever, but "No deal" is the economic ruin option. It is what it might come down to - humiliation vs ruin.
And if Labour backs the deal that May gets and the economy collapses, then the charge that will be tabled against Labour is that they enabled it to happen by supporting May's deal.
Highly unlikely that happens if we have a deal. The deal might be perceived as national humiliation if we're trapped in vassalage to the EU forever, but "No deal" is the economic ruin option. It is what it might come down to - humiliation vs ruin.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
Agreed. They also need someone who can play the power politics and create a coherent large-scale campaign. Kirsten Gillibrand will presumably be one contender, but I have a hunch she's too east-coast liberal to be the best choice. Same might be true of Cory Booker. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone with close links to the unions. Sherrod Brown?
Presumably Joe Manchin wouldn't survive the Dem primaries at all? Someone extolling evidence of bi-partisanship, who understands Rust-Belt Democrats...
And if Labour backs the deal that May gets and the economy collapses, then the charge that will be tabled against Labour is that they enabled it to happen by supporting May's deal.
Highly unlikely that happens if we have a deal. The deal might be perceived as national humiliation if we're trapped in vassalage to the EU forever, but "No deal" is the economic ruin option. It is what it might come down to - humiliation vs ruin.
Slow ruin vs Fast Ruin vs Humliation (and possibly ruin)
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
Agreed. They also need someone who can play the power politics and create a coherent large-scale campaign. Kirsten Gillibrand will presumably be one contender, but I have a hunch she's too east-coast liberal to be the best choice. Same might be true of Cory Booker. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone with close links to the unions. Sherrod Brown?
Obama was the exception that proves the rule that the Democrats can only win with a southern candidate. Most of the Democrats best brains are very northern. Beto is an example of someone who wouldn't have to fight the anti-North bias.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
Agreed. They also need someone who can play the power politics and create a coherent large-scale campaign. Kirsten Gillibrand will presumably be one contender, but I have a hunch she's too east-coast liberal to be the best choice. Same might be true of Cory Booker. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone with close links to the unions. Sherrod Brown?
Sherrod Brown was my pick immediatly post 2016 election
I expect the Withdrawal Agreement to go through because ANY deal is better than no deal, contrary to the mantra. It will, of course, be a bad deal. But that's because Brexit is a profoundly misconceived idea and not because of negotiation failures. The government hasn't done a good job, but that doesn'tmake a big difference to the outcome.
The EU is no longer interested in stopping the car. It is focused on jumping out the way when the car crash happens.
In short Brexit will go ahead with the Withdrawal Agreement.
I'd love to see O'Rourke vs Trumpton in 2020. I think Beto would be hard for him to counter and would mostly, quite coolly, laugh in the face of the Orange One to delicious effect.
It might work; it might not.
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum. O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Yeah, a gamble. But one worth taking. The odious Trumpton is very easy to wind up, Beto can do it.
That's what people said about Rubio in the early stages of the GOP primaries. Such claims should always be treated with caution - Beto hasn't been tested in the fire of a presidential campaign, or even a primary campaign.
I think winding Trump up is an awful idea.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
Agreed. They also need someone who can play the power politics and create a coherent large-scale campaign. Kirsten Gillibrand will presumably be one contender, but I have a hunch she's too east-coast liberal to be the best choice. Same might be true of Cory Booker. If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone with close links to the unions. Sherrod Brown?
Harris still looks the likeliest choice to me. And getting an former Attorney General to run against a crook isn't the daftest of ideas.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
Propping up this government is not in the interests of the constituents and the country. It might be in the interests of a certain wing of the Tory party, but that is not the same thing.
Who cares? A decent deal with a CU would give business stability for the foreseeable future and that's the main thing. The utter chaos visited on employers by the Brexiteers cannot be allowed continue. The needs of the nation come first, party-political concerns a distant second.
My position in one
I think there is a consensus of the non-ideologues on that.
Hearing that the bulk of the outstanding Arizona ballots are from Maricopa County.
If true that surely makes Silema favourite.
Not necessarily. The vote in Maricopa (so far) is 478,000 Sinema to 471,000 McSally.
I think the later vote tilts Democrat. Arizona has some huge counties, the vote out there is probably of a more Dem mix than that previously. The homogenous county theory works very well in states with a large number of counties (Montana) but less well in states with megacounties like Arizona.
And if Labour backs the deal that May gets and the economy collapses, then the charge that will be tabled against Labour is that they enabled it to happen by supporting May's deal.
But politics doesn't work like that. The Tories abstained on tuition fees in 2004, thus allowing Blair to increase them, but did they get the blame? Of course not, the government of the day takes the rap. Anyone who cares to look can see the economic damage that is already being done by Brexit and if, or when, this gets worse it will be entirely the fault of the Tories. If they cannot convince their own MPs that they have achieved an acceptable deal why should anyone else believe them?
I expect the Withdrawal Agreement to go through because ANY deal is better than no deal, contrary to the mantra. It will, of course, be a bad deal. But that's because Brexit is a profoundly misconceived idea and not because of negotiation failures. The government hasn't done a good job, but that doesn'tmake a big difference to the outcome.
The EU is no longer interested in stopping the car. It is focused on jumping out the way when the car crash happens.
In short Brexit will go ahead with the Withdrawal Agreement.
It does look though as if one accusation some of the Brexiteers made was right, namely, that it was impossible to leave the EU, whatever the Lisbon Treaty said, if in fact the only way to leave is to do so on terms which mean that in practice nothing changes.
That may well be the best and only realistic option, given that those arguing most fervently for Brexit have done little or no preparation for the practicalities of Brexit. But it risks not making for a long-term happy relationship between Britain and the EU. And I think that is a failure on both sides.
Put it this way, either we are a third country and do what we want - and, crucially, take the consequences - or we are not. But some on the EU side seem to want us to be both a third country and a de facto member - see Ireland's latest comments.
The British political class has behaved appallingly over the last few years on this issue. But any long-term fair assessment would apportion a fair amount of blame to the EU in the way that it has behaved too.
It is a great shame. But we will have to get on with it. I do think that creating even more opportunities for resentment / humiliation etc is a very bad move, from whoever it comes. European history should have taught British and European politicians that much, at least. It is a lesson they seem intent on ignoring.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
In the end the vote will come down to national interest or political self interest.
Those who pursue the later may pay a price in the court of public opinion
Propping up this failed minority government is in no-ones interest. In this case the political interest and national interest align.
And the outcome is ?
The general election or a referendum. Possibly both.
A GE would make no difference but a referendum might, but even that is not certain
A General Election might lead to a change of government which ,in itself, would make a difference.
And if Labour backs the deal that May gets and the economy collapses, then the charge that will be tabled against Labour is that they enabled it to happen by supporting May's deal.
But politics doesn't work like that. The Tories abstained on tuition fees in 2004, thus allowing Blair to increase them, but did they get the blame? Of course not, the government of the day takes the rap. Anyone who cares to look can see the economic damage that is already being done by Brexit and if, or when, this gets worse it will be entirely the fault of the Tories. If they cannot convince their own MPs that they have achieved an acceptable deal why should anyone else believe them?
What's more, proportionally more Tories than Labour voted for the Iraq War. Did they take the rap? More Labour voted for Equal Marriage, leading to a departure of many Tory members. Government policy is the responsibility of the Party in power. Brexit is govt policy. Therefore it owns the outcome regardless of how it goes.
And if Labour backs the deal that May gets and the economy collapses, then the charge that will be tabled against Labour is that they enabled it to happen by supporting May's deal.
But politics doesn't work like that. The Tories abstained on tuition fees in 2004, thus allowing Blair to increase them, but did they get the blame? Of course not, the government of the day takes the rap. Anyone who cares to look can see the economic damage that is already being done by Brexit and if, or when, this gets worse it will be entirely the fault of the Tories. If they cannot convince their own MPs that they have achieved an acceptable deal why should anyone else believe them?
Probably because it was priced in that the Tories are not the party of students.
Having watched Sadiq Khan on TV this morning with his response to the crime ridden streets of the City that he his mayor of, I can't get over what a terrible mayor he is. I don't understand why he is so highly rated. He is awful. Boris was different class to him and that must be the ultimate affront to his ability.
Crime ridden streets of the city (note lower case not upper case)?
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
Apparently Brexit would have been a triumph if only genuine Leavers had been in charge of the negotiations. But Bucanneering Dominic Raab - aged 44 - has only just worked out that Britain is an island.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
But if Labour wants to take the electoral hit, it's up to them. What almost everyone (except Big G and a few others here) are failing to take into account is the massive sigh of relief from business if a deal is agreed. The pound will rise and the airwaves will be stuffed full of people saying how this is good for employment and the economy. Will Labour really be wise to kibosh that in a naked piece of partisan dice-rolling?
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
The brutal reality is that if you allow people to have all sorts of guns with limited controls you will have incidents like these. The US has accepted these sorts of deaths as the price it is willing to pay for maintaining the relevant bit of its Constitution. It would not be my choice but then it's not my country.
It may sound callous but I am not sure why things like this should be such big news incidents in the UK.
“…Moreover, although the regulations state that Whitaker can’t micro-manage Mueller’s day-to-day work, they allow him to question Mueller’s investigative and prosecutorial decisions — including, for example, whether to indict…”
Apparently Brexit would have been a triumph if only genuine Leavers had been in charge of the negotiations. But Bucanneering Dominic Raab - aged 44 - has only just worked out that Britain is an island.
It is the failure to prepare for No Deal that is the root cause of the mess.
At least Chamberlain ramped up defence spending in the end. The Netherlands have hired hundreds of extra customs officers.
What have we done? Nothing.
British day-to-day administration is still high quality, when compared to the alternatives. However, the quality of our government and senior civil service is abysmal.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
Well quite. Ban them. Ban them now. And screw the bloody constitution. It's a global outrage. That's why it's news @CycleFree
Hearing that the bulk of the outstanding Arizona ballots are from Maricopa County.
If true that surely makes Silema favourite.
Not necessarily. The vote in Maricopa (so far) is 478,000 Sinema to 471,000 McSally.
I think the later vote tilts Democrat. Arizona has some huge counties, the vote out there is probably of a more Dem mix than that previously. The homogenous county theory works very well in states with a large number of counties (Montana) but less well in states with megacounties like Arizona.
I'd completely forgotten I have some Betfair money staked on Sinema. All of a sudden, it has become of more than academic interest.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
I'm waiting in quiet anticipation of an update from those who said Trump could be the one to break the log jam of gun reform. Have taken precautionary measure to not hold my breath though.
Having watched Sadiq Khan on TV this morning with his response to the crime ridden streets of the City that he his mayor of, I can't get over what a terrible mayor he is. I don't understand why he is so highly rated. He is awful. Boris was different class to him and that must be the ultimate affront to his ability.
Crime ridden streets of the city (note lower case not upper case)?
“…Moreover, although the regulations state that Whitaker can’t micro-manage Mueller’s day-to-day work, they allow him to question Mueller’s investigative and prosecutorial decisions — including, for example, whether to indict…”
Yes, for all intents and purpose the investigation is one. Whitaket can simply refuse to act on Mueller's recommendations to prosecute.
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
The country has been lumbered with this mess because that's what an absolute majority of those who voted in the referendum asked for it.
More to point, though, I wonder how many Labour MPs think a Corbyn government would be in the national interest. Rather few, I imagine; they are not completely daft, and 172 of them have explicitly expressed no confidence in him.
In addition, voting against the deal doesn't of itself bring in a Labour government; it produces chaos which might or might not lead to a GE in which Labour might or might not somehow scrape into power as a minority government. In the unlikely event of all that happening, the problem would them be Labour's, unless we'd crashed out already (in which case clearing up the economic disaster would be Labour's problem). Labour is completely split on what to it would want to happen next, but even if they weren't, there is zero reason to suppose the EU would offer them anything different from The Deal.
Worth going through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg for all this?
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
Well quite. Ban them. Ban them now. And screw the bloody constitution. It's a global outrage.
Not a very sensible response. The US is governed by law, so ‘the bloody constitution’ is where the change must begin.
If the Democrats had cojones, they would start campaigning to replace the second amendment. Victory would probably be decades away, but you have to lay down a marker to start shifting the public conversation.
“…Moreover, although the regulations state that Whitaker can’t micro-manage Mueller’s day-to-day work, they allow him to question Mueller’s investigative and prosecutorial decisions — including, for example, whether to indict…”
Yes, for all intents and purpose the investigation is one. Whitaket can simply refuse to act on Mueller's recommendations to prosecute.
Not as simple as that - if Mueller indicts, he can include all sorts of evidence in the supporting documents - and the decision whether or not to make that public is down to a judge, not the Justice Department.
I disagree, Labour MPs like Flint and Namdy who represent Leave seats have said they will vote for May's Deal as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border as will the LD MP Stephen Lloyd but Hoey will likely vote against the Deal a long with Field and Stringer ie the main Labour Leavers as it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which they do not considerto be a proper Brexit
Some may abstain. But there will be huge pressure and there is no wing of the Labour party that wants to back May.
They prefer to back Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies?
Mogg and Davies do not and will not command a majority in the HoC.
But you just said Labour would combine with them to reject any deal. They can't have it both ways, they have to choose their bedfellows (or abstain, which is perhaps more likely in many cases).
If the government can't get its own key legislation through that is the problem for the government not the opposition, which has a duty to oppose.
Er, no, it has a duty to act in the interests of constituents and the country. Hard to see how rejecting a deal, risking chaos, could be seen as doing that, especially since the claimed routes to resolution (referendum or GE) look extremely unlikely to work.
But if Labour wants to take the electoral hit, it's up to them. What almost everyone (except Big G and a few others here) are failing to take into account is the massive sigh of relief from business if a deal is agreed. The pound will rise and the airwaves will be stuffed full of people saying how this is good for employment and the economy. Will Labour really be wise to kibosh that in a naked piece of partisan dice-rolling?
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
And May's decisions to leave both the single market and the customs union and to trigger article 50 without a negotiating strategy were driven by her desire to prove to her backbenchers that she was a born again Brexiteer. The national interest was nowhere in sight.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
Well quite. Ban them. Ban them now. And screw the bloody constitution. It's a global outrage. That's why it's news @CycleFree
If the US wanted to change its laws, it would. They don't. That's why these horrible events happen. It's not news. It's turning into a form of grief pornography.
Analysis of why the US doesn't want to change its laws would be interesting. Showing a lot of people crying and the inevitably bloody candles isn't.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
Well quite. Ban them. Ban them now. And screw the bloody constitution. It's a global outrage.
Not a very sensible response. The US is governed by law, so ‘the bloody constitution’ is where the change must begin.
If the Democrats had cojones, they would start campaigning to replace the second amendment. Victory would probably be decades away, but you have to lay down a marker to start shifting the public conversation.
States can actually restrict firearms quite heavily, most choose not to.
For example Illinois heavily restricts firearm sales. This is routinely mocked as ineffective with people pointing to Chicago's high gun crime rate as evidence.
But the majority of guns used in crime in Chicago come from neighbouring States with vastly loser/no restrictions on gun sales.
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
The country has been lumbered with this mess because that's what an absolute majority of those who voted in the referendum asked for it.
More to point, though, I wonder how many Labour MPs think a Corbyn government would be in the national interest. Rather few, I imagine; they are not completely daft, and 172 of them have explicitly expressed no confidence in him.
In addition, voting against the deal doesn't of itself bring in a Labour government; it produces chaos which might or might not lead to a GE in which Labour might or might not somehow scrape into power as a minority government. In the unlikely event of all that happening, the problem would them be Labour's, unless we'd crashed out already (in which case clearing up the economic disaster would be Labour's problem). Labour is completely split on what to it would want to happen next, but even if they weren't, there is zero reason to suppose the EU would offer them anything different from The Deal.
Worth going through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg for all this?
The answer to that question would almost certainly be 'yes' - and any Labour MPs unwilling to support any Labour government that results from these shenanigans should not put themselves forwards as Labour candidates at the next election. Moreover, the country has been lumbered with this mess because of Cameron having caved in to pressure from UKIP and Tory Brexiters to hold a referendum.
And May's decisions to leave both the single market and the customs union and to trigger article 50 without a negotiating strategy were driven by her desire to prove to her backbenchers that she was a born again Brexiteer. The national interest was nowhere in sight.
Given that the EU refused to discuss anything prior to article 50, I think it had to be triggered. Otherwise we’d have just been talking to ourselves.
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
The country has been lumbered with this mess because that's what an absolute majority of those who voted in the referendum asked for it.
More to point, though, I wonder how many Labour MPs think a Corbyn government would be in the national interest. Rather few, I imagine; they are not completely daft, and 172 of them have explicitly expressed no confidence in him.
In addition, voting against the deal doesn't of itself bring in a Labour government; it produces chaos which might or might not lead to a GE in which Labour might or might not somehow scrape into power as a minority government. In the unlikely event of all that happening, the problem would them be Labour's, unless we'd crashed out already (in which case clearing up the economic disaster would be Labour's problem). Labour is completely split on what to it would want to happen next, but even if they weren't, there is zero reason to suppose the EU would offer them anything different from The Deal.
Worth going through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg for all this?
I think in this case you need to take your blue specs off. It will be Rees-Mogg going through the lobbies with most Labour MPs, not the other way round. The opposition are not going to be blamed for Mrs May’s failure to get a deal through. Governments are held accountable, not oppositions.
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
The country has been lumbered with this mess because that's what an absolute majority of those who voted in the referendum asked for it.
More to point, though, I wonder how many Labour MPs think a Corbyn government would be in the national interest. Rather few, I imagine; they are not completely daft, and 172 of them have explicitly expressed no confidence in him.
In addition, voting against the deal doesn't of itself bring in a Labour government; it produces chaos which might or might not lead to a GE in which Labour might or might not somehow scrape into power as a minority government. In the unlikely event of all that happening, the problem would them be Labour's, unless we'd crashed out already (in which case clearing up the economic disaster would be Labour's problem). Labour is completely split on what to it would want to happen next, but even if they weren't, there is zero reason to suppose the EU would offer them anything different from The Deal.
Worth going through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg for all this?
The answer to that question would almost certainly be 'yes' - and any Labour MPs unwilling to support any Labour government that results from these shenanigans should not put themselves forwards as Labour candidates at the next election.
Probably a lot won't. Of those that do, many will do so hoping that they'll get their party back some time.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
Well quite. Ban them. Ban them now. And screw the bloody constitution. It's a global outrage.
Not a very sensible response. The US is governed by law, so ‘the bloody constitution’ is where the change must begin.
If the Democrats had cojones, they would start campaigning to replace the second amendment. Victory would probably be decades away, but you have to lay down a marker to start shifting the public conversation.
States can actually restrict firearms quite heavily, most choose not to.
For example Illinois heavily restricts firearm sales. This is routinely mocked as ineffective with people pointing to Chicago's high gun crime rate as evidence.
But the majority of guns used in crime in Chicago come from neighbouring States with vastly loser/no restrictions on gun sales.
I note the Chicago metropolis stretches into Indiana.
F1: no specials up I can see. Still bemused by Ricciardo at 4 for not being classified. He has the highest DNF rate of any driver, and has failed to finish 50% of the last 8 races.
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
The country has been lumbered with this mess because that's what an absolute majority of those who voted in the referendum asked for it.
More to point, though, I wonder how many Labour MPs think a Corbyn government would be in the national interest. Rather few, I imagine; they are not completely daft, and 172 of them have explicitly expressed no confidence in him.
In addition, voting against the deal doesn't of itself bring in a Labour government; it produces chaos which might or might not lead to a GE in which Labour might or might not somehow scrape into power as a minority government. In the unlikely event of all that happening, the problem would them be Labour's, unless we'd crashed out already (in which case clearing up the economic disaster would be Labour's problem). Labour is completely split on what to it would want to happen next, but even if they weren't, there is zero reason to suppose the EU would offer them anything different from The Deal.
Worth going through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg for all this?
I can see why disputes with the leader, the policies, or the presentation being wrong can be honestly and sincerely held. However, if you go to the extent of believing your Party winning is not in the national interest, then that, for me, would be the threshold to trigger the question "Am I in the wrong Party?" And, no, that is not a F off and join the Tories comment. Merely a statement of the fundamental logic behind being a Party member in the first place, let alone being an elected representative of one.
Labour's belief that a change of government per se is in the national interest will surely override any Brexit considerations. At the end of the day the country has been lumbered with this mess entirely due to internal Tory party politics - Cameron's pledge to hold a Referendum had everything to do with fear that loss of Tory votes to UKIP would put Ed Milliband in No 10 and showed no real concern for the 'national interest' - which is entirely subjective anyway.
The country has been lumbered with this mess because that's what an absolute majority of those who voted in the referendum asked for it.
More to point, though, I wonder how many Labour MPs think a Corbyn government would be in the national interest. Rather few, I imagine; they are not completely daft, and 172 of them have explicitly expressed no confidence in him.
In addition, voting against the deal doesn't of itself bring in a Labour government; it produces chaos which might or might not lead to a GE in which Labour might or might not somehow scrape into power as a minority government. In the unlikely event of all that happening, the problem would them be Labour's, unless we'd crashed out already (in which case clearing up the economic disaster would be Labour's problem). Labour is completely split on what to it would want to happen next, but even if they weren't, there is zero reason to suppose the EU would offer them anything different from The Deal.
Worth going through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg for all this?
The answer to that question would almost certainly be 'yes' - and any Labour MPs unwilling to support any Labour government that results from these shenanigans should not put themselves forwards as Labour candidates at the next election.
Probably a lot won't. Of those that do, many will do so hoping that they'll get their party back some time.
Those that fail to do so would rightly be at serious risk of deselection.
I think in this case you need to take your blue specs off. It will be Rees-Mogg going through the lobbies with most Labour MPs, not the other way round. The opposition are not going to be blamed for Mrs May’s failure to get a deal through. Governments are held accountable, not oppositions.
This in an unusual case, though. I' struggling to think of any other example where a successful opposition vote cause immediate and obvious economic damage, or indeed has any clear bad consequences. The nearest I can think is Ed Miliband's disgraceful U-turn on intervening in Syria, but that was less salient for most voters than this would be.
It is remarkably sad, if somewhat understandable, that the slaughter of 13 people in California elicits almost no comment. As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
It doesn't need fresh ideas. It needs the implementation of the very old idea of restricting gun ownership. Since this is completely obvious, and since the US chooses not to do it, what else is there to say?
Well quite. Ban them. Ban them now. And screw the bloody constitution. It's a global outrage. That's why it's news @CycleFree
If the US wanted to change its laws, it would. They don't. That's why these horrible events happen. It's not news. It's turning into a form of grief pornography.
Analysis of why the US doesn't want to change its laws would be interesting. Showing a lot of people crying and the inevitably bloody candles isn't.
Showing the consequences of those laws is part of it. And it's not true to say that the electorate doesn't want a change in gun laws. Nearly two thirds do: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
As an aside, those in the US who complain most about excessive coverage of the shootings are the strongest opponents of gun control.
And May's decisions to leave both the single market and the customs union and to trigger article 50 without a negotiating strategy were driven by her desire to prove to her backbenchers that she was a born again Brexiteer. The national interest was nowhere in sight.
Given that the EU refused to discuss anything prior to article 50, I think it had to be triggered. Otherwise we’d have just been talking to ourselves.
However, talking to ourselves, to decide what we wanted, before talking to the EU, could have been seen as a wise first step.
I can see why disputes with the leader, the policies, or the presentation being wrong can be honestly and sincerely held. However, if you go to the extent of believing your Party winning is not in the national interest, then that, for me, would be the threshold to trigger the question "Am I in the wrong Party?" And, no, that is not a F off and join the Tories comment. Merely a statement of the fundamental logic behind being a Party member in the first place, let alone being an elected representative of one.
I suppose many Labour MPs think it's Corbyn who's in the wrong party,and are hanging in there waiting for sanity to eventually prevail. I can understand that, even if it looks very optimistic at the moment. They'll be thinking: "Who knows what will happen? Something might turn up."
Comments
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/46137427
Hmmm, Nowell dropped, Lawes not starting and no Manu in the squad.
Something has to happen quickly to bring everything to a head. This just cannot go on
And bear in mind that the Democrats' popular vote victory this week was thanks to candidates across the spectrum party opinion, and whoever gets the nomination has to mobilise support across that spectrum.
O'Rourke would be a bigger gamble than some of the alternatives.
But I guess that's why they have primaries.
Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised when they eventually say something.
But I doubt it somehow.
There is a big skew away from major economies in that list.
The Dems need a person with a personal brand. You know, a positive one - more BIll's than Hilary's. If you want to say Warren or Sanders, at least I could get. Beto as well (already on first name terms). There are plenty in the field that cannot.
A 32C Ireland would be a handsome Brexit bonus though.
The West Coast elite types see Trump all wound up, spouting about this, that and other as a sign of having him on the ropes and the public will see him for what he really is...Most outside of the US see it at best cringe-worthy, at worst a lying bully.
However, during 2016, many ordinary American's saw it as a candidate more close to them than your typical professional politician. Telling it like it really is, one of us, etc. He won the GOP primary by going nutso on Lyin Ted, Low Energy Bush etc.
Its a bit like thinking revealing Corbyn's history of being a terrorist sympathizer is an instant winner.
If I were a Democrat, I'd be looking for someone with close links to the unions. Sherrod Brown?
I could be surprised, but again, I have no confidence in this lot at all.
If May wants Labour votes, they should bring Labour into the cabinet.
I think probably what they should think about it is that many of the rust belt voted Trump over Clinton, but would have voted Bernie over Trump. Much that I think Bernie is wrong like Corbyn, in the rust belt there is an big issue that the globalized world is passing them by.
We are seeing it now, the US economy is going well, the coastal areas doing fantastically well, rust belt not seeing anywhere near that. They are less concerned about SJW hot button topics like what bathroom rights for trans people etc, and more about what the f##k am I going to do for a living that doesn't just pay minimum wage.
It is what it might come down to - humiliation vs ruin.
Thanks Brexiteers.
If true that surely makes Silema favourite.
The Woman's Hour presenter was invited to speak at an event called Powerful British Women in History and Society.
But the student union's LGBTQ Campaign said she had made "transphobic comments" in a 2017 newspaper article.
The Oxford University History Society subsequently said she had cancelled her appearance "for personal reasons".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-46139085
The EU is no longer interested in stopping the car. It is focused on jumping out the way when the car crash happens.
In short Brexit will go ahead with the Withdrawal Agreement.
And getting an former Attorney General to run against a crook isn't the daftest of ideas.
And your alternate forecasts ?
The homogenous county theory works very well in states with a large number of counties (Montana) but less well in states with megacounties like Arizona.
That may well be the best and only realistic option, given that those arguing most fervently for Brexit have done little or no preparation for the practicalities of Brexit. But it risks not making for a long-term happy relationship between Britain and the EU. And I think that is a failure on both sides.
Put it this way, either we are a third country and do what we want - and, crucially, take the consequences - or we are not. But some on the EU side seem to want us to be both a third country and a de facto member - see Ireland's latest comments.
The British political class has behaved appallingly over the last few years on this issue. But any long-term fair assessment would apportion a fair amount of blame to the EU in the way that it has behaved too.
It is a great shame. But we will have to get on with it. I do think that creating even more opportunities for resentment / humiliation etc is a very bad move, from whoever it comes. European history should have taught British and European politicians that much, at least. It is a lesson they seem intent on ignoring.
Government policy is the responsibility of the Party in power. Brexit is govt policy. Therefore it owns the outcome regardless of how it goes.
As if everyone is fresh out of ideas as to what can be done. Shrug and move on I guess.
She's 60,000 odd short of Kemp's total, but another 20,000 or so would force a runoff...
It may sound callous but I am not sure why things like this should be such big news incidents in the UK.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/415665-sessions-replacement-can-destroy-mueller-probe-without-having-to-fire
“…Moreover, although the regulations state that Whitaker can’t micro-manage Mueller’s day-to-day work, they allow him to question Mueller’s investigative and prosecutorial decisions — including, for example, whether to indict…”
At least Chamberlain ramped up defence spending in the end. The Netherlands have hired hundreds of extra customs officers.
What have we done? Nothing.
British day-to-day administration is still high quality, when compared to the alternatives. However, the quality of our government and senior civil service is abysmal.
Jeremy Corbyn pays tribute to Max Levitas.
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/the-world-is-a-better-place-because-of-my-friend-max-levitas-cable-street-1.472167
More to point, though, I wonder how many Labour MPs think a Corbyn government would be in the national interest. Rather few, I imagine; they are not completely daft, and 172 of them have explicitly expressed no confidence in him.
In addition, voting against the deal doesn't of itself bring in a Labour government; it produces chaos which might or might not lead to a GE in which Labour might or might not somehow scrape into power as a minority government. In the unlikely event of all that happening, the problem would them be Labour's, unless we'd crashed out already (in which case clearing up the economic disaster would be Labour's problem). Labour is completely split on what to it would want to happen next, but even if they weren't, there is zero reason to suppose the EU would offer them anything different from The Deal.
Worth going through the lobbies with Rees-Mogg for all this?
If the Democrats had cojones, they would start campaigning to replace the second amendment. Victory would probably be decades away, but you have to lay down a marker to start shifting the public conversation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-85-has-broken-her-ribs-in-a-fall.html
Analysis of why the US doesn't want to change its laws would be interesting. Showing a lot of people crying and the inevitably bloody candles isn't.
For example Illinois heavily restricts firearm sales. This is routinely mocked as ineffective with people pointing to Chicago's high gun crime rate as evidence.
But the majority of guns used in crime in Chicago come from neighbouring States with vastly loser/no restrictions on gun sales.
Moreover, the country has been lumbered with this mess because of Cameron having caved in to pressure from UKIP and Tory Brexiters to hold a referendum.
F1: no specials up I can see. Still bemused by Ricciardo at 4 for not being classified. He has the highest DNF rate of any driver, and has failed to finish 50% of the last 8 races.
And, no, that is not a F off and join the Tories comment.
Merely a statement of the fundamental logic behind being a Party member in the first place, let alone being an elected representative of one.
And it's not true to say that the electorate doesn't want a change in gun laws. Nearly two thirds do:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
As an aside, those in the US who complain most about excessive coverage of the shootings are the strongest opponents of gun control.