I see Woodcock voted with the Tories (he's suspended already so I suppose Labour can't deselect him), but most of DUP and two Tories voted with the Opposition.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
You think it would have been better to have had chaos in 2015 rather than in 2017? A curious view.
While normally I think that a debate between leaders should be on BBC first and foremost the BBC do seem to have come up with a ludicrous proposal. ITV's actsully sounds like a proper debate.
I agree. Head to head. Both should be worried. But May's team will be more worried than Corbyn's.
I see Woodcock voted with the Tories (he's suspended already so I suppose Labour can't deselect him), but most of DUP and two Tories voted with the Opposition.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
You think it would have been better to have had chaos in 2015 rather than in 2017? A curious view.
After the last 3 years, PM Ed Milliband and CoE Ed Balls looks a missed opportunity for government that is merely amusing rather than the current lot doing slapstick on the edge of a cliff.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, asks a point of order. What can be done to ensure the full legal advice is published?
Andrea Leadsom, the Commons leader, says the full legal advice will be published. But she has also asked the privileges committee to investigate the issues that arise from this.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
You think it would have been better to have had chaos in 2015 rather than in 2017? A curious view.
After the last 3 years, PM Ed Milliband and CoE Ed Balls looks a missed opportunity for government that is merely amusing rather than the current lot doing slapstick on the edge of a cliff.
The economy is sailing along, merrily, and most people are getting a yoy pay rise and lower petrol prices.
Its only us political anoraks that remember all the little crises.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
You think it would have been better to have had chaos in 2015 rather than in 2017? A curious view.
After the last 3 years, PM Ed Milliband and CoE Ed Balls looks a missed opportunity for government that is merely amusing rather than the current lot doing slapstick on the edge of a cliff.
This is in the context of the referendum. Now of course Lab wouldn't have offered a referendum but not to have done so would have been less democratic given the 4m who had effectively been disenfranchised.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
You think it would have been better to have had chaos in 2015 rather than in 2017? A curious view.
After the last 3 years, PM Ed Milliband and CoE Ed Balls looks a missed opportunity for government that is merely amusing rather than the current lot doing slapstick on the edge of a cliff.
But that wasn't the choice. You are confusing 2015 with 2017. If (heaven forbade, thank goodness) we'd had the dire spectacle of Ed Miliband as PM, that would not have made the referendum go away, it would merely have delayed it. And in any case, a lot of the present problems are precisely because it's a hung parliament. Why on earth would a Miliband minority government have been any better?
The tactics of the government on this are hard to understand. Were they playing for time, or hoping this would be a distraction? I don't get it.
Well, they only lost (on their amendment) by 4. We may understand better when we have seen the advice: that legal advice should be privileged seems to be a principle worth defending, especially in the context of a negotiation.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
You think it would have been better to have had chaos in 2015 rather than in 2017? A curious view.
After the last 3 years, PM Ed Milliband and CoE Ed Balls looks a missed opportunity for government that is merely amusing rather than the current lot doing slapstick on the edge of a cliff.
But that wasn't the choice. You are confusing 2015 with 2017. If (heaven forbade, thank goodness) we'd had the dire spectacle of Ed Miliband as PM, that would not have made the referendum go away, it would merely have delayed it.
The tactics of the government on this are hard to understand. Were they playing for time, or hoping this would be a distraction? I don't get it.
Well, they only lost (on their amendment) by 4. We may understand better when we have seen the advice: that legal advice should be privileged seems to be a principle worth defending, especially in the context of a negotiation.
I am minded (and this is a rarity) to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this one.
While normally I think that a debate between leaders should be on BBC first and foremost the BBC do seem to have come up with a ludicrous proposal. ITV's actually sounds like a proper debate.
Why should BBC be the first resort? They have been completely outplayed by ITV on political coverage for years now. Laura K is a terrible journalist, so painful to watch I have given up entirely on BBC News and now tolerate the crap ads and woeful investigative stuff on ITV just to avoid her. Election night coverage is far, far superior on ITV. And the TV debates are consistently better.
Let us remember the words of David Cameron before the 2015 GE.
A vote for Ed Miliband is a vote for a coalition of chaos ! Utterly hilarious given the chaos we’ve seen over the last few years with this inept Tory government !
Surely Coalition of Chaos was May's line in 2017?
Failing to vote in #Edstone in 2015 is increasingly looking like a failure by the British public.
You think it would have been better to have had chaos in 2015 rather than in 2017? A curious view.
After the last 3 years, PM Ed Milliband and CoE Ed Balls looks a missed opportunity for government that is merely amusing rather than the current lot doing slapstick on the edge of a cliff.
The economy is sailing along, merrily, and most people are getting a yoy pay rise and lower petrol prices.
Its only us political anoraks that remember all the little crises.
Under the 2 Eds we would have been thriving, and Corbyn would be a never was on the backbenches, a Brexit referendum would be in the future. It would be an interesting counterfactual.
The tactics of the government on this are hard to understand. Were they playing for time, or hoping this would be a distraction? I don't get it.
Well, they only lost (on their amendment) by 4. We may understand better when we have seen the advice: that legal advice should be privileged seems to be a principle worth defending, especially in the context of a negotiation.
True, the first vote was close enough that they must have thought they had a chance.
While normally I think that a debate between leaders should be on BBC first and foremost the BBC do seem to have come up with a ludicrous proposal. ITV's actually sounds like a proper debate.
Why should BBC be the first resort? They have been completely outplayed by ITV on political coverage for years now. Laura K is a terrible journalist, so painful to watch I have given up entirely on BBC News and now tolerate the crap ads and woeful investigative stuff on ITV just to avoid her. Election night coverage is far, far superior on ITV. And the TV debates are consistently better.
While normally I think that a debate between leaders should be on BBC first and foremost the BBC do seem to have come up with a ludicrous proposal. ITV's actually sounds like a proper debate.
Why should BBC be the first resort? They have been completely outplayed by ITV on political coverage for years now. Laura K is a terrible journalist, so painful to watch I have given up entirely on BBC News and now tolerate the crap ads and woeful investigative stuff on ITV just to avoid her. Election night coverage is far, far superior on ITV. And the TV debates are consistently better.
Laura K a terrible journalist? Far from it
Oh she is. Take it from one who knows. She is utterly dire.
The government's argument that current legal advice should be withheld because future legal advice might contain commercial or national security sensibilities is cretinous.
Why not withhold the advice only when it *does*, rather than when it *doesn't*.
Better still, why not provide a mechanism for partially redacting such advice so this stupid goddamn situation never happens again.
While normally I think that a debate between leaders should be on BBC first and foremost the BBC do seem to have come up with a ludicrous proposal. ITV's actually sounds like a proper debate.
Why should BBC be the first resort? They have been completely outplayed by ITV on political coverage for years now. Laura K is a terrible journalist, so painful to watch I have given up entirely on BBC News and now tolerate the crap ads and woeful investigative stuff on ITV just to avoid her. Election night coverage is far, far superior on ITV. And the TV debates are consistently better.
Laura K a terrible journalist? Far from it
Oh she is. Take it from one who knows. She is utterly dire.
The government's argument that current legal advice should be withheld because future legal advice might contain commercial or national security sensibilities is cretinous.
Why not withhold the advice only when it *does*, rather than when it *doesn't*.
Better still, why not provide a mechanism for partially redacting such advice so this stupid goddamn situation never happens again.
There is a mechanism - they can show the advice to the opposition leaders under Privy Council terms, and agree any redaction necessary.
Of course, that does rather assume that the leader of the opposition isn't a terrorist-supporting extremist who sides with our enemies.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
The government's argument that current legal advice should be withheld because future legal advice might contain commercial or national security sensibilities is cretinous.
Why not withhold the advice only when it *does*, rather than when it *doesn't*.
Better still, why not provide a mechanism for partially redacting such advice so this stupid goddamn situation never happens again.
There is a mechanism - they can show the advice to the opposition leaders under Privy Council terms, and agree any redaction necessary.
Of course, that does rather assume that the leader of the opposition isn't a terrorist-supporting extremist who sides with our enemies.
Perhaps if they'd made that argument in Parliament they would have gotten a fair few sympathetic Labour switchers.
The tactics of the government on this are hard to understand. Were they playing for time, or hoping this would be a distraction? I don't get it.
Well, they only lost (on their amendment) by 4. We may understand better when we have seen the advice: that legal advice should be privileged seems to be a principle worth defending, especially in the context of a negotiation.
I am minded (and this is a rarity) to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this one.
But we shall see.
I'm not. I get defending that principle but after they did not contest the first vote about releasing it the game was up.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
Who is managing the Commons for Labour? They have done a cracking job.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
He shall be associated with refusing to provide the advice as demanded - weren't people saying he could be suspended for this? - so he will be remembered for it.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
Who is managing the Commons for Labour? They have done a cracking job.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
Bradley on BBC is right - if MPs go to talk to their constituents they might find that approval of the deal is increasing. Whether that will make a difference we don't of course know.
When the opposition starts defeating a government it is really hard for the government to recover. If you can defeat them once, you can do it again.
Well in the short term at least the DUP are essentially part of the the opposition bloc, and on any Brexit issue the government is heavily divided, so winning votes in the next few weeks will be tricky.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
Who is managing the Commons for Labour? They have done a cracking job.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
I'll grant that they are serious about embarrassing and defeating the Government. On Brexit policy, not so much.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
Who is managing the Commons for Labour? They have done a cracking job.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
I have never seen a journalist so far out of his depth as Peston is. Time and again he just repeats nonsense that anyone with any understanding of politics could see is nonsense.
I sometimes wonder whether there's a competition to to see what the most ridiculous thing is that they can get him to pass on is.
I'm not sure why people are so down on Preston, but he's got a really good analysis of the implications of Grieve's amendment:
Bradley on BBC is right - if MPs go to talk to their constituents they might find that approval of the deal is increasing. Whether that will make a difference we don't of course know.
The problem is the bubble effect - even if approval of the deal is increasing (and it'll be interesting to see if that changes now remain is very much back on the table) the Commons seems to be focused on its own struggles and procedures, on securing GEs or changes in direction, and they are whipped up into a frenzy where I don't feel a trend toward the deal in their constituencies will permeate that bubble.
The government's argument that current legal advice should be withheld because future legal advice might contain commercial or national security sensibilities is cretinous.
Why not withhold the advice only when it *does*, rather than when it *doesn't*.
Better still, why not provide a mechanism for partially redacting such advice so this stupid goddamn situation never happens again.
There is a mechanism - they can show the advice to the opposition leaders under Privy Council terms, and agree any redaction necessary.
Of course, that does rather assume that the leader of the opposition isn't a terrorist-supporting extremist who sides with our enemies.
Idiotic talk like that is why your party is in this mess.
I can't see how the government can avoid defeat on the Grieve amendment. Not only are the numbers in his favour, he's also got a strong argument, given that there is no longer any risk that the amendment will compromise the government's negotiating position.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
Who is managing the Commons for Labour? They have done a cracking job.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
He seems to be leading them on the Brexit issue in every sense of the word. He can be cynical and disingenuous, but he seems quite competent and has played the whole thing very well to get toward his own preferred outcome, regardless of where the leadership might have been.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
Yes, he does. If we're ever in the mood to elect a leader with no very clear ideological profile who is simply competent and serious, he's in pole position.
The government's argument that current legal advice should be withheld because future legal advice might contain commercial or national security sensibilities is cretinous.
Why not withhold the advice only when it *does*, rather than when it *doesn't*.
Better still, why not provide a mechanism for partially redacting such advice so this stupid goddamn situation never happens again.
There is a mechanism - they can show the advice to the opposition leaders under Privy Council terms, and agree any redaction necessary.
Of course, that does rather assume that the leader of the opposition isn't a terrorist-supporting extremist who sides with our enemies.
Idiotic talk like that is why your party is in this mess.
Your leader couldn't debate a 5 year old child
That may be, but at least she has never invited terrorists into parliament to rub the noses of victims in the horrors of a recent bombing and attempt to destroy an elected government.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
Yes, he does. If we're ever in the mood to elect a leader with no very clear ideological profile who is simply competent and serious, he's in pole position.
Bradley on BBC is right - if MPs go to talk to their constituents they might find that approval of the deal is increasing. Whether that will make a difference we don't of course know.
The problem is the bubble effect - even if approval of the deal is increasing (and it'll be interesting to see if that changes now remain is very much back on the table) the Commons seems to be focused on its own struggles and procedures, on securing GEs or changes in direction, and they are whipped up into a frenzy where I don't feel a trend toward the deal in their constituencies will permeate that bubble.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
Who is managing the Commons for Labour? They have done a cracking job.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
He seems to be leading them on the Brexit issue in every sense of the word. He can be cynical and disingenuous, but he seems quite competent and has played the whole thing very well to get toward his own preferred outcome, regardless of where the leadership might have been.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
Yes, he does. If we're ever in the mood to elect a leader with no very clear ideological profile who is simply competent and serious, he's in pole position.
If Sir Keir were leader you'd be 25 points ahead. And that's not even a particularly strong endorsement of Sir Keir, any sensible figure would do.
Bradley on BBC is right - if MPs go to talk to their constituents they might find that approval of the deal is increasing. Whether that will make a difference we don't of course know.
The problem is the bubble effect - even if approval of the deal is increasing (and it'll be interesting to see if that changes now remain is very much back on the table) the Commons seems to be focused on its own struggles and procedures, on securing GEs or changes in direction, and they are whipped up into a frenzy where I don't feel a trend toward the deal in their constituencies will permeate that bubble.
plus the GE is three and a half years away.
It's hard, prima facie, to look at this Parliament as it is constituted today, and find it a house capable in any way of enduring another three and a half years of tortured existence.
Bradley on BBC is right - if MPs go to talk to their constituents they might find that approval of the deal is increasing. Whether that will make a difference we don't of course know.
The problem is the bubble effect - even if approval of the deal is increasing (and it'll be interesting to see if that changes now remain is very much back on the table) the Commons seems to be focused on its own struggles and procedures, on securing GEs or changes in direction, and they are whipped up into a frenzy where I don't feel a trend toward the deal in their constituencies will permeate that bubble.
plus the GE is three and a half years away.
Could be three and a half months away the way things are going.
Bradley on BBC is right - if MPs go to talk to their constituents they might find that approval of the deal is increasing. Whether that will make a difference we don't of course know.
The problem is the bubble effect - even if approval of the deal is increasing (and it'll be interesting to see if that changes now remain is very much back on the table) the Commons seems to be focused on its own struggles and procedures, on securing GEs or changes in direction, and they are whipped up into a frenzy where I don't feel a trend toward the deal in their constituencies will permeate that bubble.
plus the GE is three and a half years away.
Is scheduled to be three and half years away.
I don't see how this government can function even past the new year. Obviously FTPA is an obstacle, but just how on earth will this shambles drag on beyond Brexit (if it even occurs - I put it as more likely than not it does not occur)?
And he'd pick up a shedload of soft Cons votes if he lead Lab into the next GE. Mine, for example, if "my" party is lead by the likes of Johnson, Redwood, Bridgen, Francois et al.
DUP: “We haven’t broken the confidence & supply deal - Theresa May broke it”
Never cross an Ulster Unionist.
We tried to tell you Theresa. Doing a deal with the DUP will *end in tears* we said.
But you wouldn't listen...
What would you have had her do? Ask Labour to agree another GE? Stumble along right from the start with a minority government full of potential rebellions on Brexit?
DUP: “We haven’t broken the confidence & supply deal - Theresa May broke it”
Never cross an Ulster Unionist.
We tried to tell you Theresa. Doing a deal with the DUP will *end in tears* we said.
But you wouldn't listen...
What would you have had her do? Ask Labour to agree another GE? Stumble along right from the start with a minority government full of potential rebellions on Brexit?
DUP: “We haven’t broken the confidence & supply deal - Theresa May broke it”
Never cross an Ulster Unionist.
We tried to tell you Theresa. Doing a deal with the DUP will *end in tears* we said.
But you wouldn't listen...
What would you have had her do? Ask Labour to agree another GE? Stumble along right from the start with a minority government full of potential rebellions on Brexit?
Either you do a deal with one party, or you have to do lots of mini-deals, which becomes impossible
Since this is surely about Brexit and not about party advantage, how about May says after the deal is voted down that the plan is they won't hold a referendum or GE, but they will all ask the EU for an extension and Labour can negotiate to see if they can come up with a better deal, then they can come back and parliament will vote on the two options?
Sounds ridiculous, but frankly Labour have a better chance of getting something through the Commons.
DUP: “We haven’t broken the confidence & supply deal - Theresa May broke it”
Never cross an Ulster Unionist.
We tried to tell you Theresa. Doing a deal with the DUP will *end in tears* we said.
But you wouldn't listen...
What would you have had her do? Ask Labour to agree another GE? Stumble along right from the start with a minority government full of potential rebellions on Brexit?
Having made a deal I'd have had her honour it.
That was not the point grabcoque was making though.
I can't see how the government can avoid defeat on the Grieve amendment. Not only are the numbers in his favour, he's also got a strong argument, given that there is no longer any risk that the amendment will compromise the government's negotiating position.
Particularly since he's told the house that he won't be amending any primary legislation.
I have never seen a journalist so far out of his depth as Peston is. Time and again he just repeats nonsense that anyone with any understanding of politics could see is nonsense.
I sometimes wonder whether there's a competition to to see what the most ridiculous thing is that they can get him to pass on is.
I'm sure tom bradby is itching to punch him sometimes.
I can't see how the government can avoid defeat on the Grieve amendment. Not only are the numbers in his favour, he's also got a strong argument, given that there is no longer any risk that the amendment will compromise the government's negotiating position.
Particularly since he's told the house that he won't be amending any primary legislation.
He'd do anything it took to get Remain, but in any case his amendment seems to have easily enough support to carry. Very bad day for the government, not that they will have many good days between now and the MV.
The government's argument that current legal advice should be withheld because future legal advice might contain commercial or national security sensibilities is cretinous.
Why not withhold the advice only when it *does*, rather than when it *doesn't*.
Better still, why not provide a mechanism for partially redacting such advice so this stupid goddamn situation never happens again.
There is a mechanism - they can show the advice to the opposition leaders under Privy Council terms, and agree any redaction necessary.
Of course, that does rather assume that the leader of the opposition isn't a terrorist-supporting extremist who sides with our enemies.
Idiotic talk like that is why your party is in this mess.
Your leader couldn't debate a 5 year old child
That may be, but at least she has never invited terrorists into parliament to rub the noses of victims in the horrors of a recent bombing and attempt to destroy an elected government.
Point taken. Labour cocked up royally by allowing Corbyn's trojan horse to come in and take over. Starmer or Cooper would be excellent leaders. But I'm still going to vote for Corbyn's Labour because I want a government that believes in compassion and opportunity.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
He shall be associated with refusing to provide the advice as demanded - weren't people saying he could be suspended for this? - so he will be remembered for it.
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
Yes, he does. If we're ever in the mood to elect a leader with no very clear ideological profile who is simply competent and serious, he's in pole position.
If Sir Keir were leader you'd be 25 points ahead. And that's not even a particularly strong endorsement of Sir Keir, any sensible figure would do.
Government caves in, will publish the full legal advice.
I thought Mr Cox was to be frogmarched?
Sadly no frogmarching appears to be necessary because Leadsom caved immediately.
It's not really fair, but I think that this isn't making Mike's bet that he'll be next leader very likely - he'll be remembered as the chap who lost a key vote.
Surely that was Ms Leadsom?
He shall be associated with refusing to provide the advice as demanded - weren't people saying he could be suspended for this? - so he will be remembered for it.
What price the DUP supporting Labours Customs Union plan ?
You mean the only deal with a Parliamentary majority that also meets the DUP Red Lines
And the ever repeatable question - if the DUP could go into government with Martin McGuinness, why would Corbyn be a step too far as keeps being claimed?
It has been a first-class performance from Labour from start to finish. They are serious.
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
Yes, he does. If we're ever in the mood to elect a leader with no very clear ideological profile who is simply competent and serious, he's in pole position.
If Sir Keir were leader you'd be 25 points ahead. And that's not even a particularly strong endorsement of Sir Keir, any sensible figure would do.
Macron
What about Macron? France has a very different political culture compared to the UK.
Comments
Ooh matron.
Government held in contempt.
Andrea Leadsom, the Commons leader, says the full legal advice will be published. But she has also asked the privileges committee to investigate the issues that arise from this.
Guardian
She looks deflated and humiliated.
Its only us political anoraks that remember all the little crises.
They could have avoided this by publishing yesterday.
But we shall see.
She has ZERO idea what's going on.
Why not withhold the advice only when it *does*, rather than when it *doesn't*.
Better still, why not provide a mechanism for partially redacting such advice so this stupid goddamn situation never happens again.
Of course, that does rather assume that the leader of the opposition isn't a terrorist-supporting extremist who sides with our enemies.
Appears to have done a
I'M THE PM GET ME OUT OF HEEERE
Never cross an Ulster Unionist.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1069981350822899712
What price the DUP supporting Labours Customs Union plan ?
Your leader couldn't debate a 5 year old child
But you wouldn't listen...
And Sir Keir boosts his leadership chances with every passing day.
He seems to be leading them on the Brexit issue in every sense of the word. He can be cynical and disingenuous, but he seems quite competent and has played the whole thing very well to get toward his own preferred outcome, regardless of where the leadership might have been.
He has played Corbyn as well as May.
I don't see how this government can function even past the new year. Obviously FTPA is an obstacle, but just how on earth will this shambles drag on beyond Brexit (if it even occurs - I put it as more likely than not it does not occur)?
Sounds ridiculous, but frankly Labour have a better chance of getting something through the Commons.
I half expect Billy Bunter to come up to him at any moment and ask to borrow five shillings.
This should carry by a pretty sizable margin, I'd think?