Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The gilded cage. How the DUP are using the new rules of the ga

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The gilded cage. How the DUP are using the new rules of the game to trap the Conservatives

Board games are always a good source of arguments. There seem to be as many views on how to play Monopoly as families. Some place all fines in the centre, to be collected by anyone who lands on Free Parking. Some don’t allow rents to be collected in Jail. Views differ on what is to be done with the properties of bankrupt players. It is important to establish the rules in advance if you want to avoid unseemly rows.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    1st
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    2nd
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    3rd
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 3,688
    Bloody hell. The N Irish taking over...in more ways than one.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    It is not my fault if I am an enterprising, go-ahead, productive kind of person.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    More evidence that VI is just going to keep treading water until Parliament does its job and makes a decision.

  • Donny43 said:

    More evidence that VI is just going to keep treading water until Parliament does its job and makes a decision.

    why did YouGov sample 5x the people this time?
  • Donny43 said:

    More evidence that VI is just going to keep treading water until Parliament does its job and makes a decision.

    why did YouGov sample 5x the people this time?
    To increase the confidence levels in the various demographics.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.
  • Very difficult to argue with Alastair's logic, but if logic had anything to do with it we wouldn't be in this effing mess.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    In other words, if the Conservative Party survives in one piece until the end of March then we leave with No Deal. Sounds about right to me.

    Or, to take it one step further, either Britain makes a clean break with the structures of European integration, or the Conservative Party suffers its first major schism since 1846. History beckons for Mrs May, though not in any sense that she would have liked.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 17,390
    edited December 2018

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,894

    Donny43 said:

    More evidence that VI is just going to keep treading water until Parliament does its job and makes a decision.

    why did YouGov sample 5x the people this time?
    People’s Vote had a large donation from the SuperDry founder to pay for polling so they can afford to pay for big polls.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,179
    Donny43 said:

    More evidence that VI is just going to keep treading water until Parliament does its job and makes a decision.

    Con+UKIP=Lab+LDem
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    All of this is rather negative. Surely the question the DUP should be asking of themselves, and the Tories should be asking of the DUP, is what they want out of this sorry state of affairs. If the Tories had a brain between them, they would then be looking to see how they can accommodate the DUP. If the DUP want May’s resignation, May should resign in the national interest. Otherwise all the angst about the backstop will be for nought. We’ll have a hard border by default with the A50 clock ticking.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    It is surprising how many principles are for sale at the right price :D
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    Precisely. Whether you think they're right or not, fact is they won't accept anything that weakens the economic or constitutional integrity of the UK (and they also, I would surmise, suspect that this issue is being used as a device by Brussels and Dublin to drive a wedge between Great Britain and the province, with a view to eventual annexation.)

    HM Treasury could offer to give Northern Ireland £50bn: the DUP still wouldn't budge.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Anyway, all of this Brexit guff is irrelevant when compared to the real crisis that has crept up unawares - the Great Teabag Crisis of 2018. There was only one teabag left in the caddy!!! And I am now drinking the tea it made :open_mouth:
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,325
    edited December 2018


    why did YouGov sample 5x the people this time?

    Larger subsets wrt various Brexit options? Guessing.

  • The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    Precisely. Whether you think they're right or not, fact is they won't accept anything that weakens the economic or constitutional integrity of the UK (and they also, I would surmise, suspect that this issue is being used as a device by Brussels and Dublin to drive a wedge between Great Britain and the province, with a view to eventual annexation.)

    HM Treasury could offer to give Northern Ireland £50bn: the DUP still wouldn't budge.
    #Arlene4PM
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,641

    In other words, if the Conservative Party survives in one piece until the end of March then we leave with No Deal. Sounds about right to me.

    Or, to take it one step further, either Britain makes a clean break with the structures of European integration, or the Conservative Party suffers its first major schism since 1846. History beckons for Mrs May, though not in any sense that she would have liked.

    Or, to put it another way, May is more concerned with the interests of the Tory party than with those of the country, however much she tries to suggest that the two are one and the same.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited December 2018
    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Good to see @TGOHF ‘s living room wallpaper on the thread header. It’s a bit like Through the Keyhole!
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,614
    edited December 2018

    Donny43 said:

    More evidence that VI is just going to keep treading water until Parliament does its job and makes a decision.

    why did YouGov sample 5x the people this time?
    To increase the confidence levels in the various demographics.
    Why did they feel the need to do that? Is it because they are showing more pronounced Tory leads than the other pollsters (who as of late have the two parties within MOE).
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited December 2018

    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    A very fair point. They boomed like there was no tomorrow, but like the Iceland crash they’ve bounced back. Interesting that the help we gave that was entirely without strings or expectations of favour has resulted in no reciprocation through the Brexit process.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.

    The FTPA was a confidence building measure for the Lib Dems. It should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    "We send Northern Ireland £250m every week. Let's fund the NHS instead!" ?
  • Donny43 said:

    More evidence that VI is just going to keep treading water until Parliament does its job and makes a decision.

    why did YouGov sample 5x the people this time?
    To increase the confidence levels in the various demographics.
    Why did they feel the need to do that? Is it because they are showing more pronounced Tory leads than the other pollsters (who has of late have the two parties within MOE).
    Is more you can say with confidence what a certain demographic says without a silly MOE.

    With normal YouGov polls when you’re say looking at Lab voters in the North it is based on four people in Barnsley.

    Here it is a much larger sample with a smaller MOE.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,641
    Oh, let’s cut out this guff about the DUP’s principles.

    This is a party set up by a man who came to prominence inciting mobs to burn Catholics out of their homes. A party which opposed all attempts to resolve the Troubles by sharing power with the nationalist community. A party which opposed the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement. A party which was involved in setting up paramilitary movements during the Troubles, and which imported arms. A party one of whose MPs, Sammy Wilson, praised a document which sought the repartition of NI and the expulsion, nullification or internment of any Catholics left behind. It is a party which has, under a number of its leaders, been involved in various financial scandals.

    Principles? It’s just another grubby party which is more than willing to compromise its principles for power, help itself to the fruits of such power and which has been more than willing to flirt with violence in order to achieve its aims.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,894
    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    One of the nuttier unionists on Twitter was recently demanding that Northern Ireland should copy Ireland’s tax policies.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 3,278

    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    Well if we go no deal they will be able to return the favour.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,527
    Cyclefree said:

    Oh, let’s cut out this guff about the DUP’s principles.

    This is a party set up by a man who came to prominence inciting mobs to burn Catholics out of their homes. A party which opposed all attempts to resolve the Troubles by sharing power with the nationalist community. A party which opposed the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement. A party which was involved in setting up paramilitary movements during the Troubles, and which imported arms. A party one of whose MPs, Sammy Wilson, praised a document which sought the repartition of NI and the expulsion, nullification or internment of any Catholics left behind. It is a party which has, under a number of its leaders, been involved in various financial scandals.

    Principles? It’s just another grubby party which is more than willing to compromise its principles for power, help itself to the fruits of such power and which has been more than willing to flirt with violence in order to achieve its aims.

    It is a party which supported leaving the EU for tactical reasons but thought that the vote would be to remain. They painted themselves into a corner and their current leader, who, let’s not forget, is up to her neck in RHI corruption allegations, doesn’t have the brains or guile to see a pragmatic way through. Don’t paint them as some sort of geniuses. They can do tactics but have no sense of strategy.
  • Unionists in Northern Ireland are clearly big fans of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

    Why else would you see 'FTP' written in so many places in the Province?
  • notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    Well if we go no deal they will be able to return the favour.
    If we go no-deal, they will be in bigger trouble than they were in the financial crash. Over 80% of their trade with the EU goes through the U.K. they’d suffer tariffs on their trade with the U.K. and they would seeing a sign uplift in their EU budget contributions as the EU struggles to rebalance contributor and recipient members.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,894

    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    Fake news. The UK contributed a small fraction towards an EU-led bailout.
  • matt said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Oh, let’s cut out this guff about the DUP’s principles.

    This is a party set up by a man who came to prominence inciting mobs to burn Catholics out of their homes. A party which opposed all attempts to resolve the Troubles by sharing power with the nationalist community. A party which opposed the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement. A party which was involved in setting up paramilitary movements during the Troubles, and which imported arms. A party one of whose MPs, Sammy Wilson, praised a document which sought the repartition of NI and the expulsion, nullification or internment of any Catholics left behind. It is a party which has, under a number of its leaders, been involved in various financial scandals.

    Principles? It’s just another grubby party which is more than willing to compromise its principles for power, help itself to the fruits of such power and which has been more than willing to flirt with violence in order to achieve its aims.

    It is a party which supported leaving the EU for tactical reasons but thought that the vote would be to remain. They painted themselves into a corner and their current leader, who, let’s not forget, is up to her neck in RHI corruption allegations, doesn’t have the brains or guile to see a pragmatic way through. Don’t paint them as some sort of geniuses. They can do tactics but have no sense of strategy.
    Just like May’s Gov then
  • John_M said:

    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.

    The FTPA was a confidence building measure for the Lib Dems. It should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
    :+1:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    "There are exactly three ways of getting rid of a government. The first is that a motion for a general election is agreed by at least two thirds of the whole House (that is what happened in 2017). The second is that a motion of no confidence is passed. The third is if the Prime Minister voluntarily resigns."

    Just how does that third way work exactly? If May resigns, her replacement as Conservative leader becomes PM and the (zombie) government continues. Unless I am mistaken, MAy's resignation does not get rid of the government.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,545

    If the DUP want May’s resignation, May should resign in the national interest.

    Not sure it's fair to define the national interest to be 'whatever the DUP want'.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    Fake news. The UK contributed a small fraction towards an EU-led bailout.
    The UK loaned £3.2 billion to Ireland, and required a specific act of parliament. The EU lent the, €22 billion.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    John_M said:

    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.

    The FTPA was a confidence building measure for the Lib Dems. It should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
    Genuine question: What does "with extreme prejudice" mean in this context?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    One of the nuttier unionists on Twitter was recently demanding that Northern Ireland should copy Ireland’s tax policies.

    Just allow every multinational to domicile here to funnel taxable profits to the lowest tax authority away from where the profits where genuinely generated?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,155

    "There are exactly three ways of getting rid of a government. The first is that a motion for a general election is agreed by at least two thirds of the whole House (that is what happened in 2017). The second is that a motion of no confidence is passed. The third is if the Prime Minister voluntarily resigns."

    Just how does that third way work exactly? If May resigns, her replacement as Conservative leader becomes PM and the (zombie) government continues. Unless I am mistaken, MAy's resignation does not get rid of the government.

    I think the way it works is that if the Prime Minister resigns, the Queen invites someone else to form a new government.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018

    In other words, if the Conservative Party survives in one piece until the end of March then we leave with No Deal. Sounds about right to me.

    Or, to take it one step further, either Britain makes a clean break with the structures of European integration, or the Conservative Party suffers its first major schism since 1846. History beckons for Mrs May, though not in any sense that she would have liked.

    The schism will happen before March if there actually is a second referendum. It’s only being pushed by those who never accepted the result of the first, which, for all their faults, is not a criticism that can be made of the ERG.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    edited December 2018

    John_M said:

    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.

    The FTPA was a confidence building measure for the Lib Dems. It should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
    Genuine question: What does "with extreme prejudice" mean in this context?
    Basically, "totally kill off".

    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/terminate_with_extreme_prejudice
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    edited December 2018

    Anyway, all of this Brexit guff is irrelevant when compared to the real crisis that has crept up unawares - the Great Teabag Crisis of 2018. There was only one teabag left in the caddy!!! And I am now drinking the tea it made :open_mouth:

    And the supermarkets close in 8 7 mins!
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Anyway, all of this Brexit guff is irrelevant when compared to the real crisis that has crept up unawares - the Great Teabag Crisis of 2018. There was only one teabag left in the caddy!!! And I am now drinking the tea it made :open_mouth:

    And the supermarkets close in 8 7 mins!
    Thanks, SNP!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    Donny43 said:

    John_M said:

    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.

    The FTPA was a confidence building measure for the Lib Dems. It should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
    Genuine question: What does "with extreme prejudice" mean in this context?
    Basically, "totally kill off".

    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/terminate_with_extreme_prejudice
    Ah thank-you. Not a term I had come across. Makes sense, as does John_M's comment.

    FTPA: Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. (Though I admit I thought it was a sensible measuer at the time!)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    Chris said:

    "There are exactly three ways of getting rid of a government. The first is that a motion for a general election is agreed by at least two thirds of the whole House (that is what happened in 2017). The second is that a motion of no confidence is passed. The third is if the Prime Minister voluntarily resigns."

    Just how does that third way work exactly? If May resigns, her replacement as Conservative leader becomes PM and the (zombie) government continues. Unless I am mistaken, MAy's resignation does not get rid of the government.

    I think the way it works is that if the Prime Minister resigns, the Queen invites someone else to form a new government.
    That would surely be someone else from the largest party, so the new tory leader.
  • OortOort Posts: 96
    edited December 2018
    Chris said:

    "There are exactly three ways of getting rid of a government. The first is that a motion for a general election is agreed by at least two thirds of the whole House (that is what happened in 2017). The second is that a motion of no confidence is passed. The third is if the Prime Minister voluntarily resigns."

    Just how does that third way work exactly? If May resigns, her replacement as Conservative leader becomes PM and the (zombie) government continues. Unless I am mistaken, MAy's resignation does not get rid of the government.

    I think the way it works is that if the Prime Minister resigns, the Queen invites someone else to form a new government.
    The monarch will invite whoever Theresa May advises her to invite.

    There is a fourth way: the PM can die in office.

    Also the second way doesn't necessarily remove the Government if it can change something and then win a confidence motion within 14 calendar days having lost the first one.

    From a popcorn eater's point of view, a motion of no confidence in the prime minister (not in the Government) would be fascinating. Motions of no confidence in ministers have been allowed, most recently to try to remove Chris Grayling from his post. In practice if it were carried I am quite sure it would force Theresa May's resignation.

    How about a motion that "in view of the Government's proposed withdrawal agreement, this House has no confidence in the prime minister"? How about it, Jeremy Corbyn? Take the initiative.
  • Anyway, all of this Brexit guff is irrelevant when compared to the real crisis that has crept up unawares - the Great Teabag Crisis of 2018. There was only one teabag left in the caddy!!! And I am now drinking the tea it made :open_mouth:

    And the supermarkets close in 8 7 mins!
    Unless you are lucky enough to live in Scotland where they don't have such idiotic rules.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    Cyclefree said:

    In other words, if the Conservative Party survives in one piece until the end of March then we leave with No Deal. Sounds about right to me.

    Or, to take it one step further, either Britain makes a clean break with the structures of European integration, or the Conservative Party suffers its first major schism since 1846. History beckons for Mrs May, though not in any sense that she would have liked.

    Or, to put it another way, May is more concerned with the interests of the Tory party than with those of the country, however much she tries to suggest that the two are one and the same.
    No, my best guess would be that she thinks she's doing both. She certainly doesn't want to provoke a schism in the Conservative Party, but she has also treated the Brexit process as a damage limitation exercise for the country. Trying to deliver on the demand to leave the EU, because she views rejecting the referendum result as improper, whilst keep us as close to it as she feels she can get away with.

    Most people disagree with the contention that what she's done with the Brexit deal is for the good of the country, but it doesn't necessarily follow that she doesn't genuinely believe it to be so.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,545
    edited December 2018

    In other words, if the Conservative Party survives in one piece until the end of March then we leave with No Deal. Sounds about right to me.

    Or, to take it one step further, either Britain makes a clean break with the structures of European integration, or the Conservative Party suffers its first major schism since 1846. History beckons for Mrs May, though not in any sense that she would have liked.

    Or to spin it once more, if the only thing which stops the Tories self-destructing is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will act to ensure that a No Deal Brexit does not happen. And given they have the means to do so, we can rule it out.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,330
    Corbyn running faster than Usain Bolt.

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    I think that the UK should have a double mandate election in May or June 2019.

    My definition of a double mandate election is a referendum to decide whether or not we continue to be in the EU and the terms of exit and a General Election to see if Conservatives or Labour can achieve a majority or a proper coalition can be constructed to deal with the countries problems.

    Brexiteers say a referendum is not democratic but I think they have poor prospects of articulating this position if it is a double mandate election. The DUP to refer back to the article warp everything through their agenda and it is time this influence that punches above its weight was smothered and left at the margins.
  • John_M said:

    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.

    The FTPA was a confidence building measure for the Lib Dems. It should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
    :+1:
    The FTPA should encourage longer term thinking, although only 25% longer than the around 4 years average that we used to have.
    Is it a good idea to put the power to call elections back in the hands of a Prime Minister?
  • OortOort Posts: 96
    edited December 2018

    I think that the UK should have a double mandate election in May or June 2019.

    My definition of a double mandate election is a referendum to decide whether or not we continue to be in the EU and the terms of exit and a General Election to see if Conservatives or Labour can achieve a majority or a proper coalition can be constructed to deal with the countries problems.

    Brexiteers say a referendum is not democratic but I think they have poor prospects of articulating this position if it is a double mandate election. The DUP to refer back to the article warp everything through their agenda and it is time this influence that punches above its weight was smothered and left at the margins.

    When I considered this option I reached the conclusion it was crazy. It would be inviting voters to pick and mix: which policy would you like, and which party would you prefer to implement it? Can you imagine a Labour-SNP or Labour-LibDem government implementing Leave? Why should the SNP or LibDems betray their voters? Or a Tory government (even if it doesn't rely on the DUP) implementing Remain? What would the parties say about Brexit in their manifestos?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    kinabalu said:

    In other words, if the Conservative Party survives in one piece until the end of March then we leave with No Deal. Sounds about right to me.

    Or, to take it one step further, either Britain makes a clean break with the structures of European integration, or the Conservative Party suffers its first major schism since 1846. History beckons for Mrs May, though not in any sense that she would have liked.

    Or to spin it once more, if the only thing which stops the Tories self-destructing is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will act to ensure that a No Deal Brexit does not happen. And given they have the means to do so, we can rule it out.
    How do labour block a no deal Brexit?
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    John_M said:

    In 2020, the government is required to bring forward a cross party committee to examine the functioning of the FTPA and make recommendations for its amendment or repeal.

    If it were up to me, I'd say there were two very large gaps that should be plugged.

    1) It runs of a 5-year cycle when most other election cycles in the UK are four years.

    2) The fact that it prescribes precisely one form of confidence vote is incredibly limiting, and allows a government that has de facto lost the confidence of the house to cling on. Finance bills, Queens Speeches, and the forthcoming meaningul vote are all confidence votes and should be treated as such.

    I'd amend it thusly:

    1) Shorten in to four years.

    2) Allow the Speaker broad scope to determine when other kinds of votes are *de facto* confidence votes and should therefore be covered by the provisions of the act.

    Also, if the current PM wants a new election, there should be a mechanism for them to trigger the 14-day cooldown period without the artifice of engineering a confidence vote against themself.

    The FTPA was a confidence building measure for the Lib Dems. It should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
    :+1:
    The FTPA should encourage longer term thinking, although only 25% longer than the around 4 years average that we used to have.
    Is it a good idea to put the power to call elections back in the hands of a Prime Minister?
    We learned from last year that the removal of the PM's power to call an election was merely theoretical.
  • notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    Fake news. The UK contributed a small fraction towards an EU-led bailout.
    Depends what you call a small fraction. In total Ireland had a bailout of around €67 billion. The UK contribution was €3.5 billion via the EU and an additional €3 billion in direct bilateral contributions. So around 10% of the total.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,545
    notme said:

    How do labour block a no deal Brexit?

    Two ways spring to mind:

    1. Let the WA pass.

    2. Pivot to 2nd ref.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    kinabalu said:

    In other words, if the Conservative Party survives in one piece until the end of March then we leave with No Deal. Sounds about right to me.

    Or, to take it one step further, either Britain makes a clean break with the structures of European integration, or the Conservative Party suffers its first major schism since 1846. History beckons for Mrs May, though not in any sense that she would have liked.

    Or to spin it once more, if the only thing which stops the Tories self-destructing is a No Deal Brexit, then Labour will act to ensure that a No Deal Brexit is the one thing that does not happen. And given they have the means to do we can rule it out.
    Two issues with that:

    First there is no guarantee that No Deal Brexit would stop the Tories self-destructing. Soubry, Lee, Clarke, Morgan, Stephen Hammond, Sandbach, Jo Johnson, Grieve, and quite a few others would potentially split away in that situation.

    Secondly, even if you were right to suggest that No Deal is the one thing that can stop the Tories splitting, there is every chance that Labour would fail to spot that.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073

    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    Fake news. The UK contributed a small fraction towards an EU-led bailout.
    Depends what you call a small fraction. In total Ireland had a bailout of around €67 billion. The UK contribution was €3.5 billion via the EU and an additional €3 billion in direct bilateral contributions. So around 10% of the total.
    1/10th sounds like a small fraction to me.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    kinabalu said:

    notme said:

    How do labour block a no deal Brexit?

    Two ways spring to mind:

    1. Let the WA pass.

    2. Pivot to 2nd ref.
    If the wa doesn’t pass we leave on March 29th no deal. If a 2nd referendum is pivoted towards, we still leave on March 29th no deal unless the *gvt* acts otherwise
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,073
    kinabalu said:

    notme said:

    How do labour block a no deal Brexit?

    Two ways spring to mind:

    1. Let the WA pass.

    2. Pivot to 2nd ref.
    3. Win a VoNC
  • OortOort Posts: 96
    edited December 2018
    Oort said:

    How about a motion that "in view of the Government's proposed withdrawal agreement, this House has no confidence in the prime minister"? How about it, Jeremy Corbyn? Take the initiative.

    If John Bercow doesn't like it, the House could put its Father in the Speaker's chair :)

  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    You'd hope there's a decent explanation for this, but...

    https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-16/charity-looking-for-christmas-miracle-after-hotel-cancels-rooms-for-homeless/

    A manager at the Royal Hotel told the Press Association on Sunday there was no-one available to comment.

    I'll bet.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    notme said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    If there was ever a place to illustrate the long term failure of state largesse it’s Northern Ireland. An economic basket case with a power house economy to its south that was until recently substantially poorer and a remainder uk that has weaned itself off the dead hand to a much greater degree.
    That will be the same “powerhouse economy” that was going the same way as the ClubMed countries after the financial crash until Britain bailed them out.
    Fake news. The UK contributed a small fraction towards an EU-led bailout.
    Depends what you call a small fraction. In total Ireland had a bailout of around €67 billion. The UK contribution was €3.5 billion via the EU and an additional €3 billion in direct bilateral contributions. So around 10% of the total.
    1/10th sounds like a small fraction to me.
    OK, you can pay me 10% of your next salary then. Why not? It's only a small fraction.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,545
    edited December 2018

    Two issues with that:

    First there is no guarantee that No Deal Brexit would stop the Tories self-destructing. Soubry, Lee, Clarke, Morgan, Stephen Hammond, Sandbach, Jo Johnson, Grieve, and quite a few others would potentially split away in that situation.

    Secondly, even if you were right to suggest that No Deal is the one thing that can stop the Tories splitting, there is every chance that Labour would fail to spot that.

    I'm not sure that I do agree with Black Rook. I was more trying to demonstrate that the logic which supports a conclusion can at the same time rule it out. Least when it comes to this Brexit impasse it can. As a puzzle it's a thing of beauty.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,545
    edited December 2018
    duplicate deleted
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Donny43 said:

    You'd hope there's a decent explanation for this, but...

    https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-16/charity-looking-for-christmas-miracle-after-hotel-cancels-rooms-for-homeless/

    A manager at the Royal Hotel told the Press Association on Sunday there was no-one available to comment.

    I'll bet.

    28 was the total number of rough sleepers in hull for last year.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    kinabalu said:

    notme said:

    How do labour block a no deal Brexit?

    Two ways spring to mind:

    1. Let the WA pass.

    2. Pivot to 2nd ref.
    Holding a new referendum doesn't in itself stop No Deal. The only things which do are passing the Deal or revoking A50.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,545
    notme said:

    If the wa doesn’t pass we leave on March 29th no deal. If a 2nd referendum is pivoted towards, we still leave on March 29th no deal unless the *gvt* acts otherwise

    Exactly. So if Labour support the WA it passes and that is end of No Deal. Ditto if they can force an art 50 extension for 2nd referendum. The 1st option is more straightforward.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    kinabalu said:

    notme said:

    If the wa doesn’t pass we leave on March 29th no deal. If a 2nd referendum is pivoted towards, we still leave on March 29th no deal unless the *gvt* acts otherwise

    Exactly. So if Labour support the WA it passes and that is end of No Deal. Ditto if they can force an art 50 extension for 2nd referendum. The 1st option is more straightforward.
    In practice if they secured a GE the EU is likely to grant an extension, also.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,079
    dr_spyn said:
    But he ushered in a different type of politics tight?

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    edited December 2018

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    Precisely. Whether you think they're right or not, fact is they won't accept anything that weakens the economic or constitutional integrity of the UK (and they also, I would surmise, suspect that this issue is being used as a device by Brussels and Dublin to drive a wedge between Great Britain and the province, with a view to eventual annexation.)

    HM Treasury could offer to give Northern Ireland £50bn: the DUP still wouldn't budge.
    #Arlene4PM
    An p

    Unionists in Northern Ireland are clearly big fans of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

    Why else would you see 'FTP' written in so many places in the Province?

    Hinds’ barefaced lie this morning becomes evermore transparent.

    Yet the credulous crew on PB believed him!!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 25,894
    Donny43 said:

    kinabalu said:

    notme said:

    How do labour block a no deal Brexit?

    Two ways spring to mind:

    1. Let the WA pass.

    2. Pivot to 2nd ref.
    Holding a new referendum doesn't in itself stop No Deal. The only things which do are passing the Deal or revoking A50.
    Yes but if done properly, a referendum could guarantee that one of those outcomes must happen.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    kinabalu said:

    If the DUP want May’s resignation, May should resign in the national interest.

    Not sure it's fair to define the national interest to be 'whatever the DUP want'.

    A fairer definition might be ‘the exact opposite of what the DUP want’.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 1,545
    Donny43 said:

    Holding a new referendum doesn't in itself stop No Deal. The only things which do are passing the Deal or revoking A50.

    Yes. Although an article 50 extension for a 2nd referendum probably stops a No Deal. I don't think another referendum will be risked unless Remain is deemed a near certainty. In fact I don't see a 2nd referendum happening at all. It would rather shock me if it does.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    kinabalu said:

    notme said:

    How do labour block a no deal Brexit?

    Two ways spring to mind:

    1. Let the WA pass.

    2. Pivot to 2nd ref.
    Holding a new referendum doesn't in itself stop No Deal. The only things which do are passing the Deal or revoking A50.
    Yes but if done properly, a referendum could guarantee that one of those outcomes must happen.
    Only by Parliament legislating accordingly. Which it could do without a referendum.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,866
    Oort said:



    How about a motion that "in view of the Government's proposed withdrawal agreement, this House has no confidence in the prime minister"? How about it, Jeremy Corbyn? Take the initiative.

    If I recall correctly, there's a traditional Parliamentary technique for it - a motion to reduce the salary of the Minister by £1. Technically this has no effect (apart from the missing pound) but it's a symbol for "resign!".
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,527
    edited December 2018
    R
    Anazina said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    Precisely. Whether you think they're right or not, fact is they won't accept anything that weakens the economic or constitutional integrity of the UK (and they also, I would surmise, suspect that this issue is being used as a device by Brussels and Dublin to drive a wedge between Great Britain and the province, with a view to eventual annexation.)

    HM Treasury could offer to give Northern Ireland £50bn: the DUP still wouldn't budge.
    #Arlene4PM
    An p

    Unionists in Northern Ireland are clearly big fans of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

    Why else would you see 'FTP' written in so many places in the Province?

    Hinds’ barefaced lie this morning becomes evermore transparent.

    Yet the credulous crew on PB believed him!!
    As other have said, discussed by Cabinet members does not mean discussed in cabinet. Hinds may not have told the full truth but you have no evidence to suggest that he lied. It’s you who is doing the barefaced lying, if anyone.

    Accuracy is important and you appear to struggle with it.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Anyway, all of this Brexit guff is irrelevant when compared to the real crisis that has crept up unawares - the Great Teabag Crisis of 2018. There was only one teabag left in the caddy!!! And I am now drinking the tea it made :open_mouth:

    And the supermarkets close in 8 7 mins!
    Unless you are lucky enough to live in Scotland where they don't have such idiotic rules.
    The Great Teabag Crisis of 2018 has been resolved thanks to the local garage whose shop is 24/7 :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584
    edited December 2018
    I think this does identify the two choices pretty correctly. And as much as May likes to kick to can and do nothing, I find it hard to believe, even without a way to formally challenge her in the party structure, that she will be permitted to do nothing for 3 months. And so only one option emerges.

    On the DUP, nothing short of total capitulation to them will see them play ball from now on, they've pushed the boundary that far.
    Anazina said:

    The govt could always try paying a bigger bribe offering more financial assistance to NI to see if the DUP would stay onside...

    Perhaps a billion was not enough.

    I get the impression no amount of money would shift the DUP on what they consider to be a fundamental point of principle.
    Precisely. Whether you think they're right or not, fact is they won't accept anything that weakens the economic or constitutional integrity of the UK (and they also, I would surmise, suspect that this issue is being used as a device by Brussels and Dublin to drive a wedge between Great Britain and the province, with a view to eventual annexation.)

    HM Treasury could offer to give Northern Ireland £50bn: the DUP still wouldn't budge.
    #Arlene4PM
    An p

    Unionists in Northern Ireland are clearly big fans of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

    Why else would you see 'FTP' written in so many places in the Province?

    Hinds’ barefaced lie this morning becomes evermore transparent.

    Yet the credulous crew on PB believed him!!
    My recollection is that people were hypothesizing how he could justify that statement even though it seems impossible the topic has never been raised at all, which is not the same thing as believing him, it is establishing the basis of his possibly true but obfuscating and misleading claim, eg that it has not been the subject of formal Cabinet discussion and resolution. Your incredulity appeared to be that no one could make a claim that is technically not a lie even as it is misleading. But politicians do that all the time. Direct lies are unnecessary.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,127

    Oort said:



    How about a motion that "in view of the Government's proposed withdrawal agreement, this House has no confidence in the prime minister"? How about it, Jeremy Corbyn? Take the initiative.

    If I recall correctly, there's a traditional Parliamentary technique for it - a motion to reduce the salary of the Minister by £1. Technically this has no effect (apart from the missing pound) but it's a symbol for "resign!".
    Time for someone to make that move I think, there must be a good chance that some of the ERG would support a no confidence against May personally rather than the government as a whole.

    May has reached the end of the road, she is blocking any moves forward by her pretence that the cadaver that is her deal is still alive and kicking. If she won't move on from that position, and she won't, then she must be pushed out of the way.
  • Good evening, everyone.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,762
    Evening all. My family's view on how to play Monopoly is a straightforward one: don't.
  • Anyway, all of this Brexit guff is irrelevant when compared to the real crisis that has crept up unawares - the Great Teabag Crisis of 2018. There was only one teabag left in the caddy!!! And I am now drinking the tea it made :open_mouth:

    And the supermarkets close in 8 7 mins!
    Unless you are lucky enough to live in Scotland where they don't have such idiotic rules.
    The Great Teabag Crisis of 2018 has been resolved thanks to the local garage whose shop is 24/7 :)
    Take it as a dry run for April 2019.
  • Mr. T, inertia and stubbornness on her part, versus cowardice, ambition, division, and unwillingness on the other.

    But, we'll see.
  • Essexit said:

    Evening all. My family's view on how to play Monopoly is a straightforward one: don't.

    it does seem to go on a lot longer when I have played it recently than I remember it ever doing as a child.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,527

    Essexit said:

    Evening all. My family's view on how to play Monopoly is a straightforward one: don't.

    it does seem to go on a lot longer when I have played it recently than I remember it ever doing as a child.
    It’s a board game for people who don’t like board games, and won’t help to change their minds.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,127
    SeanT said:

    Oort said:



    How about a motion that "in view of the Government's proposed withdrawal agreement, this House has no confidence in the prime minister"? How about it, Jeremy Corbyn? Take the initiative.

    If I recall correctly, there's a traditional Parliamentary technique for it - a motion to reduce the salary of the Minister by £1. Technically this has no effect (apart from the missing pound) but it's a symbol for "resign!".
    Time for someone to make that move I think, there must be a good chance that some of the ERG would support a no confidence against May personally rather than the government as a whole.

    May has reached the end of the road, she is blocking any moves forward by her pretence that the cadaver that is her deal is still alive and kicking. If she won't move on from that position, and she won't, then she must be pushed out of the way.
    There are reports TMay "threatened" the EU yesterday that if they didn't improve the backstop offer, she would take her Deal - which is also their deal - and crash it, deliberately: i.e. put it to parliament, next week, knowing it would be defeated.

    Quite how that is a "threat" I dunno.

    Anyhow I don't see how she can hold on until January 21. Once the last hangover has cleared on January 2nd No Deal will loom very large, and Something Will Snap.
    I agree. May would look completely absurd if she went to the Commons and recommended it to crash the deal that she said "with all my heart " last week was the best way forward. Persons in grey suits, or perhaps white coats, would be summoned forthwith.
  • matt said:

    Essexit said:

    Evening all. My family's view on how to play Monopoly is a straightforward one: don't.

    it does seem to go on a lot longer when I have played it recently than I remember it ever doing as a child.
    It’s a board game for people who don’t like board games, and won’t help to change their minds.
    I see there is no new version called monopoly fortnite. I think that must be the new speeded up version.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 1,085
    SeanT said:

    Oort said:



    How about a motion that "in view of the Government's proposed withdrawal agreement, this House has no confidence in the prime minister"? How about it, Jeremy Corbyn? Take the initiative.

    If I recall correctly, there's a traditional Parliamentary technique for it - a motion to reduce the salary of the Minister by £1. Technically this has no effect (apart from the missing pound) but it's a symbol for "resign!".
    Time for someone to make that move I think, there must be a good chance that some of the ERG would support a no confidence against May personally rather than the government as a whole.

    May has reached the end of the road, she is blocking any moves forward by her pretence that the cadaver that is her deal is still alive and kicking. If she won't move on from that position, and she won't, then she must be pushed out of the way.
    There are reports TMay "threatened" the EU yesterday that if they didn't improve the backstop offer, she would take her Deal - which is also their deal - and crash it, deliberately: i.e. put it to parliament, next week, knowing it would be defeated.

    Quite how that is a "threat" I dunno.

    Anyhow I don't see how she can hold on until January 21. Once the last hangover has cleared on January 2nd No Deal will loom very large, and Something Will Snap.
    I think May is all threats and no action.

    It is the thing that has worried me since she became PM. She is weak in style and substance compared to previous PM's, I watched Tony Blair do a speech and answer questions yesterday on the parliament channel and he was magnificent! I never voted for him but he could articulate strategy and lead.

    Such a pity we have two pathetic, incompetent and past their sell buy date politicians as leader of the Tories and Labour. Even Blair would be better than the current two and he has the Iraq baggage.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    matt said:

    Essexit said:

    Evening all. My family's view on how to play Monopoly is a straightforward one: don't.

    it does seem to go on a lot longer when I have played it recently than I remember it ever doing as a child.
    It’s a board game for people who don’t like board games, and won’t help to change their minds.
    Indeed. It's a poor game because the strategy is easy and one-dimensional (buy almost everything on which you land) and depends thereafter on luck, and it becomes obvious an hour or so in who is going to win, but you have to go through two hours' more pain before arriving at that conclusion. Although most people I know give up long before there is a single winner.

    There are some brilliant board games on the market - mostly devised by Germans, it has to be said - where there are multiple ways to try and win, there is a good balance between skill and luck, and where the eventual winner isn't obvious until the final turn. Go DYOR.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,584
    edited December 2018
    SeanT said:

    Oort said:



    How about a motion that "in view of the Government's proposed withdrawal agreement, this House has no confidence in the prime minister"? How about it, Jeremy Corbyn? Take the initiative.

    If I recall correctly, there's a traditional Parliamentary technique for it - a motion to reduce the salary of the Minister by £1. Technically this has no effect (apart from the missing pound) but it's a symbol for "resign!".
    Time for someone to make that move I think, there must be a good chance that some of the ERG would support a no confidence against May personally rather than the government as a whole.

    May has reached the end of the road, she is blocking any moves forward by her pretence that the cadaver that is her deal is still alive and kicking. If she won't move on from that position, and she won't, then she must be pushed out of the way.
    There are reports TMay "threatened" the EU yesterday that if they didn't improve the backstop offer, she would take her Deal - which is also their deal - and crash it, deliberately: i.e. put it to parliament, next week, knowing it would be defeated.

    Quite how that is a "threat" I dunno.

    Anyhow I don't see how she can hold on until January 21. Once the last hangover has cleared on January 2nd No Deal will loom very large, and Something Will Snap.
    Well it is the sort of thing that her Brexiteers think is a threat, since the deal crashing means we have to no deal (unless something else comes up) and they are convinced the EU will fold if that happens.
This discussion has been closed.