One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
If Corbyn moved towards them over the EU, I think Wollaston , Grieve, Soubry et al could tolerate him as PM. If Labour MP's dumped Corbyn for Starmer, it would be easy.
I think if Corbyn becomes PM without a GE, then a GE will shortly follow.
First, it is in Corbyn’s interests to strike when the Tories are at maximum disarray, and second, an alliance of remainer Tories+SNP+PC+Green+Lib+Lab is likely as stable as high explosive.
I think Wollaston, Grieve and Soubry would then be swept away in the subsequent GE. So, I am not sure they will take the action you suggest.
Wollaston would have a very good chance of keeping her seat either as an Independent or as a Lib Dem. Totnes is like that.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, howevehe has just kicked off.
I'm sure he does but he's a fanatic, why would that concern him?
I doubt he gives a stuff, but it will be interesting watching the effect on the well heeled citizens of Beaconsfield if his actions lead to PM Jezza. Youd need a heart of stone etc.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, howevehe has just kicked off.
I'm sure he does but he's a fanatic, why would that concern him?
I doubt he gives a stuff, but it will be interesting watching the effect on the well heeled citizens of Beaconsfield if his actions lead to PM Jezza. Youd need a heart of stone etc.
I don't have a scintilla of sympathy with the Government over yesterday's vote. It wasted a month having shown extreme discourtesy to the House of Commons by yanking a vote and refusing to get the House's agreement to do so when invited to by the Speaker. It then returned to the House a month later having changed absolutely nothing and sought to proceed on a pre-existing timetable that had been put back by a month by its own actions when time was of the essence without getting the authority of the House for doing so.
Such contempt deserved comeuppance.
NB this is not approval of the Speaker's actions.
Cake and eating it!
If the likes of Grieve took such umbrage at May pulling the vote, they should have removed her when they had the chance. It seems to me that they want to stop Brexit, but don't want to be the ones to do it.
But as Bercow said yesterday, unless the government brings primary legislation, nothing will change, and we will be leaving the EU on the 29 March come what may.
We don't know who voted against Theresa May in the vote of no confidence. More did so than are on the record as opposing the deal from a Brexit direction.
And your last sentence makes my point. We are in a time-critical phase and the government cannot expect to try to run down the clock in order to forestall discussion of the options.
I'd say that last point has been true for a lot longer than the last month. There is absolutely nothing stopping MPs from taking back control. The only thing that stops them is fear of what it will do to their own precious careers.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim....
I wouldn't disagree with that - and Bercow was fairly clumsy presenting his justification of the decision. Though not as clumsy as some of the criticism directed at him.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
Bercow's decision yesterday was wrong on many levels and for Betty Boothroyd to launch a full on attack on Bercow says it all.
However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment - TM needs to come back quickly, and according to 5 live, the HOC will then be able to test various options in an attempt to see a way through the log jam
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
Tuition fees lost Cambridge, it’s that simple. (A friend of mine is an ex-Lib Dem City Councillor.)
Exactly why the Lib Dems’ next leader needs to be untainted by Coalition.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, however the point for what he has just kicked off.
I don't disagree with that either and the 21 days was not an accident. It was designed, at the time the Act was passed, to give the government some wriggle room in the event they failed at the first attempt. So a careful negotiated scheme which was a part of the deal on the MV provision has been torn apart and it is not hard to see why they are annoyed.
But its equally hard to have much sympathy.
I have little sympathy for HMG they should have voted before Xmas, but this is just the shoddy gamesmanship the conservatives seem to be addicted to. It started with Camerons no planning for a referendum loss and has continued with May holding the nations feet to the fire and screaming TINA.
Any Conservative trying to push the line of competence deserves to get laughed off the planet.
May I refer the learned gentleman to my observation at 8.25?
Glad for Mackinlay that he's been cleared - must have been a nightmare. The verdict seems fair, nailing the offence so parties don't feel they can just get away with anything, but not spreading the blame on everyone in sight. The judge's comment that CCHQ seems to have decided that anything goes seems entirely credible.
I agree. I also feel very sorry for the poor agent who has been dumped with this. I have no doubt that she was doing what she was told to do by people higher up the food chain. Not sure if that is a role I would take on until the rules are seriously clarified.
In law the decision on all election expenditure sits with the agent. Being told to commit a crime isn't a defence, for obvious reasons. Where you may have a point is that there are surely others who should be done for incitement (edit/or conspiracy), had there been sufficient evidence.
Having been both candidate and agent, I suspect they thought they would get away with it, on the basis that our election law is archaic and it is very common to interpret the rules flexibly, putting it politely. But as with other such areas (tradesman taking payment in cash comes to mind), when the scale of abuse reaches a certain level it is right that the law gets involved.
Mr. B2, in medieval times, petty treason compelled wives to obey their husbands. This could successfully be used by women as defence in cases of robbery and murder (saying their husband had ordered it, and disobeying would be treason). They'd be let off with no punishment. The man would hang.
Wollaston would have a very good chance of keeping her seat either as an Independent or as a Lib Dem. Totnes is like that.
Totnes town (long twinned with Narnia) is "like that" - the outer rural areas not so much.
Plenty of folks here who think she has turned herself into a laughing stock over her various Brexit positions. Others who think she has been very principled. She would win as an Independent - if the LibDems didn't stand. Other than that, nothing much is certain.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim....
I wouldn't disagree with that - and Bercow was fairly clumsy presenting his justification of the decision. Though not as clumsy as some of the criticism directed at him.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
Bercow's decision yesterday was wrong on many levels and for Betty Boothroyd to launch a full on attack on Bercow says it all...
Does it ?
"However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment"
Wollaston would have a very good chance of keeping her seat either as an Independent or as a Lib Dem. Totnes is like that.
Soubry wouldn’t, but I doubt she cares.
I like Wollaston at a personal level, but I am not very convinced that she’d survive.
Even “popular” MPs actually have a derisory personal vote, so I don’t think she’d pull through as an independent.
And why would the LibDems or Labour back down? The Tories and an Independent Wollaston splitting the previous Tory vote could conceivably give either of them the seat.
It would be an uncertain four-way fight. I doubt she’d win.
Grim if predictable stuff on the retail front today. Debenhams sales fell 5.7%, in talks with lenders, M&S down, John Lewis staff bonus in doubt, generally pretty grim: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46807146
Its hard to tell if there has been a reduction in consumption or whether bricks are just continuing to lose to clocks at an ever greater rate. By the middle of next month several more chains will have ceased trading and the number of empty units will increase again. We need to start working out what we want of our High Streets other than coffee shops and hairdressers.
Mr. B2, in medieval times, petty treason compelled wives to obey their husbands. This could successfully be used by women as defence in cases of robbery and murder (saying their husband had ordered it, and disobeying would be treason). They'd be let off with no punishment. The man would hang.
That's a very interesting aside, Mr Morris, which adds to our knowledge, but doesn't appear to have any applicability to the role of election agent.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim....
I wouldn't disagree with that - and Bercow was fairly clumsy presenting his justification of the decision. Though not as clumsy as some of the criticism directed at him.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
Bercow's decision yesterday was wrong on many levels and for Betty Boothroyd to launch a full on attack on Bercow says it all...
Does it ?
"However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment"
And how else might have that been achieved ?
Betty Boothroyd was one of our best speakers and her attack on Bercow endorses the opinion he made the wrong decision.
As to your second point, that does not justify Bercow's behaviour
Grim if predictable stuff on the retail front today. Debenhams sales fell 5.7%, in talks with lenders, M&S down, John Lewis staff bonus in doubt, generally pretty grim: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46807146
Its hard to tell if there has been a reduction in consumption or whether bricks are just continuing to lose to clocks at an ever greater rate. By the middle of next month several more chains will have ceased trading and the number of empty units will increase again. We need to start working out what we want of our High Streets other than coffee shops and hairdressers.
Grim if predictable stuff on the retail front today. Debenhams sales fell 5.7%, in talks with lenders, M&S down, John Lewis staff bonus in doubt, generally pretty grim: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46807146
Its hard to tell if there has been a reduction in consumption or whether bricks are just continuing to lose to clocks at an ever greater rate. By the middle of next month several more chains will have ceased trading and the number of empty units will increase again. We need to start working out what we want of our High Streets other than coffee shops and hairdressers.
Shops with originality and which provide an experience, otherwise flats and offices
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim....
I wouldn't disagree with that - and Bercow was fairly clumsy presenting his justification of the decision. Though not as clumsy as some of the criticism directed at him.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
Bercow's decision yesterday was wrong on many levels and for Betty Boothroyd to launch a full on attack on Bercow says it all...
Does it ?
"However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment"
And how else might have that been achieved ?
That's an "end justify the means" argument. Maybe the Amendment shouldn't have been achieved because the means matter? Even if you have no problem with the result of the Amendment.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
Indeed, and they’re not wrong either. They don’t need to even get rid of Corbin just ensure enough pressure is on him from those around him that he pivots on Brexit. By any measure it’s an easier task than trying to revive the Lib Dems to a significant parliamentary force, even if he is obviously trying to avoid making any decisions on Brexit for as long as possible.
Mayors can make a big difference to crime rates if they use their powers effectively as Giuliani showed in New York city, Khan has no clear strategy for tackling crime in London when London needs strong leadership
That said, annexing Essex would clearly be the right thing to do.
New York city was a hellhole in many parts before he became Mayor, by pushing zero tolerance and a 'broken windows' policy Giuliani was the key factor in ensuring it is now a much more civilised and even gentrified city
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
I agree with this and many other subsequent posts by others.
The situation feels similar to a blazing row between spouses. One of them undoubtedly started it and, on a narrow interpretation, the angry response of the other is justified, but it's no way for either to behave. Both need to take a step back, calm down, admit they were wrong and agree not to behave like that in the future.
In this case I'd suggest that Bercow should agree that he was wrong to allow the business motion to be amended to overrule an Act of Parliament and the Executive should agree that it was wrong to abuse Parliamentary procedure to delay a vote without consent.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
According to Yougov the LDs are already up to 10% and Labour down to just 34%
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
The only route to Norway plus is via the Withdrawal Agreement.
Glad for Mackinlay that he's been cleared - must have been a nightmare. The verdict seems fair, nailing the offence so parties don't feel they can just get away with anything, but not spreading the blame on everyone in sight. The judge's comment that CCHQ seems to have decided that anything goes seems entirely credible.
I agree. I also feel very sorry for the poor agent who has been dumped with this. I have no doubt that she was doing what she was told to do by people higher up the food chain. Not sure if that is a role I would take on until the rules are seriously clarified.
In law the decision on all election expenditure sits with the agent. Being told to commit a crime isn't a defence, for obvious reasons. Where you may have a point is that there are surely others who should be done for incitement (edit/or conspiracy), had there been sufficient evidence.
Having been both candidate and agent, I suspect they thought they would get away with it, on the basis that our election law is archaic and it is very common to interpret the rules flexibly, putting it politely. But as with other such areas (tradesman taking payment in cash comes to mind), when the scale of abuse reaches a certain level it is right that the law gets involved.
I just feel its a bit tough to be left holding the parcel when the ticking stops. I agree abuse is endemic and become ever more so as centrally organised planning overtakes constituency based campaigning.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
According to Yougov the LDs are already up to 10% and Labour down to just 34%
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
According to Yougov the LDs are already up to 10% and Labour down to just 34%
New York city was a hellhole in many parts before he became Mayor, by pushing zero tolerance and a 'broken windows' policy Giuliani was the key factor in ensuring it is now a much more civilised and even gentrified city
Who needs evidence when you're really really sure?
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
... Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim....
I wouldn't disagree with that - and Bercow was fairly clumsy presenting his justification of the decision. Though not as clumsy as some of the criticism directed at him.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
Bercow's decision yesterday was wrong on many levels and for Betty Boothroyd to launch a full on attack on Bercow says it all...
Does it ?
"However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment"
And how else might have that been achieved ?
Betty Boothroyd was one of our best speakers and her attack on Bercow endorses the opinion he made the wrong decision.
As to your second point, that does not justify Bercow's behaviour
She never faced a situation where the executive effectively paralysed Parliament for weeks at a time on the most contentious issue of the day. Major played a much straighter hand on Maastricht.
New York city was a hellhole in many parts before he became Mayor, by pushing zero tolerance and a 'broken windows' policy Giuliani was the key factor in ensuring it is now a much more civilised and even gentrified city
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
The only route to Norway plus is via the Withdrawal Agreement.
s'ok. Sean wouldn't be the only person to confuse the WA with the future relationship.
In other news, Bercow is a self regarding, pumped up little prick who is, happily, being openly cuckolded by his wife. As the whole world knows.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
In this case he was biased in favour of parliament against the executive - which is how it should be. That he is also, not unreasonably, suspected of bias against the Tories is unfortunate.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
The only route to Norway plus is via the Withdrawal Agreement.
s'ok. Sean wouldn't be the only person to confuse the WA with the future relationship.
I don’t think this is true. The Norway plus gang are generally against this deal.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
Indeed, and they’re not wrong either. They don’t need to even get rid of Corbin just ensure enough pressure is on him from those around him that he pivots on Brexit. By any measure it’s an easier task than trying to revive the Lib Dems to a significant parliamentary force, even if he is obviously trying to avoid making any decisions on Brexit for as long as possible.
There is a pleasing symmetry to it.
Ultra-Remainers tend to be highly affluent, and so a Corbyn Government will make them pay for the privilege of Remaining.
It is a fine solution. Those in Stoke or Hartlepool crapped on by the way the EU & our politics works will get a chunk of posh Ultra-Remainer money.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
The only route to Norway plus is via the Withdrawal Agreement.
s'ok. Sean wouldn't be the only person to confuse the WA with the future relationship.
I don’t think this is true. The Norway plus gang are generally against this deal.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
He 'd take the Labour whip.
He does from his wife doesn’t he ? She was chasing a Labour candidature a few years back.
He was, of course, a former right wing Tory MP.
Bercow was about as right-wing as you could be in the Tory Party in the 1980s.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
Indeed, and they’re not wrong either. They don’t need to even get rid of Corbin just ensure enough pressure is on him from those around him that he pivots on Brexit. By any measure it’s an easier task than trying to revive the Lib Dems to a significant parliamentary force, even if he is obviously trying to avoid making any decisions on Brexit for as long as possible.
There is a pleasing symmetry to it.
Ultra-Remainers tend to be highly affluent, and so a Corbyn Government will make them pay for the privilege of Remaining.
It is a fine solution. Those in Stoke or Hartlepool crapped on by the way the EU & our politics works will get a chunk of posh Ultra-Remainer money.
yes, its not all downside, Likewise the remain team are now going to own the discomfort of championing the EU with a disiilusioned electorate while providing the block with a large injection of rabid wreckers.
That's an "end justify the means" argument. Maybe the Amendment shouldn't have been achieved because the means matter? Even if you have no problem with the result of the Amendment.
I don't entirely disagree with that - but was he (and should we ?) just to accept the ability of a minority government to paralyse Parliament for extended periods of time ?
May has asked too may times to be given a few weeks to come back with a solution. At this point, it is blatant time wasting.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
He 'd take the Labour whip.
He does from his wife doesn’t he ? She was chasing a Labour candidature a few years back.
He was, of course, a former right wing Tory MP.
Bercow was about as right-wing as you could be in the Tory Party in the 1980s.
Grim if predictable stuff on the retail front today. Debenhams sales fell 5.7%, in talks with lenders, M&S down, John Lewis staff bonus in doubt, generally pretty grim: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46807146
Its hard to tell if there has been a reduction in consumption or whether bricks are just continuing to lose to clocks at an ever greater rate. By the middle of next month several more chains will have ceased trading and the number of empty units will increase again. We need to start working out what we want of our High Streets other than coffee shops and hairdressers.
It’s not all bad. Bookshops, bizarrely, are doing well. Click and collect is popular and growing. Shops which provide something unique can thrive too. People still want to go out to town, and do some shopping. It’s a human universal. Towns formed where markets took root. People like to be where there are other people.
What people will not go to town for is the basics and the staples which can be delivered cheaply to their homes.
Pure anecdote, but Enfield 's weekly market is always crowded, because the stalls sell excellent produce.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
The only route to Norway plus is via the Withdrawal Agreement.
s'ok. Sean wouldn't be the only person to confuse the WA with the future relationship.
I don’t think this is true. The Norway plus gang are generally against this deal.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
The only route to Norway plus is via the Withdrawal Agreement.
Which requires a GE? As the DUP will crash HMG before supporting the WA. I hope that’s enuff initialisms.
What it ALL points to is an extension or revocation of A50
This looks more likely to me then it did a month or two ago, but I still have my doubts that the anti-no-dealers will have the nerve to do the necessary and depose May.
I'm convinced that May does not intend to do their dirty work for them and will still be insisting that the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for her deal if she is still PM at 2019-03-29 22:45
Grim if predictable stuff on the retail front today. Debenhams sales fell 5.7%, in talks with lenders, M&S down, John Lewis staff bonus in doubt, generally pretty grim: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46807146
Its hard to tell if there has been a reduction in consumption or whether bricks are just continuing to lose to clocks at an ever greater rate. By the middle of next month several more chains will have ceased trading and the number of empty units will increase again. We need to start working out what we want of our High Streets other than coffee shops and hairdressers.
It’s not all bad. Bookshops, bizarrely, are doing well. Click and collect is popular and growing. Shops which provide something unique can thrive too. People still want to go out to town, and do some shopping. It’s a human universal. Towns formed where markets took root. People like to be where there are other people.
What people will not go to town for is the basics and the staples which can be delivered cheaply to their homes.
Exactly - and in fact I don't think it's that bizarre.
Amazon hit bookshops first, so the process of reinvention started five, even ten years earlier than other High Street retail. Waterstones and the indies have learned about providing an "experience".
Debenhams and M&S haven't learned this yet. John Lewis has made a few steps in that direction (the new Westgate store in Oxford is full of it) but only a few.
If bookshops are anything to go by, they'll get the message eventually, but a lot of them will fall by the wayside until that happens.
In other news, Bercow is a self regarding, pumped up little prick who is, happily, being openly cuckolded by his wife. As the whole world knows.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
If it is a second vote,I hope the leave side/ leaders come out of it with "We are note taking part" and advise leave voters to do the same.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
The only route to Norway plus is via the Withdrawal Agreement.
s'ok. Sean wouldn't be the only person to confuse the WA with the future relationship.
I will happily confess I am indeed confused. Who isn’t? Brexit has become Fermat’s Last Theorem. There are a million suggested solutions and none of them seem quite right.
On reflection, if we revoke A50, then invoke it again we could ask for Norway plus without the WA. The WA would be dead in that situation. We’d be starting anew. Whether the EU would agree is moot. I suspect they would. But who knows.
The EU (much to @Richard_Nabavi's chagrin) stipulated that the WA must be signed before we can begin to negotiate the future relationship. So not sure that would be the case although if we rocked up and said: "here this is what we want" then maybe they would consider that.
Of course we have no idea what we want so the chances of that happening are pretty small.
In other news, Bercow is a self regarding, pumped up little prick who is, happily, being openly cuckolded by his wife. As the whole world knows.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
In this case he was biased in favour of parliament against the executive - which is how it should be. That he is also, not unreasonably, suspected of bias against the Tories is unfortunate.
I have no interest in his marriage.
Unfortunately the party political bias is the key issue as it risks a permanent politicised Speaker - which would be disastrous when we have majority governments.
In other news, Bercow is a self regarding, pumped up little prick who is, happily, being openly cuckolded by his wife. As the whole world knows.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
In this case he was biased in favour of parliament against the executive - which is how it should be. That he is also, not unreasonably, suspected of bias against the Tories is unfortunate.
I have no interest in his marriage.
Unfortunately the party political bias is the key issue as it risks a permanent politicised Speaker - which would be disastrous when we have majority governments.
In this case, though, it is not a party political issue - and characters as diverse as Clarke and Rees Mogg have backed him (though the latter disagreed with the ruling, he said Bercow had done nothing wrong in arriving at it).
Mayors can make a big difference to crime rates if they use their powers effectively as Giuliani showed in New York city, Khan has no clear strategy for tackling crime in London when London needs strong leadership
That said, annexing Essex would clearly be the right thing to do.
New York city was a hellhole in many parts before he became Mayor, by pushing zero tolerance and a 'broken windows' policy Giuliani was the key factor in ensuring it is now a much more civilised and even gentrified city
Giuliani's broken windows theory became quite fashionable here for a time, where it had been completely overlooked when first expounded in Michael Rutter's survey of London schools' practice: 15,000 Hours. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674300262
We've never been good at letting research influence policy.
New York city was a hellhole in many parts before he became Mayor, by pushing zero tolerance and a 'broken windows' policy Giuliani was the key factor in ensuring it is now a much more civilised and even gentrified city
Who needs evidence when you're really really sure?
Well, quite. This must rank as one of the most nauseating PB tropes in modern times. Burning Ears' post last night should be made a sticky, to which all are diverted when this tired old saw pops back up.
In other news, Bercow is a self regarding, pumped up little prick who is, happily, being openly cuckolded by his wife. As the whole world knows.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
If it is a second vote,I hope the leave side/ leaders come out of it with "We are note taking part" and advise leave voters to do the same.
Great. Bigger remain majority. You get nowt for failing to show up.
In other news, Bercow is a self regarding, pumped up little prick who is, happily, being openly cuckolded by his wife. As the whole world knows.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
If it is a second vote,I hope the leave side/ leaders come out of it with "We are note taking part" and advise leave voters to do the same.
Great. Bigger remain majority. You get nowt for failing to show up.
In other news, Bercow is a self regarding, pumped up little prick who is, happily, being openly cuckolded by his wife. As the whole world knows.
On the other hand his blatant bias yesterday has handily speeded things up. Time is short. We need to choose. Looks to me like we are headed for a second vote. Or Norway plus.
If it is a second vote,I hope the leave side/ leaders come out of it with "We are note taking part" and advise leave voters to do the same.
Great. Bigger remain majority. You get nowt for failing to show up.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
... Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim....
I wouldn't disagree with that - and Bercow was fairly clumsy presenting his justification of the decision. Though not as clumsy as some of the criticism directed at him.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
Bercow's decision yesterday was wrong on many levels and for Betty Boothroyd to launch a full on attack on Bercow says it all...
Does it ?
"However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment"
And how else might have that been achieved ?
Betty Boothroyd was one of our best speakers and her attack on Bercow endorses the opinion he made the wrong decision.
As to your second point, that does not justify Bercow's behaviour
She never faced a situation where the executive effectively paralysed Parliament for weeks at a time on the most contentious issue of the day. Major played a much straighter hand on Maastricht.
He was right to thwart the cheating Tories. No way should they be able to gerrymander parliament the way they have been doing.
Comments
Soubry wouldn’t, but I doubt she cares.
However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment - TM needs to come back quickly, and according to 5 live, the HOC will then be able to test various options in an attempt to see a way through the log jam
Exactly why the Lib Dems’ next leader needs to be untainted by Coalition.
Having been both candidate and agent, I suspect they thought they would get away with it, on the basis that our election law is archaic and it is very common to interpret the rules flexibly, putting it politely. But as with other such areas (tradesman taking payment in cash comes to mind), when the scale of abuse reaches a certain level it is right that the law gets involved.
Plenty of folks here who think she has turned herself into a laughing stock over her various Brexit positions. Others who think she has been very principled. She would win as an Independent - if the LibDems didn't stand. Other than that, nothing much is certain.
The rate has barely varied in 20 years.
It really is that simple. The stats are freely available.
"However, I have no problem with the result of the amendment"
And how else might have that been achieved ?
Even “popular” MPs actually have a derisory personal vote, so I don’t think she’d pull through as an independent.
And why would the LibDems or Labour back down? The Tories and an Independent Wollaston splitting the previous Tory vote could conceivably give either of them the seat.
It would be an uncertain four-way fight. I doubt she’d win.
Its hard to tell if there has been a reduction in consumption or whether bricks are just continuing to lose to clocks at an ever greater rate. By the middle of next month several more chains will have ceased trading and the number of empty units will increase again. We need to start working out what we want of our High Streets other than coffee shops and hairdressers.
This creates an image of lawlessness in the Capital
As to your second point, that does not justify Bercow's behaviour
The situation feels similar to a blazing row between spouses. One of them undoubtedly started it and, on a narrow interpretation, the angry response of the other is justified, but it's no way for either to behave. Both need to take a step back, calm down, admit they were wrong and agree not to behave like that in the future.
In this case I'd suggest that Bercow should agree that he was wrong to allow the business motion to be amended to overrule an Act of Parliament and the Executive should agree that it was wrong to abuse Parliamentary procedure to delay a vote without consent.
Major played a much straighter hand on Maastricht.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45236.pdf
That he is also, not unreasonably, suspected of bias against the Tories is unfortunate.
I have no interest in his marriage.
The Norway plus gang are generally against this deal.
Ultra-Remainers tend to be highly affluent, and so a Corbyn Government will make them pay for the privilege of Remaining.
It is a fine solution. Those in Stoke or Hartlepool crapped on by the way the EU & our politics works will get a chunk of posh Ultra-Remainer money.
May has asked too may times to be given a few weeks to come back with a solution. At this point, it is blatant time wasting.
I'm convinced that May does not intend to do their dirty work for them and will still be insisting that the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for her deal if she is still PM at 2019-03-29 22:45
Amazon hit bookshops first, so the process of reinvention started five, even ten years earlier than other High Street retail. Waterstones and the indies have learned about providing an "experience".
Debenhams and M&S haven't learned this yet. John Lewis has made a few steps in that direction (the new Westgate store in Oxford is full of it) but only a few.
If bookshops are anything to go by, they'll get the message eventually, but a lot of them will fall by the wayside until that happens.
It’s a nice contradiction. They want legal certainty in the backstop, but are prepared to take on faith everything under the no deal scenario.
Of course we have no idea what we want so the chances of that happening are pretty small.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674300262
We've never been good at letting research influence policy.
Great. Bigger remain majority. You get nowt for failing to show up.
Grim times.