It looks worse the more I see of it. Last night I foolishly accepted the spin from some on here who said he was merely pressing his ear against an audio speaker, which is palpable nonsense. The man clearly intended to demonstrate beyond all doubt that a chap of his breeding can do what the hell he likes and the riff-raff would do well to take note.
I think the final which was the final straw for me last night was JRM. His high and snobby attitude and speech might be endearing in another place, but here, where actual jobs and economies matter it was misplaced and out of order.
I'm actually wondering if a period of Corbyn government, as disasterous as it would be in some areas wouldn't now be whats at least required, if certainly not desired.
You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
No they don't.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
It is what May should have insisted upon had she not been so weak after losing her majority last time.
The EU won't be happy, the Irish won't be happy, but they will have an honest choice to make. Deal or no deal. Lose the backstop but keep a legal open border during transition, or lose the deal including losing the backstop. I think the EU facing a Tory majority united on that proposal would blink.
This is what I've been saying for the last year should be agreed and my predictions recently keep coming right - including predicting this would and should be made a confidence motion which I was told was impossible post-FTPA.
Because its achieved they outcome they (Boris and Cummings wanted)
At any point from Boris becoming leader to yesterday's vote they could have dialled back the rhetoric and started compromise.
Instead they ratched it up and even had Cummings berating the Remainer delegation when they went to meet Boris yesterday.
Given then way they have played this you have to fink its gone entirely to as expected and to plan - which makes it a success if not a victory?
Just because a crazy plan "works" does not make it brilliant. Boris has neutered his party and handed control of his politcal destiny to Corbyn. That is not brilliant, it is a massive gamble.
It might be ballsy, but it is not genius.
Oh well no one ever said it was "Brilliant" - only time will tell on that - just that its clearly gone to plan from their POV.
When BoZo's OODA loop of calling an election is scuppered by prorogation, how are the cultists going to spin that as Cummings genius?
They will do what Trump supporters do, and either deny it is happening (fake), or claim that you are too stupid to understand the 4D Chess he is playing. They won't admit they are wrong, they will keep digging.
Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?
No. How do you get to that from my question?
That’s the pact.
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?
Exactly.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.
I see the theory, but I don't understand why the Conservatives would prefer this to campaigning locally under a "Get Brexit Done" slogan.
Bomb the seat with messages like "Your Brexit-supporting Conservative candidate Stuart Leaver promises to take us out of the EU on 31st October - even if there's No Deal".
What does allying yourself with Farage get you over that? He has no track record at Westminster elections. Previously his schtick was "I'm committed to Brexit, Theresa May isn't", but that won't work with Johnson, who has just defenestrated of his own 21 MPs for not being committed enough to Brexit.
I suspect this is why Farage is making entreaties about a pact. Cummings has shot his fox.
When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
When BoZo's OODA loop of calling an election is scuppered by prorogation, how are the cultists going to spin that as Cummings genius?
They will do what Trump supporters do, and either deny it is happening (fake), or claim that you are too stupid to understand the 4D Chess he is playing. They won't admit they are wrong, they will keep digging.
No one knows if Cummings is playing the game well or not but you nutty FBPE lot think he can only do wrong Im afraid
When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
When BoZo's OODA loop of calling an election is scuppered by prorogation, how are the cultists going to spin that as Cummings genius?
They will do what Trump supporters do, and either deny it is happening (fake), or claim that you are too stupid to understand the 4D Chess he is playing. They won't admit they are wrong, they will keep digging.
No one knows if Cummings is playing the game well or not but you nutty FBPE lot think he can only do no wrong Im afraid
Worth remembering that everyone thought Vote Leave was doing a bad job. Until they won.
Surely Labour should only accept a general election once no deal cannot happen on 31 st October .
That would mean Bozo has broken his promise and keeps the Brexit Party taking votes from the Tories .
An election before then could still deliver a no deal if the Tories get a majority .
The one thing that has changed though is the removal of the whip from the rebels . If you’ve got nothing left to lose then more of those rebels might back a VONC .
I said this earlier:
My ideal Christmas present:
...Boxing day. Good GE day: people already off work (sorry council workers who have to do the count), families are together so intergenerational discussion on which direction the country should go...
Terrible idea, many people travel for Christmas and expecting that a million people request a postal vote in December ist crazy.
You get the feeling that the Tory party will wake up at some point realising what the hell it has done to itself. The only question is will it be too late to do anything about it.
Because if he votes against the party on a matter of confidence then he has chosen his path.
if it was in any sense a "matter of confidence" then the Prime Minister would immediately resign having lost the vote.
Important to distinguish between party and government
Boris said. I am leader of the party. This is my policy. If you don’t agree then there’s the door
He won a clear majority of Tory MPs.
Those that don’t support the leadership on this fundamental policy can exit stage left
Agree, the conservatives can withdraw the whip from whoever they want for whatever reason (just as May could, maybe should, have withdrawn the whip from Johnson and others when they voted against her government's most important bill). I'm just objecting to the argument that this has to happen to rebels on this occasion because the bill in parliament was "a matter of confidence".
It was a matter of confidence, the PM said so before the vote.
And the idea the PM resigns following losing a vote of confidence is a total myth. Tradition is an election following a loss of confidence and under the terms of the FTPA the PM is tabling an election motion.
"Tradition is an election following a loss of confidence" - There have been a grand total of 3 lost confidence votes since the beginning of the 20th Century. 2 were followed by dissolution and election. 1 was followed by the Govt resigning and an alternative government being formed. - There have been no lost confidence votes since the FTPA, so no tradition applies.
If it was really supposed to be an effective matter of confidence Johnson would either resign, or call an immediate vote of no confidence in his own government (or has he promised to resign as soon as fails to get the 2 thirds for his election motion to win?)
Also when did the PM say the vote was a "matter of confidence"? I can't find it.
When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
1955 - almost 18 months early - govt increased majority 1983 - a year early - govt landslide 1987 - a year early - govt landslide 2001 - a year early - govt landslide 2005 - a year early - govt majority ca 60
It looks worse the more I see of it. Last night I foolishly accepted the spin from some on here who said he was merely pressing his ear against an audio speaker, which is palpable nonsense. The man clearly intended to demonstrate beyond all doubt that a chap of his breeding can do what the hell he likes and the riff-raff would do well to take note.
I think the final which was the final straw for me last night was JRM. His high and snobby attitude and speech might be endearing in another place, but here, where actual jobs and economies matter it was misplaced and out of order.
I'm actually wondering if a period of Corbyn government, as disasterous as it would be in some areas wouldn't now be whats at least required, if certainly not desired.
Or basic manners, if someone was doing that in a meeting I was leading they would be asked to leave. And leave would mean leave.
Leave doesn’t mean leave, we know that!
There are instances of bad manners every single time the commons is in session - interrupting, being drunk, booing & jeering, talking over someone, falling asleep.
JRM is porn for middle class, middle aged wannabe rebels because it makes them feel like they’re at Uni again, but in general working class people quite like an eccentric posho
They don't like Jeremy Corbyn.
It is true, though, that there has always been a strong tradition of deference within the working class - hence the working class Tory vote. Alf Garnett would love JRM.
So would Del Boy
I doubt he'd vote. Would never put himself on the electoral register.
The Parliament website have taken all 21 off the Conservative total. It was 310 yesterday evening (presumably down from 311 before Lee crossed the floor) and is now at 289.
I'm wondering whether to try and work out when the largest party last had fewer MPs - the Tories are now currently a notional 36 seats short of a majority. Labour under Callaghan? The Tories at some point in the 20s or early 30s?
Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?
No. How do you get to that from my question?
That’s the pact.
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?
Exactly.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.
When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
The Parliament website have taken all 21 off the Conservative total. It was 310 yesterday evening (presumably down from 311 before Lee crossed the floor) and is now at 289.
I'm wondering whether to try and work out when the largest party last had fewer MPs - the Tories are now currently a notional 36 seats short of a majority. Labour under Callaghan? The Tories at some point in the 20s or early 30s?
Not Lab in 1970s - possibly the Tories, who were the largest party during the first Labour Government in 1924?
Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?
No. How do you get to that from my question?
That’s the pact.
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?
Exactly.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.
I see the theory, but I don't understand why the Conservatives would prefer this to campaigning locally under a "Get Brexit Done" slogan.
Bomb the seat with messages like "Your Brexit-supporting Conservative candidate Stuart Leaver promises to take us out of the EU on 31st October - even if there's No Deal".
What does allying yourself with Farage get you over that? He has no track record at Westminster elections. Previously his schtick was "I'm committed to Brexit, Theresa May isn't", but that won't work with Johnson, who has just defenestrated of his own 21 MPs for not being committed enough to Brexit.
I suspect this is why Farage is making entreaties about a pact. Cummings has shot his fox.
The one superpower Farage possesses is the ability to unite his opponents. Any pact with him will go some way towards neutralising the potency of the anti Corbyn vote among moderate Tories.
1955 - almost 18 months early - govt increased majority 1983 - a year early - govt landslide 1987 - a year early - govt landslide 2001 - a year early - govt landslide 2005 - a year early - govt majority ca 60
They weren't early. 4 years was the norm.
5 years was seen as a sign of desperation/reluctance to face the electorate.
1955 - almost 18 months early - govt increased majority 1983 - a year early - govt landslide 1987 - a year early - govt landslide 2001 - a year early - govt landslide 2005 - a year early - govt majority ca 60
Looking at Twitter, Brexit Party supporters are going to be very disappointed when Boris doesn’t pick up the phone to Farage to organise an electoral pact.
What makes you believe it hasn’t been done already?
You really think the Tories will stand aside in vast swathes of Northern seats?
No. How do you get to that from my question?
That’s the pact.
Of course it would not be. Why would the Conservatives do that?
Exactly.
What is the Brexit Party play here?
Boris wont commit to ‘no deal’ at all costs so their only option is to stand.
Their supporters on Twitter want a pact where the Tories stand aside in Northern Leave seats. It’s not going to happen.
I am not privy to any of this but it would seem to me that a certain small number of leave/labour seats would be offered. As I have said for quite some time, it would be essentially a coupon election with candidates endorsed under a common banner. The problem for the remain bloc is there is little possibility of unity as neither of the larger parties (or SNP in Scotland) would consent to losing such a large potential proportion of seats to their rivals in opposition whereas the BXP have nothing to lose electorally and plenty to gain.
Tories will stand aside in precisely zero seats.
Yeah, I mean can you imagine the attack line: "Conservatives are running scared they won't even stand in x,y and z". Smaller parties can join a "rebel alliance" and not come out of it too badly beaten in the press. Lab / Cons can't.
It looks worse the more I see of it. Last night I foolishly accepted the spin from some on here who said he was merely pressing his ear against an audio speaker, which is palpable nonsense. The man clearly intended to demonstrate beyond all doubt that a chap of his breeding can do what the hell he likes and the riff-raff would do well to take note.
I think the final which was the final straw for me last night was JRM. His high and snobby attitude and speech might be endearing in another place, but here, where actual jobs and economies matter it was misplaced and out of order.
I'm actually wondering if a period of Corbyn government, as disasterous as it would be in some areas wouldn't now be whats at least required, if certainly not desired.
Or basic manners, if someone was doing that in a meeting I was leading they would be asked to leave. And leave would mean leave.
Leave doesn’t mean leave, we know that!
There are instances of bad manners every single time the commons is in session - interrupting, being drunk, booing & jeering, talking over someone, falling asleep.
JRM is porn for middle class, middle aged wannabe rebels because it makes them feel like they’re at Uni again, but in general working class people quite like an eccentric posho
They don't like Jeremy Corbyn.
It is true, though, that there has always been a strong tradition of deference within the working class - hence the working class Tory vote. Alf Garnett would love JRM.
So would Del Boy
I doubt he'd vote. Would never put himself on the electoral register.
Agree though that it is bad news for the SNP that despite Brexit 51% of Scottish voters would still vote to stay in the UK
For a separatist party 49% is fine, it is well within the margin of error and they only need to win one referendum whereas unionists need to win every referendum.
No, for a separatist party 49% for independence excuding Don't Knows is bad news.
In Quebec in 1995 the pro independence side had a narrow lead in final polls excluding Don't Knows in their second independence referendum but No won as Don't Knows went No and No won 51% to 49%.
Quebec has never had another independence referendum again and is now firmly in Canada with devomax
This is the SNP conundrum which is made more acute by the surprising fact that "Yes" has failed to break through the 50% barrier so far. This really ought to be peak polling for them. If they lose a second IndyRef its all over for them. Sturgeon, for all the rhetoric, is genuinely torn.
It would be "do or die" as there will certainly not be a third referendum as Scotland will turn its back on the subject as the Quebecois did, and the Nats will start suffering from the effects of long-term incumbency at Holyrood. And we haven't had the Salmond trial yet.
My recollection is that there was talk of a precondition of a second IndyRef being Yes polling in the region of 60% in order to demonstrate the "settled will". We don't seem to be quite there yet.
It was commentators that said it needed 60% not the Government, they are getting more popular after 12 years not less, they have NO opposition, it is nothing like Quebec where Canada gave them powers and money and kept their promises. There is no conundrum for Sturgeon , she will be out if she does not have a referendum.
Don't think you are right about Nicola, the party will stay ultra-loyal to her whatever. There is no plausible alternative leader, for one thing. And I still think she is torn about a referendum - the whole argument about being careful about what you wish for.
I also think you may be under-estimating "referendum fatigue" up here.
The party is absolutely not loyal to Sturgeon no matter what. About 20% would declare UDI if given the chance. And that includes MPs and MSPs, not just membership.
Oh there's grumbling from some of the old Salmondites all right, but the point is they will not be "given the chance". She is completely in control. It's part of the SNP appeal.
You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
No they don't.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
When we didn’t leave in March, Johnson said it wasn’t the fault of MPs but because May was “chicken”. If parliament makes him stay in office to request an extension, the same will be said about him.
If Boris can't no deal Brexit, and the EU doesn't blink, and if he can't have an election before the 31st October — all of which look probable now — doesn't that mean that the only way Boris can keep his promise is to get the WA all-new shiny WA 2.0* through the Commons?
1955 - almost 18 months early - govt increased majority 1983 - a year early - govt landslide 1987 - a year early - govt landslide 2001 - a year early - govt landslide 2005 - a year early - govt majority ca 60
They weren't early. 4 years was the norm.
And nor were they unexpected.
They were all launched at moments of very high polling. 1983 is the classic. Previous to the Falklands Mrs Thatcher was heading for a landslide defeat, not a win.
You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
No they don't.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
No that would be an alternative proposal.
I'm saying the technology used etc would be determined during transition in my proposal. Just as the future relationship is already meant to be determined during transition. It makes sense to know what technology is needed once you know the future relationship anyway - the problem at the moment is putting the cart before the horse.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
BXP - leave europe now (without a deal) Tory - leave europe now (with a deal if europe blinks (and they won't) so without a deal) Labour - renegotiate and a second referendum Lib Dems - revoke SNP revoke
Suddenly the Labour policy everyone has hated for a year is starting to look sane... Corbyn really is a lucky general.
Corbyn's superpower is supporting policies that look crazy at the time but which everyone agrees with 10-15 years later. Trying to find the middle ground on Brexit may well be part of that pattern.
A bit like skirt length and loud sportswear, it is hard to know if Jezza is years ahead or years behind the times. My money is on the latter.
Labour may live life to regret this. Does seem to be too clever by half. We shall see.
We will indeed.
I think it's smart to refuse the election unless a 31 Oct No Deal is ruled out. It looks like National Interest (i.e. can be spun that way) and it traps Johnson in an uncomfortable place.
It also kills off the conspiracy theory that Corbyn is working covertly to engineer a Tory Hard Brexit.
You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
No they don't.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
No that would be an alternative proposal.
I'm saying the technology used etc would be determined during transition in my proposal. Just as the future relationship is already meant to be determined during transition. It makes sense to know what technology is needed once you know the future relationship anyway - the problem at the moment is putting the cart before the horse.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
So given that the technology required doesn't currently exist (it's currently Fairy unicorn dust) and the default end state (the backstop) is the bit the ERG and everyone hates how do you start any transition if the ERG won't allow transition to begin.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
Whereas the EU want the arrangements sorted in advance and they hold the whip hand here. They have far less to lose than us.
You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
No they don't.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
+1. The biggest problem with people who believe in the Brexit fantasy is that they have not got a clue how to deliver anything in practice. If we have no-deal we will be in the weakest possible place to negotiate a subsequent trade deal with Europe. And deal we will, eventually, at massive cost to business and jobs. What a bunch of fuckwits!
Labour may live life to regret this. Does seem to be too clever by half. We shall see.
We will indeed.
I think it's smart to refuse the election unless a 31 Oct No Deal is ruled out. It looks like National Interest (i.e. can be spun that way) and it traps Johnson in an uncomfortable place.
It also kills off the conspiracy theory that Corbyn is working covertly to engineer a Tory Hard Brexit.
Yeah, it's pretty simple. 'Yes, you can have a GE but contact us again after October 31st because we don't trust you, lying bastard.'
BXP - leave europe now (without a deal) Tory - leave europe now (with a deal if europe blinks (and they won't) so without a deal) Labour - renegotiate and a second referendum Lib Dems - revoke SNP revoke
Suddenly the Labour policy everyone has hated for a year is starting to look sane... Corbyn really is a lucky general.
Corbyn's superpower is supporting policies that look crazy at the time but which everyone agrees with 10-15 years later. Trying to find the middle ground on Brexit may well be part of that pattern.
A bit like skirt length and loud sportswear, it is hard to know if Jezza is years ahead or years behind the times. My money is on the latter.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
Whereas the EU want the arrangements sorted in advance and they hold the whip hand here. They have far less to lose than us.
But that does not matter does it?
No it doesn't matter. That was my point.
They want the arrangemtns sorted in advance but that is a desire not a need. If we give them a forced choice: deal with border sorted in transition, or no deal, then I think they will reluctantly go for the deal. but they'll only do that if they know we are serious.
No one cares what Isabel Oakeshott thinks. It only matters whether Farage decides he wants Brexit more than the opportunity to continue taking chunks out of the two main parties, or vice versa.
"More than 100,000 people have applied to register to vote in the past 48 hours, according to government figures.
Some 52,408 applications were submitted on Monday, followed by 64,485 on Tuesday - compared with a daily average figure of about 27,000 over the past month...."
You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
No they don't.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
No that would be an alternative proposal.
I'm saying the technology used etc would be determined during transition in my proposal. Just as the future relationship is already meant to be determined during transition. It makes sense to know what technology is needed once you know the future relationship anyway - the problem at the moment is putting the cart before the horse.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
So given that the technology required doesn't currently exist (it's currently Fairy unicorn dust) and the default end state (the backstop) is the bit the ERG and everyone hates how do you start any transition if the ERG won't allow transition to begin.
I've said once a deal is agreed it too should be a confidence issue. If the ERG refuses to agree a backstopless transition deal then they should be expelled from the party too.
Though I highly doubt it will come to that. The Brady Amendment was voted by Parliament and as far as I'm aware all but one of those who voted against the Brady Amendment are now no longer Tories. So a Tory majority absolutely should be able to pass that.
You have no idea what concrete proposals mean, do you? It takes months or years to sort out highly complex interactions. You simply cannot wait until 2 or 3 days before a meeting and go in there vaguely waving your hands in the air. That is what you do for ideas. Concrete proposals are several orders of magnitude more work.
No they don't.
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
No. That is an idea, not a proposal.
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
+1. The biggest problem with people who believe in the Brexit fantasy is that they have not got a clue how to deliver anything in practice. If we have no-deal we will be in the weakest possible place to negotiate a subsequent trade deal with Europe. And deal we will, eventually, at massive cost to business and jobs. What a bunch of fuckwits!
I know I'm not the only poster here responsible for running and managing projects. Can anything think of an example from their own experience where stating an unmovable deadline "do or die" has ever made things happen? I certainly can't, a date doesn't deliver any work and it's the refuge of people out of their depth and unable to comprehend the work and risk involved in delivering the project.
Labour may live life to regret this. Does seem to be too clever by half. We shall see.
We will indeed.
I think it's smart to refuse the election unless a 31 Oct No Deal is ruled out. It looks like National Interest (i.e. can be spun that way) and it traps Johnson in an uncomfortable place.
It also kills off the conspiracy theory that Corbyn is working covertly to engineer a Tory Hard Brexit.
I can't even begin to understand the people saying Corbyn should accept a GE which could be timed to force No Deal.
No one cares what Isabel Oakeshott thinks. It only matters whether Farage decides he wants Brexit more than the opportunity to continue taking chunks out of the two main parties, or vice versa.
Since Isabel Oakeshott is Richard Tice's partner, we can reliably assume that she is accurately reflecting thinking at the top of the Brexit party.
No one cares what Isabel Oakeshott thinks. It only matters whether Farage decides he wants Brexit more than the opportunity to continue taking chunks out of the two main parties, or vice versa.
Farage wants to take chunks off both parties - where will he get his money from otherwise...
Comments
If the Conservatives win a majority on 15 October then I'm expecting a concrete proposal along the lines of: Drop the backstop completely, agree a good faith pledge to work to keep an open border and immediately enter transition and work to agree the border during the future negotiations during the transition.
It is what May should have insisted upon had she not been so weak after losing her majority last time.
The EU won't be happy, the Irish won't be happy, but they will have an honest choice to make. Deal or no deal. Lose the backstop but keep a legal open border during transition, or lose the deal including losing the backstop. I think the EU facing a Tory majority united on that proposal would blink.
This is what I've been saying for the last year should be agreed and my predictions recently keep coming right - including predicting this would and should be made a confidence motion which I was told was impossible post-FTPA.
Bomb the seat with messages like "Your Brexit-supporting Conservative candidate Stuart Leaver promises to take us out of the EU on 31st October - even if there's No Deal".
What does allying yourself with Farage get you over that? He has no track record at Westminster elections. Previously his schtick was "I'm committed to Brexit, Theresa May isn't", but that won't work with Johnson, who has just defenestrated of his own 21 MPs for not being committed enough to Brexit.
I suspect this is why Farage is making entreaties about a pact. Cummings has shot his fox.
If Parliament forces an extension with him voting against it, it will be Parliament that was chicken.
- There have been a grand total of 3 lost confidence votes since the beginning of the 20th Century. 2 were followed by dissolution and election. 1 was followed by the Govt resigning and an alternative government being formed.
- There have been no lost confidence votes since the FTPA, so no tradition applies.
If it was really supposed to be an effective matter of confidence Johnson would either resign, or call an immediate vote of no confidence in his own government (or has he promised to resign as soon as fails to get the 2 thirds for his election motion to win?)
Also when did the PM say the vote was a "matter of confidence"? I can't find it.
Boris was the face of the Vote Leave campaign and by literally expelling Grieve and co Boris now completely owns Brexit. Farage is moot.
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
I'm wondering whether to try and work out when the largest party last had fewer MPs - the Tories are now currently a notional 36 seats short of a majority. Labour under Callaghan? The Tories at some point in the 20s or early 30s?
Boris snookered
Oh, wait...
Cummings/Boris/Farage/JRM/Gove
Corbyn isnt saying he'll do that
A proposal would be Drop the backstop and replace it with this mechanism that works like this and can be installed by this date. The technology used will be this and that and the other and will cost £xxxx to shared according to the following schedule.
The following contractors have submitted bids to do this and the management structure will be this that and the other with company xx in this role, quango yy in that role etc.
The following documents lay out the timeline, the sites of hardware, the personnel involved, the costs, etc.
And so on.....
You know - actual work. People. Costs. Timescales. Expected difficulties. Workarounds.
Not "Look - give us what we want and we shall be good chaps"
(Well done on debut header btw. It was good.)
WAall-new shiny WA 2.0* through the Commons?* Please do not closely examine WA 2.0.
I'm saying the technology used etc would be determined during transition in my proposal. Just as the future relationship is already meant to be determined during transition. It makes sense to know what technology is needed once you know the future relationship anyway - the problem at the moment is putting the cart before the horse.
The backstop DOES NOT KICK IN during transition so it is post-transition arrangements that are the problem. I am saying kick the can and do the actual work during transition.
https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1169200839443066887
But do they still want to #StopTheCoup ?
I think it's smart to refuse the election unless a 31 Oct No Deal is ruled out. It looks like National Interest (i.e. can be spun that way) and it traps Johnson in an uncomfortable place.
It also kills off the conspiracy theory that Corbyn is working covertly to engineer a Tory Hard Brexit.
But that does not matter does it?
Seen the thread now - brilliant next to TMay!!!!
Bless her.
That'll do it.
Later peeps!
They want the arrangemtns sorted in advance but that is a desire not a need. If we give them a forced choice: deal with border sorted in transition, or no deal, then I think they will reluctantly go for the deal. but they'll only do that if they know we are serious.
Boris has bluster.
Some 52,408 applications were submitted on Monday, followed by 64,485 on Tuesday - compared with a daily average figure of about 27,000 over the past month...."
He didn’t even acknowledge Corbyn’s point about the Bahamas (HMQEII head of state, former colony, Commonwealth Member).
Though I highly doubt it will come to that. The Brady Amendment was voted by Parliament and as far as I'm aware all but one of those who voted against the Brady Amendment are now no longer Tories. So a Tory majority absolutely should be able to pass that.
Boris
I want to spend 1 billion on the police
He wants to give the EU 1 billion a month