Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Elevator Pitch

1235713

Comments

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,002
    edited September 2019
    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Morning Malc - Corbyn winning Scotland is the most surreal suggestion I have heard from anyone. Obviously no knowledge of Scots politics

  • The prize is great however, if his do or die deadline passes, Boris has failed, and it doesn't matter if it's 'his fault' or not. He would have no credibility and it would give Farage just the excuse he needs to go after Boris.

    There's a bigger benefit which is that Boris's plan is based on making the soft brexit-inclined think they're going to get a deal, so he doesn't have to run against the full consequences of No Deal. But this is based on a plan for "alternative arrangements" that doesn't really exist. So it would be useful to keep him there until the Council of Ministers meeting where he's supposed to be showing everyone what's in the suitcase.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    GIN1138 said:

    Labour might not have a say. If Con + SNP + DUP go for a one line bill naming the date as 15th October its out of Jezza's hands.

    Not too sure the SNP facilitating a Conservative led general election bill prior to the 31st October is much of a winner north of the border.
  • isam said:

    Off topic, I've just finished reading "All Together Now?" By Mick Carter, an account of his walk from Liverpool to London in the Spring of 2016, retracing the 1981 People's March for Jobs. His father, a communist trade union leader, organised the first march, and the book is in part a kind of reconciliation with him (the two men were estranged when his father died after a lot of tangled and quite sad family history). But more than that it is an insightful account of the sorry state of ”left behind" England - the towns of the North and Midlands that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU just weeks later.
    As a fully signed up member of the Remoaner London Liberal Elite it was a sobering read. It touched on many of the issues raised by people like John Harris at the Guardian in his "Anywhere but Westminster" reports, for instance. You are left in no doubt that something close to abuse has been perpetrated on these communities since the mid 1970s.
    Now I don't think leaving the EU will help these places much - in fact I think on net it will leave them even worse off, which is why I am against it, especially a hard Brexit. But I do think that a radical change in how we organise and prioritise things in this country is long overdue. It actually left me, normally a centrist dad, wondering whether a dose of Corbynism may be what we need. Anyway, we can't go on as before.

    And how do you think those people left behind feel when the first time they vote and win, politicians refuse to implement the result?
    Around 5 in 6 MPs have voted for at least one of a Customs Union Brexit or Theresa Mays deal. The problem is collectively they cant agree on the flavour, not the politicians refusing to vote for it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent header. The idea of getting "it" over with, whoever gets to define what "it" is, is indeed at the core of our current political battle and the key to success for all parties involved in it.

    Agreed - that’s why not I’m not convinced labour’s Brexit pitch works

    Tory: we are standing up for you
    LibDems: bollocks to Brexit
    Labour: Sod Brexit let’s talk about schools’n’hospitals

    My gut tells me that a lot of people are angry about the way Parliament has behaved

    But I can’t tell if that’s my view coming through or an independent projection
    People are angry about MPs, but jobs schoiols and housing are more important. If the Tories go with nothing in the goody bag they will get hammered.

    looking at it with fresh eyes the LDs have now the weakest stance. The current legislative shenanigans have sort of taken the urgency off the table.
    Agreed, but I think the government knows that
    This lot do not care a jot, they pay it lip service as they try to line their own grubby pockets. These are the nastiest bunch of nasty Tories we have seen in a long time.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251

    TGOHF said:

    Chris said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Boles will be done in around five days time.

    #YesterdaysMan
    Can anyone tell me if things are likely to improve here when the schools go back?

    Gin was once a good poster.

    Now he has followed the TGOHF, Mortimer tradition of making bullish forecasts to wind up his opponents then denying them or running away when they invariably turn out to be wrong.

    Sad.
    Reeeeee - lets hound Brexiteers off PB so it can be more like my twitter feed...
    Yes indeed, Leavers are fair game for personal attacks on this site.

    It is noticable in polling that (supposedly tolerant, liberal) Remainers are particularly disdainful of Leavers, in that a substantial number would be concerned if their children married a supporter of Brexit. The same polling also confirms that that pattern is not reciprocated to anything like the same extent by Leavers.
    Yes the division in the UK may as well extend to personal relationships. I shall vet my daughter's boyfriends to ensure they are Brexiters. Fortunately my son already won't contemplate any Remainer girlfriends.

  • The prize is great however, if his do or die deadline passes, Boris has failed, and it doesn't matter if it's 'his fault' or not. He would have no credibility and it would give Farage just the excuse he needs to go after Boris.

    There's a bigger benefit which is that Boris's plan is based on making the soft brexit-inclined think they're going to get a deal, so he doesn't have to run against the full consequences of No Deal. But this is based on a plan for "alternative arrangements" that doesn't really exist. So it would be useful to keep him there until the Council of Ministers meeting where he's supposed to be showing everyone what's in the suitcase.
    This is why I think the better strategy for the opposition would have been to deny Johnson an election but also allow him to keep No Deal on the table. Then he’d have had no excuse for his own failure.
  • Corbyn is a crap leader with some rather unpleasant views, but compared to Johnson, he'd seem like Clement Attlee or Blair in his heyday. And for all his faults, he does at seem at least to be motivated by wanting to do good by the country, which really cannot be said of No10's current incumbent. So like Jonathan, I heartily welcome PM Corbyn, even though I'd probably regard his premiership as not being a good thing for the country in more normal times.

    And the only way he gets there is via an election which he just blocked. Genius.
    Boris needs to fester in his own shit for a bit before Labour goes for an election.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    Corbyn is a crap leader with some rather unpleasant views, but compared to Johnson, he'd seem like Clement Attlee or Blair in his heyday. And for all his faults, he does at seem at least to be motivated by wanting to do good by the country, which really cannot be said of No10's current incumbent. So like Jonathan, I heartily welcome PM Corbyn, even though I'd probably regard his premiership as not being a good thing for the country in more normal times.

    And the only way he gets there is via an election which he just blocked. Genius.
    Because nobody trusts Cummings and his pocket Jester not to alter the date.

    There will be a GE soon. At a time of Corbyns choosing thanks to Cummings"Genius" be patient.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited September 2019

    isam said:

    Off topic, I've just finished reading "All Together Now?" By Mick Carter, an account of his walk from Liverpool to London in the Spring of 2016, retracing the 1981 People's March for Jobs. His father, a communist trade union leader, organised the first march, and the book is in part a kind of reconciliation with him (the two men were estranged when his father died after a lot of tangled and quite sad family history). But more than that it is an insightful account of the sorry state of ”left behind" England - the towns of the North and Midlands that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU just weeks later.
    As a fully signed up member of the Remoaner London Liberal Elite it was a sobering read. It touched on many of the issues raised by people like John Harris at the Guardian in his "Anywhere but Westminster" reports, for instance. You are left in no doubt that something close to abuse has been perpetrated on these communities since the mid 1970s.
    Now I don't think leaving the EU will help these places much - in fact I think on net it will leave them even worse off, which is why I am against it, especially a hard Brexit. But I do think that a radical change in how we organise and prioritise things in this country is long overdue. It actually left me, normally a centrist dad, wondering whether a dose of Corbynism may be what we need. Anyway, we can't go on as before.

    And how do you think those people left behind feel when the first time they vote and win, politicians refuse to implement the result?
    Around 5 in 6 MPs have voted for at least one of a Customs Union Brexit or Theresa Mays deal. The problem is collectively they cant agree on the flavour, not the politicians refusing to vote for it.
    That’s why they shouldn’t have been given a vote on it. As far as leave voters are concerned, we were promised it was our decision, not politicians... we voted to leave, & we haven’t left... because of politicians
  • I'm not all that surprised by the remainer-love for Nick Soames. It is quite entertaining to see him constantly referred to in the press as Churchill's grandson, as if that's the most important thing about him. I expect that's being pushed to encourage the people to take his opinion more seriously. I wonder how many of the people impressed by that would be so impressed when reminded that he had to apologise to the people's Princess for calling her an insane fantasist when she claimed Charles had had an affair.

    Churchill's biographer (Boris) purged Churchill's grandson (Soames). That ironic symmetry captures reporters' imagination.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Morning Malc - Corbyn winning Scotland is the most surreal suggestion I have heard from anyone. Obviously no knowledge of Scots politics
    Morning G, when do you set off on holidays
  • The Tories doing the tv rounds today arent particularly convincing in their we dont want a general election spin but are forced to have one spin. They have forgotten their lines.

  • The prize is great however, if his do or die deadline passes, Boris has failed, and it doesn't matter if it's 'his fault' or not. He would have no credibility and it would give Farage just the excuse he needs to go after Boris.

    There's a bigger benefit which is that Boris's plan is based on making the soft brexit-inclined think they're going to get a deal, so he doesn't have to run against the full consequences of No Deal. But this is based on a plan for "alternative arrangements" that doesn't really exist. So it would be useful to keep him there until the Council of Ministers meeting where he's supposed to be showing everyone what's in the suitcase.
    This is why I think the better strategy for the opposition would have been to deny Johnson an election but also allow him to keep No Deal on the table. Then he’d have had no excuse for his own failure.
    1. It would have been bad for the country.
    2. If Lab had proposed this LD would have created massive capital with remainers for Lab allowing no deal. And vice versa.
    3. It would have been bad for the country.
  • malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Morning Malc - Corbyn winning Scotland is the most surreal suggestion I have heard from anyone. Obviously no knowledge of Scots politics
    BigG, I think he meant Indyref2, not winning a GE in Scotland.
  • Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    I presume that it was something to do with Corbyn's commitment that if the bill passed then he would agree to an early general election. And an appreciation that if/when Corbyn then equivocated further it would add more traction to the "chicken" tag, more than offsetting any consequences for the Conseratives if polling day was after not before 31st October.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
  • I am not sure that the voters will necessarily vote in the GE on BREXIT terms.....this was T May's big mistake, she thought in 2017 that BREXIT was her strength but the opposition and electorate simply moved onto other issues (dementia tax, public sector pay, policing etc)

    Shaking the magic money tree does not alter the fact that the Tories own "austerity" and BJ's insistence that he can get BREXIT done is simply trying to re-run the 2017 campaign - a failure of many strategists is to fight the last war and I reckon this is a distinct possibility - Labour may also fall into the same trap
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2019
    Boris to make a statement today saying the people must have their say in a general election.

    Even if the anti No Deal Bill passes and then the FTPA passes for a general election Boris still controls the election date and could still set it for October 15th ie so he can repeal the anti No Deal Bill if he gets a majority (while still aiming for a Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop Deal at the 17th October EU summit)
  • As usual, Cyclefree nails it
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    Off topic, I've just finished reading "All Together Now?" By Mick Carter, an account of his walk from Liverpool to London in the Spring of 2016, retracing the 1981 People's March for Jobs. His father, a communist trade union leader, organised the first march, and the book is in part a kind of reconciliation with him (the two men were estranged when his father died after a lot of tangled and quite sad family history). But more than that it is an insightful account of the sorry state of ”left behind" England - the towns of the North and Midlands that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU just weeks later.
    As a fully signed up member of the Remoaner London Liberal Elite it was a sobering read. It touched on many of the issues raised by people like John Harris at the Guardian in his "Anywhere but Westminster" reports, for instance. You are left in no doubt that something close to abuse has been perpetrated on these communities since the mid 1970s.
    Now I don't think leaving the EU will help these places much - in fact I think on net it will leave them even worse off, which is why I am against it, especially a hard Brexit. But I do think that a radical change in how we organise and prioritise things in this country is long overdue. It actually left me, normally a centrist dad, wondering whether a dose of Corbynism may be what we need. Anyway, we can't go on as before.

    Bang. Expressing my view better than I could.

    My 'softhead' description for the neglected people in neglected places who get conned by the sort of identity populism that Johnson and Farage are hawking is unfair in the extreme.

    And, yes, a serious dose of redistribution in their favour is IMO the correct political and policy response to Brexit. And a bit of Brexit too, of course, but done prudently.

    Not going to happen, I fear.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    HYUFD said:

    Boris to make a statement today saying the people must have their say in a general election.

    Even if the anti No Deal Bill passes and then the FTPA passes for a general election Boris still controls the election date and could still set it for October 15th ie so he can repeal the anti No Deal Bill if he gets a majority

    POBJWAS
  • Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    As I have been saying, the PM wants the extension because he knows no deal is terrible. He did not want to stop the extension so called off the filibuster.

    If he wanted no deal the prorogation would have been unannouced in mid October to mid November, not timed specifically to allow parliament to block no deal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2019


    The prize is great however, if his do or die deadline passes, Boris has failed, and it doesn't matter if it's 'his fault' or not. He would have no credibility and it would give Farage just the excuse he needs to go after Boris.

    There's a bigger benefit which is that Boris's plan is based on making the soft brexit-inclined think they're going to get a deal, so he doesn't have to run against the full consequences of No Deal. But this is based on a plan for "alternative arrangements" that doesn't really exist. So it would be useful to keep him there until the Council of Ministers meeting where he's supposed to be showing everyone what's in the suitcase.
    This is why I think the better strategy for the opposition would have been to deny Johnson an election but also allow him to keep No Deal on the table. Then he’d have had no excuse for his own failure.
    If Labour voted to allow No Deal the LDs and SNP would of course have swept through Labour Remain seats
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    HYUFD said:

    Boris to make a statement today saying the people must have their say in a general election.

    Even if the anti No Deal Bill passes and then the FTPA passes for a general election Boris still controls the election date and could still set it for October 15th ie so he can repeal the anti No Deal Bill if he gets a majority

    Kindly explain how Boris gets his two-thirds majority for a general election under the FTPA having so spectacularly failed last night?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    edited September 2019
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent header. The idea of getting "it" over with, whoever gets to define what "it" is, is indeed at the core of our current political battle and the key to success for all parties involved in it.

    Agreed - that’s why not I’m not convinced labour’s Brexit pitch works

    Tory: we are standing up for you
    LibDems: bollocks to Brexit
    Labour: Sod Brexit let’s talk about schools’n’hospitals

    My gut tells me that a lot of people are angry about the way Parliament has behaved

    But I can’t tell if that’s my view coming through or an independent projection
    People are angry about MPs, but jobs schoiols and housing are more important. If the Tories go with nothing in the goody bag they will get hammered.

    looking at it with fresh eyes the LDs have now the weakest stance. The current legislative shenanigans have sort of taken the urgency off the table.
    Agreed, but I think the government knows that
    This lot do not care a jot, they pay it lip service as they try to line their own grubby pockets. These are the nastiest bunch of nasty Tories we have seen in a long time.
    You are posting plenty today - fired up by Tories? Or was it 3 Weetabix for brekkie?

    Or is that Shredded Wheat?

    :D
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.
    I don't think it would have done, there were about a hundred amendments at an average of around 25 minutes each to get through on the program motion.
    I'm sure Lord True had even more for the actual bill.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Sorry, by win Scotland I meant the referendum, not the parliamentary seats.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    isam said:

    Off topic, I've just finished reading "All Together Now?" By Mick Carter, an account of his walk from Liverpool to London in the Spring of 2016, retracing the 1981 People's March for Jobs. His father, a communist trade union leader, organised the first march, and the book is in part a kind of reconciliation with him (the two men were estranged when his father died after a lot of tangled and quite sad family history). But more than that it is an insightful account of the sorry state of ”left behind" England - the towns of the North and Midlands that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU just weeks later.
    As a fully signed up member of the Remoaner London Liberal Elite it was a sobering read. It touched on many of the issues raised by people like John Harris at the Guardian in his "Anywhere but Westminster" reports, for instance. You are left in no doubt that something close to abuse has been perpetrated on these communities since the mid 1970s.
    Now I don't think leaving the EU will help these places much - in fact I think on net it will leave them even worse off, which is why I am against it, especially a hard Brexit. But I do think that a radical change in how we organise and prioritise things in this country is long overdue. It actually left me, normally a centrist dad, wondering whether a dose of Corbynism may be what we need. Anyway, we can't go on as before.

    And how do you think those people left behind feel when the first time they vote and win, politicians refuse to implement the result?
    Not happy but they wouldn't be regardless of the result. Things need to be fixed but rather than resolving issues all Boris did was throw money at teachers and the police (in the latter case ready for riots as they didn't add enough money to fix the rest of the justice system).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    I expect if Corbyn becomes PM then Lord True will be ... extremely thorough in examining plenty of his legislation.
  • Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    As I have been saying, the PM wants the extension because he knows no deal is terrible. He did not want to stop the extension so called off the filibuster.

    If he wanted no deal the prorogation would have been unannouced in mid October to mid November, not timed specifically to allow parliament to block no deal.
    I think a mid October to mid November proroguation would have been deemed illegal. And Parliament could still have done this, this week.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Not sure if this got answered yesterday but does Bercows ruling that this bill does not infringe on the royal prerogative not mean that Boris can simply refuse to agree using the royal prerogative? If it does not infringe it cannot control?
    The PM agrees per the bill but then refuses to sign in his capacity of being the agent of HMQs full powers of foreign treaty signing?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2019

    Corbyn is a crap leader with some rather unpleasant views, but compared to Johnson, he'd seem like Clement Attlee or Blair in his heyday. And for all his faults, he does at seem at least to be motivated by wanting to do good by the country, which really cannot be said of No10's current incumbent. So like Jonathan, I heartily welcome PM Corbyn, even though I'd probably regard his premiership as not being a good thing for the country in more normal times.

    What utter crap.

    Corbyn has done nothing but put his own interests ahead of the country's ever since he voted 3 times against the Withdrawal Agreement despite agreeing with most of it purely to divide the Tories (even Boris voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3).

  • eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    I presume that it was something to do with Corbyn's commitment that if the bill passed then he would agree to an early general election. And an appreciation that if/when Corbyn then equivocated further it would add more traction to the "chicken" tag, more than offsetting any consequences for the Conseratives if polling day was after not before 31st October.

    I would like to think that the reason was it dawned on people that having a bunch of unelected Tory peers on wobbly legs staying up all night, every night, trying to 'talk out' a bill approved by the Commons would be poor optics in the extreme.

    But the truth, I sense, is what you say here.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    As a Brexiteer and speaking on behalf of all 4 Leavers in Chez BJO. These are my thoughts on BREXIT

    Literally nobody voted for No Deal, let alone 17.4million. We'll get nowhere until fellow Brexiters take their heads out of their arses and accept this obvious fact.

    A few will accept No Deal as an outcome but the No No Dealers are by far and away in the majority and there IS NO MANDATE FOR NO DEAL.


    Jeez It's like trying to take a lollipop off a child getting these people with their heads in their arse to see the reality of where we are now.

    Oh and good morning fellow PBers

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiQE9MIkpweG7ql4RufBWTAbfwuTciRWE2kz_6o4aFUexX7N-m

  • This is why I think the better strategy for the opposition would have been to deny Johnson an election but also allow him to keep No Deal on the table. Then he’d have had no excuse for his own failure.

    That's true, OTOH then they wouldn't have been able to give Boris the opportunity to expel his majority from his party.
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.
    I don't think it would have done, there were about a hundred amendments at an average of around 25 minutes each to get through on the program motion.
    I'm sure Lord True had even more for the actual bill.
    I’ve been thinking this myself. Why would the government have stopped the filibuster? Moreover, since the programme motion was withdrawn there’s nothing to stop them filibustering the main bill.

    It seems to me they must have cut some sort of deal to get an election on their terms, otherwise why call off the filibuster? Unless the government are actually happy with the idea of an election after boris breaks the ‘do or die’ pledge?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    kinabalu said:

    I presume that it was something to do with Corbyn's commitment that if the bill passed then he would agree to an early general election. And an appreciation that if/when Corbyn then equivocated further it would add more traction to the "chicken" tag, more than offsetting any consequences for the Conseratives if polling day was after not before 31st October.

    I would like to think that the reason was it dawned on people that having a bunch of unelected Tory peers on wobbly legs staying up all night, every night, trying to 'talk out' a bill approved by the Commons would be poor optics in the extreme.

    But the truth, I sense, is what you say here.
    When Labour finally grants Boris an election all the claims that Corbyn stopped one dis abates immediately. It really isn't a great argument.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630

    148grss said:




    The last 3 years have dangerously discredited the idea of representative democracy by trashing respect for those representatives.

    52% voted leave, only about 25% of our elected representatives supported that at the time, and they have proven that most of them as representatives could not be trusted to implement that decision of the people they purport to represent. The question that people are asking is what were they doing when they elected those representatives. There is a lot of anger at that, and even more that those same representatives are denying the people a chance to change the people whom they choose to represent them.

    Welcome to the 148grss typical "why referenda on huge constitutional changes should have 2/3rd majorities" note:

    Topic today: why politicians don't want to enact massive constitutional change on a slim majority of the vote.

    1) Because the coalition that made up the 52% for Brexit do not have a shared vision of Brexit and therefore there will be no political reward for following through with the result.

    2) Because the laws of unintended consequences means there will always be downsides to massive constitutional change, sometimes massive downsides (I'm looking at you FTPA), and with only 52% of the electorate in favour of something that is not a clear indication that even the majority of people are willing for massive pain for this change. Remember, the Leave vote one with a coalition of people who wanted Norway Brexit all the way to No Deal (although almost nobody discussed No Deal as a serious option during the campaign). To assume all 52% will now be happy with the No Deal Brexit that looks likely is political suicide for most politicians.

    3) With a 66% mandate for a huge change those enacting the change can turn to the remaining 33% and say, yes really did lose, get over it, and they will. On a 52/48 mandate, with no clear vision of what the 52% actually wanted, it is easy for the 48% to convince themselves they shouldn't accept the result and try and get it overturned.
    Show me where Lisbon was approved by 66% and let's talk.
    I mean, at that point the issue wasn't solved by referendum, rather by the House, which historically is where sovereignty lies. My point is on referenda specifically as tools of constitutional change, not representative democracy.
  • eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    It could be the older Lordships fell asleep after a couple of bottles of sherry and the younger ones dealt with the backlog :D:D
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,


    "The Brexit base is full of rich pensioners."

    Have you ever been to Boston?

    The high Remain areas like Cambridge, Brighton, and Islington are full of the struggling masses?

    So what? I didn’t say that there wasn’t working class people who voted for Brexit.

    It’s no coincidence that the richest people on here are all Brexiteers is it?
    Southam? Alastair Meeks? JackW???

    It will be news to them that they are Brexiteers.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    edited September 2019

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    As I have been saying, the PM wants the extension because he knows no deal is terrible. He did not want to stop the extension so called off the filibuster.

    If he wanted no deal the prorogation would have been unannouced in mid October to mid November, not timed specifically to allow parliament to block no deal.
    I think a mid October to mid November proroguation would have been deemed illegal. And Parliament could still have done this, this week.
    If he had not done the half hearted prorogation, said that he was making progress with the EU, sat down and chatted nicely with Hammond et al, parliament wouldnt have had the numbers til mid October when he could have prorogued.

    Instead he relentlessly and publicly provoked the tory remain rebels to ensure the rebellion was big. Why would he do that unless he wanted it to happen as it has?

    Why prorogue at dates that have zero benefit for him when he know it is highly controversial? For the controversy and to provoke the tory rebels to vote with the opposition is the only possible answer.
  • eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
    Precisely! And the idea that Parliamentarians running chicken away from the electorate will see leavers blaming Boris and back Farage instead is just insane.

    We leavers aren't illiterate morons you know! We can see what Parliament is doing!
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630
    Byronic said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,


    "The Brexit base is full of rich pensioners."

    Have you ever been to Boston?

    The high Remain areas like Cambridge, Brighton, and Islington are full of the struggling masses?

    So what? I didn’t say that there wasn’t working class people who voted for Brexit.

    It’s no coincidence that the richest people on here are all Brexiteers is it?
    Southam? Alastair Meeks? JackW???

    It will be news to them that they are Brexiteers.
    Have you considered that in places like Cambridge, Brighton and Islington there are a lot of struggling masses, and they are more likely not to have voted Leave?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Hmm, I'm starting to worry about a pre-Oct 31 election. This "Surrender Bill" bollocks might actually work - and people might believe the fantasy that "No Deal" means we just walk away, don't pay anything to the EU, and then everything else carries on as normal and we never have to hear the word "Brexit" again.

    Corbyn needs to push the election beyond October - if nothing else, to prove that an extension, while maybe annoying, doesn't mean we have to hand over Dover to the French or whatever.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    I presume that it was something to do with Corbyn's commitment that if the bill passed then he would agree to an early general election. And an appreciation that if/when Corbyn then equivocated further it would add more traction to the "chicken" tag, more than offsetting any consequences for the Conseratives if polling day was after not before 31st October.

    I would like to think that the reason was it dawned on people that having a bunch of unelected Tory peers on wobbly legs staying up all night, every night, trying to 'talk out' a bill approved by the Commons would be poor optics in the extreme.

    But the truth, I sense, is what you say here.
    When Labour finally grants Boris an election all the claims that Corbyn stopped one dis abates immediately. It really isn't a great argument.
    Corbyn may not like the answer these little people give him when he deigns to permit them a say. Revolutionaries are seldom as radical as the people they try and rouse
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Morning Malc - Corbyn winning Scotland is the most surreal suggestion I have heard from anyone. Obviously no knowledge of Scots politics
    Morning G, when do you set off on holidays
    Saturday 14th September and back on the 8th October so leave all the useless mps to continue fighting each other while we exit the bubble
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    There is indeed some risk that if Labour hold off on an election until post 31st it becomes seen as playing games (I don't think anyone is actually going to think its because he is scared, it's very clear why they want to postpone, make Boris squirm).

    The prize is great however, if his do or die deadline passes, Boris has failed, and it doesn't matter if it's 'his fault' or not. He would have no credibility and it would give Farage just the excuse he needs to go after Boris.

    The whole frit nonsense is simply right-wing press trying to push a narrative. Given that most Mail readers are not floating voters who were wavering about going for Corbyn, it's irrelevant. If the Sun hadn't dressed Corbyn up as a chicken they would have called him a jihadi loving IRA supporting commie anyway, so it's all priced in.

    Recent polling showed that it is Remain and Labour voters who were most up for an election, those people are not one's who will be put off by Corbyn's game playing.

    Even if tories and no dealers now want an election, these voters were never voting Labour anyway, obviously. So from Labour's point of view, bluntly, who cares. The next election will be decided on intra coalition shifts (how BXP to Tory and LD/Lab votes divide up, rather than straight swaps from tory to lab).

    On the latest Yougov only 1% of 2017 Tory voters are voting Labour and more 2017 Labour voters, 8%, are voting Brexit Party than the 6% who are voting Tory so don't think the Brexit Party will not take Labour Leave votes too while the LDs still take Labour Remainers
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Off topic, I've just finished reading "All Together Now?" By Mick Carter, an account of his walk from Liverpool to London in the Spring of 2016, retracing the 1981 People's March for Jobs. His father, a communist trade union leader, organised the first march, and the book is in part a kind of reconciliation with him (the two men were estranged when his father died after a lot of tangled and quite sad family history). But more than that it is an insightful account of the sorry state of ”left behind" England - the towns of the North and Midlands that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU just weeks later.
    As a fully signed up member of the Remoaner London Liberal Elite it was a sobering read. It touched on many of the issues raised by people like John Harris at the Guardian in his "Anywhere but Westminster" reports, for instance. You are left in no doubt that something close to abuse has been perpetrated on these communities since the mid 1970s.
    Now I don't think leaving the EU will help these places much - in fact I think on net it will leave them even worse off, which is why I am against it, especially a hard Brexit. But I do think that a radical change in how we organise and prioritise things in this country is long overdue. It actually left me, normally a centrist dad, wondering whether a dose of Corbynism may be what we need. Anyway, we can't go on as before.

    Excellent post.
    Yep. As a young consultant in the early 2000s working with the public sector, I spent much of my time in these deprived hinterlands.

    Convinced me that the U.K. was deeply imbalanced and still leaves me incensed at the complete ignorance shown by both parties, and the media, in the Westminster bubble.

    Brexit is a conspiracy against such places.
    How ?

    These places as you noted have been ignored for the best part of two decades. They have had the full heap of demonisation dumped on them - racists, lazy, thick, undeserving - and have been told to be grateful for their handouts and STFU.

    Brexit has been the only thing which has kicked the system in the nuts and got politicians attention. It is no guarantee of change but at peast presents the opportunity.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Not sure if this got answered yesterday but does Bercows ruling that this bill does not infringe on the royal prerogative not mean that Boris can simply refuse to agree using the royal prerogative? If it does not infringe it cannot control?
    The PM agrees per the bill but then refuses to sign in his capacity of being the agent of HMQs full powers of foreign treaty signing?

    The bill is not a treaty. No prerogative powers are in play.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    JackW said:

    Not sure if this got answered yesterday but does Bercows ruling that this bill does not infringe on the royal prerogative not mean that Boris can simply refuse to agree using the royal prerogative? If it does not infringe it cannot control?
    The PM agrees per the bill but then refuses to sign in his capacity of being the agent of HMQs full powers of foreign treaty signing?

    The bill is not a treaty. No prerogative powers are in play.
    Article 50 is a treaty, extending it requires the exercise of hmqs powers
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199

    I would suggest that would be an illegal act

    If Boris does not undertake the law it is for our Parliamrnt and our Courts to hold him to account, not the EU
    the EU would not be holding Johnson to account, more like saying they will temporarily allow an extension (if all 27 agree!) until the UK sorts out what the position is. doesn't that make more sense than letting the UK crash out and finding out too late that the UK parliament/courts decide that it was illegal?

    TGOHF said:

    Chris said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Boles will be done in around five days time.

    #YesterdaysMan
    Can anyone tell me if things are likely to improve here when the schools go back?

    Gin was once a good poster.

    Now he has followed the TGOHF, Mortimer tradition of making bullish forecasts to wind up his opponents then denying them or running away when they invariably turn out to be wrong.

    Sad.
    Reeeeee - lets hound Brexiteers off PB so it can be more like my twitter feed...
    Yes indeed, Leavers are fair game for personal attacks on this site.

    It is noticable in polling that (supposedly tolerant, liberal) Remainers are particularly disdainful of Leavers, in that a substantial number would be concerned if their children married a supporter of Brexit. The same polling also confirms that that pattern is not reciprocated to anything like the same extent by Leavers.
    Isn't it more likely that's because the typical leaver is portrayed as being aged 70+, and lots of people don't like the idea of their children marrying people much older than them?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
    Precisely! And the idea that Parliamentarians running chicken away from the electorate will see leavers blaming Boris and back Farage instead is just insane.

    We leavers aren't illiterate morons you know! We can see what Parliament is doing!
    Yes and most read mail express sun and believe every word of it
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    Byronic said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Gallowgate,


    "The Brexit base is full of rich pensioners."

    Have you ever been to Boston?

    The high Remain areas like Cambridge, Brighton, and Islington are full of the struggling masses?

    So what? I didn’t say that there wasn’t working class people who voted for Brexit.

    It’s no coincidence that the richest people on here are all Brexiteers is it?
    Southam? Alastair Meeks? JackW???

    It will be news to them that they are Brexiteers.
    Insofar as one can assess the wealth of PBers, the two richest that I am aware of are 1) the Goldman Sachs employee and 2) the successful novelist and (possible) screenwriter, both of whom are Leavers. Which Remainer is richer than they?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    As with everything he does it is an act. He has no nerve for delivering no deal, hence the election and extension.

    The act is reckless, shameful to loyal tory ex colleagues, disingenuous and dangerous, but he will not actually no deal.

    That has been my reading of him. Indeed I have laid 2019 No Deal quite heavily for mainly that reason.

    Not quite so sure now.
  • eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
    If Boris had blocked it he would totally own "No Deal", no ifs, no buts.

    I think he lacks the spine for that.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,176
    Is there any possibility of Boris just sending the template letter now, getting whatever extension the EU deigns to allow us, and then Corbyn has to agree to a pre 31/10 GE where Boris's pitch will be "give me a majority to repeal this silly legislative bind and take us out on the 31st as promised"? In the meantime no deal preps and attempts at backstop negotiations continue?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Hmq should walk from Buck house to the commons, burst in and tell to get the f out of her palace
    Make for great TV ;)
  • kinabalu said:

    As with everything he does it is an act. He has no nerve for delivering no deal, hence the election and extension.

    The act is reckless, shameful to loyal tory ex colleagues, disingenuous and dangerous, but he will not actually no deal.

    That has been my reading of him. Indeed I have laid 2019 No Deal quite heavily for mainly that reason.

    Not quite so sure now.
    I had not been sure until recently! The prorogation dates confirmed it for me.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
    If Boris had blocked it he would totally own "No Deal", no ifs, no buts.

    I think he lacks the spine for that.
    "Weak and Wobbly 2"
  • kinabalu said:

    Off topic, I've just finished reading "All Together Now?" By Mick Carter, an account of his walk from Liverpool to London in the Spring of 2016, retracing the 1981 People's March for Jobs. His father, a communist trade union leader, organised the first march, and the book is in part a kind of reconciliation with him (the two men were estranged when his father died after a lot of tangled and quite sad family history). But more than that it is an insightful account of the sorry state of ”left behind" England - the towns of the North and Midlands that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU just weeks later.
    As a fully signed up member of the Remoaner London Liberal Elite it was a sobering read. It touched on many of the issues raised by people like John Harris at the Guardian in his "Anywhere but Westminster" reports, for instance. You are left in no doubt that something close to abuse has been perpetrated on these communities since the mid 1970s.
    Now I don't think leaving the EU will help these places much - in fact I think on net it will leave them even worse off, which is why I am against it, especially a hard Brexit. But I do think that a radical change in how we organise and prioritise things in this country is long overdue. It actually left me, normally a centrist dad, wondering whether a dose of Corbynism may be what we need. Anyway, we can't go on as before.

    Bang. Expressing my view better than I could.

    My 'softhead' description for the neglected people in neglected places who get conned by the sort of identity populism that Johnson and Farage are hawking is unfair in the extreme.

    And, yes, a serious dose of redistribution in their favour is IMO the correct political and policy response to Brexit. And a bit of Brexit too, of course, but done prudently.

    Not going to happen, I fear.
    Surely the inability to deflect austerity, de-centralise our economy, exert control over non EU immigration, make their own rules for benefits for EU migrants and block EU membership for Turkey with the resultant influx of 77m Turks to old Blighty was entirely imposed on UK governments by the EU? Now those shackles are being thrown off, things are bound to get better in the far away places of which Britain Trump knows little.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    As a Brexiteer and speaking on behalf of all 4 Leavers in Chez BJO. These are my thoughts on BREXIT

    Literally nobody voted for No Deal, let alone 17.4million. We'll get nowhere until fellow Brexiters take their heads out of their arses and accept this obvious fact.

    A few will accept No Deal as an outcome but the No No Dealers are by far and away in the majority and there IS NO MANDATE FOR NO DEAL.


    Jeez It's like trying to take a lollipop off a child getting these people with their heads in their arse to see the reality of where we are now.

    Oh and good morning fellow PBers

    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiQE9MIkpweG7ql4RufBWTAbfwuTciRWE2kz_6o4aFUexX7N-m

    Most voters opposed further extension with Survation last weekend
  • Is there any possibility of Boris just sending the template letter now, getting whatever extension the EU deigns to allow us, and then Corbyn has to agree to a pre 31/10 GE where Boris's pitch will be "give me a majority to repeal this silly legislative bind and take us out on the 31st as promised"? In the meantime no deal preps and attempts at backstop negotiations continue?

    No there is nothing to stop a UK govt with a majority leaving before the extension end date, or even before it has begun, if it can get parliament to agree.
  • 148grss said:

    148grss said:




    The last 3 years have dangerously discredited the idea of representative democracy by trashing respect for those representatives.

    52% voted leave, only about 25% of our elected representatives supported that at the time, and they have proven that most of them as representatives could not be trusted to implement that decision of the people they purport to represent. The question that people are asking is what were they doing when they elected those representatives. There is a lot of anger at that, and even more that those same representatives are denying the people a chance to change the people whom they choose to represent them.

    Welcome to the 148grss typical "why referenda on huge constitutional changes should have 2/3rd majorities" note:

    Topic today: why politicians don't want to enact massive constitutional change on a slim majority of the vote.

    1) Because the coalition that made up the 52% for Brexit do not have a shared vision of Brexit and therefore there will be no political reward for following through with the result.

    2) Because the laws of unintended consequences means there will always be downsides to massive constitutional change, sometimes massive downsides (I'm looking at you FTPA), and with only 52% of the electorate in favour of something that is not a clear indication that even the majority of people are willing for massive pain for this change. Remember, the Leave vote one with a coalition of people who wanted Norway Brexit all the way to No Deal (although almost nobody discussed No Deal as a serious option during the campaign). To assume all 52% will now be happy with the No Deal Brexit that looks likely is political suicide for most politicians.

    3) With a 66% mandate for a huge change those enacting the change can turn to the remaining 33% and say, yes really did lose, get over it, and they will. On a 52/48 mandate, with no clear vision of what the 52% actually wanted, it is easy for the 48% to convince themselves they shouldn't accept the result and try and get it overturned.
    Show me where Lisbon was approved by 66% and let's talk.
    I mean, at that point the issue wasn't solved by referendum, rather by the House, which historically is where sovereignty lies. My point is on referenda specifically as tools of constitutional change, not representative democracy.
    Which is why your point is total self-serving bollocks.

    If a simple majority in Parliament can approve without a referendum then it can do so by a simple majority referendum if that is what it chooses.

    If a supermajority referendum is required it should have been required consistently.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The spin on the filibuster appears to be they can't run a People v Parliament election of they are playing Parliamentary games in the "unelected" Lords
  • 148grss said:

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Sorry, by win Scotland I meant the referendum, not the parliamentary seats.
    Still not sure what you mean about Corbyn winning in Scotland but on Corbyn agreeing a Ref 2 he has said quite categorically he will not support it for at least for some years to come
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Is there any possibility of Boris just sending the template letter now, getting whatever extension the EU deigns to allow us, and then Corbyn has to agree to a pre 31/10 GE where Boris's pitch will be "give me a majority to repeal this silly legislative bind and take us out on the 31st as promised"? In the meantime no deal preps and attempts at backstop negotiations continue?

    They wont make the offer till they meet in October to agree it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boris to make a statement today saying the people must have their say in a general election.

    Even if the anti No Deal Bill passes and then the FTPA passes for a general election Boris still controls the election date and could still set it for October 15th ie so he can repeal the anti No Deal Bill if he gets a majority

    Kindly explain how Boris gets his two-thirds majority for a general election under the FTPA having so spectacularly failed last night?
    Corbyn has said he will vote for a general election once the anti No Deal Bill passes.

    Once the FTPA passes (or a simple majority vote to disapply the FTPA in this case and call a general election anyway) Boris can set the GE date before October 31st using the royal prerogative.


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Morning Malc - Corbyn winning Scotland is the most surreal suggestion I have heard from anyone. Obviously no knowledge of Scots politics
    BigG, I think he meant Indyref2, not winning a GE in Scotland.
    Still with Labour on 9% in Scotland , SNP support rising etc , what would suggest Corbyn would influence anything in Scotland never mind Indyref2
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited September 2019
    kamski said:

    I would suggest that would be an illegal act

    If Boris does not undertake the law it is for our Parliamrnt and our Courts to hold him to account, not the EU
    the EU would not be holding Johnson to account, more like saying they will temporarily allow an extension (if all 27 agree!) until the UK sorts out what the position is. doesn't that make more sense than letting the UK crash out and finding out too late that the UK parliament/courts decide that it was illegal?

    TGOHF said:

    Chris said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Boles will be done in around five days time.

    #YesterdaysMan
    Can anyone tell me if things are likely to improve here when the schools go back?

    Gin was once a good poster.

    Now he has followed the TGOHF, Mortimer tradition of making bullish forecasts to wind up his opponents then denying them or running away when they invariably turn out to be wrong.

    Sad.
    Reeeeee - lets hound Brexiteers off PB so it can be more like my twitter feed...
    Yes indeed, Leavers are fair game for personal attacks on this site.

    It is noticable in polling that (supposedly tolerant, liberal) Remainers are particularly disdainful of Leavers, in that a substantial number would be concerned if their children married a supporter of Brexit. The same polling also confirms that that pattern is not reciprocated to anything like the same extent by Leavers.
    Isn't it more likely that's because the typical leaver is portrayed as being aged 70+, and lots of people don't like the idea of their children marrying people much older than them?
    No it’s because Remain voters believe they are morally superior to those who voted Leave
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
    Precisely! And the idea that Parliamentarians running chicken away from the electorate will see leavers blaming Boris and back Farage instead is just insane.

    We leavers aren't illiterate morons you know! We can see what Parliament is doing!
    You are aware that on Thursday / Friday next week after Parliament is prorogued Labour will start asking when can Parliament be recalled to call an election.

    And the answer that will come back is on October 22nd after Boris has failed to pass his Queen's Speech.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    Mr. Oracle, Leeds was very marginally in favour of Remain (about 50.2%).

    Not visiting it if he's touring Yorkshire would stand out like a sore thumb. It's the biggest city in the county and fourth biggest in the country.

    Rubbish. It’s only the ‘fourth biggest city in the country’ on its official boundaries, which take in loads of outlying areas. Meaningless. London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester are all bigger in terms of real urban area.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    They spoon feed propaganda on their northern regional subsidiary.
  • Why do politicians tend to say frit instead of afraid? I dont think I have ever heard anyone other than a politician use the word, but politicians seem to prefer it to afraid/scared/frightened.
  • Read a very interesting suggestion earlier today about how Boris can escape the box his opponents think they have him trapped in.

    He should invoke the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. He can do it unilaterally as a Minister of the Crown. He can then suspend the FTPA and call an election. He then cancels the CCA.

    The CCA is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created but since Blair was stupid enough to create it Boris should make use of it.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 3,630

    148grss said:

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Sorry, by win Scotland I meant the referendum, not the parliamentary seats.
    Still not sure what you mean about Corbyn winning in Scotland but on Corbyn agreeing a Ref 2 he has said quite categorically he will not support it for at least for some years to come
    I mean I think Scotland will be in a much more likely place to stay in the union with a Labour led government than a Tory one. Corbyn doesn't have to be popular as an individual, but Labour's policies will be more popular north of the border. Sure, many independent minded people will still want independence, but the argument that "Scotland is shackled to a Tory government only the English want" is less of an immediate argument when there is no Tory government. I also don't think many Scottish Conservatives would be willing to split up the union just to escape Corbyn.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
    Precisely! And the idea that Parliamentarians running chicken away from the electorate will see leavers blaming Boris and back Farage instead is just insane.

    We leavers aren't illiterate morons you know! We can see what Parliament is doing!
    You are aware that on Thursday / Friday next week after Parliament is prorogued Labour will start asking when can Parliament be recalled to call an election.

    And the answer that will come back is on October 22nd after Boris has failed to pass his Queen's Speech.
    That is a good point. Tories will get a week of saying Labour are scared to call an election. Labour will get five weeks of saying they are desperate for an election but proroguing has stopped them.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Morning Malc - Corbyn winning Scotland is the most surreal suggestion I have heard from anyone. Obviously no knowledge of Scots politics
    BigG, I think he meant Indyref2, not winning a GE in Scotland.
    Still with Labour on 9% in Scotland , SNP support rising etc , what would suggest Corbyn would influence anything in Scotland never mind Indyref2
    Scottish labour make David McLetchies Scottish tories of 1999 look like titans
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Why do politicians tend to say frit instead of afraid? I dont think I have ever heard anyone other than a politician use the word, but politicians seem to prefer it to afraid/scared/frightened.

    Thatcher reference, isn't it?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    potentially interesting stuff in court right now.

    There is a suggestion some of the documents might not be legit, and leaked originals might be available
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,394

    The Saj had a bad day yesterday. Not only was the whole announcement naked electioneering, there is no guarantee he will be reappointed Chancellor after the election; tellingly, the Prime Minister even had to be stopped from leaving the Chamber. And that's besides the underwhelming delivery. At least it was a good day to bury what ought to have been good news.

    His voice lacks authority. He sounds like a nervous youth or student.

    Why he is FAV to be Next Con Leader is a mystery to me.

    Javid 10/1
    Mordaunt 16/1
    Rees-Mogg 16/1
    Cleverley 20/1
    Gove 20/1
    Hunt 20/1
    Raab 20/1
    Patel 25/1
    Rudd 25/1
    Stewart 25/1

    What an absolute shower!

    Lacks authority
    Who?
    Gift to SNP
    Who?
    Slimebag
    Personality vacuum
    Evil
    Thick as shit
    ERG despise her
    Is he even still a Tory?

    On past form, the evil one will win it.
    As ever, a pithy summary from Stuart.
    If Boris crashes and burns and loses power I think Penny Mordaunt could do very well in a leadership election . Almost uniquely pro-Brexit but distanced from the Boris regime & so will represent a fresh start while being onside with the party membership on the key issue.
  • isam said:

    kamski said:

    I would suggest that would be an illegal act

    If Boris does not undertake the law it is for our Parliamrnt and our Courts to hold him to account, not the EU
    the EU would not be holding Johnson to account, more like saying they will temporarily allow an extension (if all 27 agree!) until the UK sorts out what the position is. doesn't that make more sense than letting the UK crash out and finding out too late that the UK parliament/courts decide that it was illegal?

    TGOHF said:

    Chris said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Boles will be done in around five days time.

    #YesterdaysMan
    Can anyone tell me if things are likely to improve here when the schools go back?

    Gin was once a good poster.

    Now he has followed the TGOHF, Mortimer tradition of making bullish forecasts to wind up his opponents then denying them or running away when they invariably turn out to be wrong.

    Sad.
    Reeeeee - lets hound Brexiteers off PB so it can be more like my twitter feed...
    Yes indeed, Leavers are fair game for personal attacks on this site.

    It is noticable in polling that (supposedly tolerant, liberal) Remainers are particularly disdainful of Leavers, in that a substantial number would be concerned if their children married a supporter of Brexit. The same polling also confirms that that pattern is not reciprocated to anything like the same extent by Leavers.
    Isn't it more likely that's because the typical leaver is portrayed as being aged 70+, and lots of people don't like the idea of their children marrying people much older than them?
    No it’s because Remain voters believe they are morally superior to those who voted Leave
    All Remain voters feel they are morally superior? Does that include people like HYUFD?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    It could be the older Lordships fell asleep after a couple of bottles of sherry and the younger ones dealt with the backlog :D:D
    But wait - the oracle that is Mortimer bullishly assured us last night that the filibuster would work and the bill wouldn’t make it through the Lords.

    Funny old world. 😂
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    edited September 2019

    Read a very interesting suggestion earlier today about how Boris can escape the box his opponents think they have him trapped in.

    He should invoke the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. He can do it unilaterally as a Minister of the Crown. He can then suspend the FTPA and call an election. He then cancels the CCA.

    The CCA is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created but since Blair was stupid enough to create it Boris should make use of it.

    They havent trapped him, he has walked into it, it suits both govt and opposition for events to have unfolded as they have.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Read a very interesting suggestion earlier today about how Boris can escape the box his opponents think they have him trapped in.

    He should invoke the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. He can do it unilaterally as a Minister of the Crown. He can then suspend the FTPA and call an election. He then cancels the CCA.

    The CCA is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created but since Blair was stupid enough to create it Boris should make use of it.

    I doubt the courts would accept it.
  • Why do politicians tend to say frit instead of afraid? I dont think I have ever heard anyone other than a politician use the word, but politicians seem to prefer it to afraid/scared/frightened.

    It’s because Margaret Thatcher once used the word in parliament to accuse Labour of being scared of an election.
  • nichomar said:

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.

    But more accurately it seems that Boris and co have decided that as last nights act will become law they may as well stop the games trying to delay it.
    Does it all just come down to the fact that the government has not had the numbers to push a deal through since the 2017 election? Since Cummings has become involved everything is about getting the numbers - deadlines to force a showdown (lost as expected), flushing the rebels out (deselect) and pushing for an election (that can be framed on a get it done basis) - which the government may win using a simple message. It’s a campaign against Corbyn and the economy is oki-ish so Boris should win.
    Precisely! And the idea that Parliamentarians running chicken away from the electorate will see leavers blaming Boris and back Farage instead is just insane.

    We leavers aren't illiterate morons you know! We can see what Parliament is doing!
    Yes and most read mail express sun and believe every word of it
    News to me that the Mail, Express and Sun circulations combined are most of 17.4 million. Over 8.7 million circulation for those three is quite impressive.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Read a very interesting suggestion earlier today about how Boris can escape the box his opponents think they have him trapped in.

    He should invoke the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. He can do it unilaterally as a Minister of the Crown. He can then suspend the FTPA and call an election. He then cancels the CCA.

    The CCA is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created but since Blair was stupid enough to create it Boris should make use of it.

    Won't that make him more despised than he already is?
  • Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    Does anyone know why the filibuster was stopped?

    Because it was going to fail.
    I don't think it would have done, there were about a hundred amendments at an average of around 25 minutes each to get through on the program motion.
    I'm sure Lord True had even more for the actual bill.
    I *think* the actual bill could have been guillotined. But I agree, I think the filibuster was going to succeed.
  • Off topic, I've just finished reading "All Together Now?" By Mick Carter, an account of his walk from Liverpool to London in the Spring of 2016, retracing the 1981 People's March for Jobs. His father, a communist trade union leader, organised the first march, and the book is in part a kind of reconciliation with him (the two men were estranged when his father died after a lot of tangled and quite sad family history). But more than that it is an insightful account of the sorry state of ”left behind" England - the towns of the North and Midlands that voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU just weeks later.
    As a fully signed up member of the Remoaner London Liberal Elite it was a sobering read. It touched on many of the issues raised by people like John Harris at the Guardian in his "Anywhere but Westminster" reports, for instance. You are left in no doubt that something close to abuse has been perpetrated on these communities since the mid 1970s.
    Now I don't think leaving the EU will help these places much - in fact I think on net it will leave them even worse off, which is why I am against it, especially a hard Brexit. But I do think that a radical change in how we organise and prioritise things in this country is long overdue. It actually left me, normally a centrist dad, wondering whether a dose of Corbynism may be what we need. Anyway, we can't go on as before.

    If you haven't read it already, could I recommend Dreams Of Leaving and Remaining by James Meek, a collection of his essays on Brexit and left behind places & people. He manages to actually listen to people, a less commonly held talent than one might think. His essay in the LRB (written a year before the EU referendum) on Grimsby is a good taster.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n08/james-meek/why-are-you-still-here

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618

    Read a very interesting suggestion earlier today about how Boris can escape the box his opponents think they have him trapped in.

    He should invoke the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. He can do it unilaterally as a Minister of the Crown. He can then suspend the FTPA and call an election. He then cancels the CCA.

    The CCA is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created but since Blair was stupid enough to create it Boris should make use of it.

    They havent trapped him, he has walked into it, it suits both govt and opposition for events to have unfolded as they have.
    LOL
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn is a crap leader with some rather unpleasant views, but compared to Johnson, he'd seem like Clement Attlee or Blair in his heyday. And for all his faults, he does at seem at least to be motivated by wanting to do good by the country, which really cannot be said of No10's current incumbent. So like Jonathan, I heartily welcome PM Corbyn, even though I'd probably regard his premiership as not being a good thing for the country in more normal times.

    What utter crap.

    Corbyn has done nothing but put his own interests ahead of the country's ever since he voted 3 times against the Withdrawal Agreement despite agreeing with most of it purely to divide the Tories (even Boris voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3).

    But No Deal is now a reality and the vast majority of Tory MPs bar the 21 just put party before country.

    As fortune would have it Jezza was there to save the day from the wreckers.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    When is Boris going to stuff the HOL with Brexit peers again?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    148grss said:

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Sorry, by win Scotland I meant the referendum, not the parliamentary seats.
    I am still wondering your thought process behind that, Labour are on 9% in Scotland, Corbyn is disliked almost as much as Johnson, SNP and independence support is rising. What makes you think Corbyn will influence that and win. Genuine question.
  • 148grss said:

    148grss said:

    malcolmg said:

    148grss said:

    I do not see Labour supporting a GE before the 31st Oct, I think the plan is to give Johnson enough rope to hang himself with and call a GE once the honeymoon period is over, and Farage can savage Johnson for not leaving "do or die".

    I think any election will produce the Conservatives as the largest party, as Labour cannot make gains in England or Scotland. That being said, I do not see how the Conservatives can govern without a majority. SNP and LDs cannot afford to be seen to prop up Johnson or any Conservative at this point.

    Corbyn will promise the SNP and LDs the indyref 2 and the 2nd vote, but will campaign both for Scotland Remaining and Britain Leaving (but with Labours deal and a remain option). He will probably win Scotland and lose Brexit, which probably suits him fine as he can get on with his domestic agenda after that.

    In what world do you see anything that would mean Corbyn could even register in Scotland never mind win it.
    Sorry, by win Scotland I meant the referendum, not the parliamentary seats.
    Still not sure what you mean about Corbyn winning in Scotland but on Corbyn agreeing a Ref 2 he has said quite categorically he will not support it for at least for some years to come
    I mean I think Scotland will be in a much more likely place to stay in the union with a Labour led government than a Tory one. Corbyn doesn't have to be popular as an individual, but Labour's policies will be more popular north of the border. Sure, many independent minded people will still want independence, but the argument that "Scotland is shackled to a Tory government only the English want" is less of an immediate argument when there is no Tory government. I also don't think many Scottish Conservatives would be willing to split up the union just to escape Corbyn.
    You do know that Scotland is devolved and Corbyn's policies on the NHS, education, and most anything else are not in his gift in Scotland
This discussion has been closed.