I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Foot had Scotland but Corbyn has London.
Three interesting factoids I picked up while flicking through yesterday's threads that could be game changers. 1. Sinn Fein may take up their seats. 2. 100,000 new voters have signed up in the last 24 hours 3. The CBI said they were more frightened of Brexit than Corbyn.
The Tories have relapsed back into the nasty party too. Patel, Cummings, Raab, Mogg, Johnson......now populated front and centre by a coterie of unpleasant characters
I take it from your words about this 'relapse' that you accept that they were not the nasty party for a time. Which period exactly?
Is there not a potential flip side on a post nov election, though(assuming extension is enacted)? Which is that anti-no deal Tories may be more inclined to vote Tory in this scenario?
How? Boris is going to have to go for No Deal just to avoid Farage kicking him daily.
Boris will refuse to extend, as Peston reported yesterday he will either stay in post and challenge the Commons to impeach him rather than ask Brussels for an extension or resign and let Corbyn do the extension and thus destroy Labour in Labour Leave seats for betraying the Brexit vote as Swinson immediately VONCs Corbyn straight after extension to force a general election
You expect Swinson to be LotO?
Without Swinson Corbyn cannot become PM and she can stop him staying PM too post extension, Swinson not Corbyn holds the real power in the opposition now a long with Blackford and Hammond on the Government side
Only the LotO can VONC. Swinson will not be the LotO - Johnson’s successor will.
That isn't, however, Labour's current Brexit policy. Labour's current Brexit policy is: "we'll negotiate a good deal. And then we'll campaign against it."
It is actually very simple to resolve, amazed it hasnt been suggested.
They appoint Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell, Caroline Flint to negotiate with the EU rather than Thornberry and Starmer and to work independently of the Labour leadership and cabinet.
This is the problem with the feeding frenzy. It's a bit of fun and it's being shoved out like its news/shocking Boris doesn't have knowledge of wholesale fish prices/done to demean
Knowing Sky they will have Kay Burley interviewing some fishermen about Boris shocking lack of fish smarts
Brexit is one of those issues where you just can’t afford nuance, let alone fudge. It’s polarising. It’s like being in favour of committing suicide, or against it. “Well we might ask the nation to kill itself, we’re not sure. Depends whether we have a noose.”
This works both ways. Remainers think Brexit is economic suicide. Leavers think No Brexit is cultural/political suicide.
Labour have about a week to sort this out, or they could be facing electoral suicide.
Disagree. At the moment they just need to be more reasonable than the other side. Which they are.
Under May, there was a clear Brexit policy. Vote for the WA, that is Brexit. That was sensible, and the labour position was muddled.
Now the labour position still has large issues, but its somewhat workable, but the tories isn't.
So Labour are in a better position.
What is Labour’s official position on Brexit then? I don’t know. Genuinely. And I’m a politics geek. And if I don’t know I suggest 98% of Brits don’t know, including Jeremy Corbyn Esq of London N1, which is a terrible place to be when you’re going into an election which will be consumed with Brexit
Brexit is one of those issues where you just can’t afford nuance, let alone fudge. It’s polarising. It’s like being in favour of committing suicide, or against it. “Well we might ask the nation to kill itself, we’re not sure. Depends whether we have a noose.”
This works both ways. Remainers think Brexit is economic suicide. Leavers think No Brexit is cultural/political suicide.
Labour have about a week to sort this out, or they could be facing electoral suicide.
Disagree. At the moment they just need to be more reasonable than the other side. Which they are.
Under May, there was a clear Brexit policy. Vote for the WA, that is Brexit. That was sensible, and the labour position was muddled.
Now the labour position still has large issues, but its somewhat workable, but the tories isn't.
So Labour are in a better position.
What is Labour’s official position on Brexit then? I don’t know. Genuinely. And I’m a politics geek. And if I don’t know I suggest 98% of Brits don’t know, including Jeremy Corbyn Esq of London N1, which is a terrible place to be when you’re going into an election which will be consumed with Brexit
I’m assuming the Labour conference will throw up some bantz in this regard.
Is there not a potential flip side on a post nov election, though(assuming extension is enacted)? Which is that anti-no deal Tories may be more inclined to vote Tory in this scenario?
How? Boris is going to have to go for No Deal just to avoid Farage kicking him daily.
Boris will refuse to extend, as Peston reported yesterday he will either stay in post and challenge the Commons to impeach him rather than ask Brussels for an extension or resign and let Corbyn do the extension and thus destroy Labour in Labour Leave seats for betraying the Brexit vote as Swinson immediately VONCs Corbyn straight after extension to force a general election
You expect Swinson to be LotO?
Without Swinson Corbyn cannot become PM and she can stop him staying PM too post extension, Swinson not Corbyn holds the real power in the opposition now a long with Blackford and Hammond on the Government side
Only the LotO can VONC. Swinson will not be the LotO - Johnson’s successor will.
Boris will be LotO. That is the beauty and attraction to Boris of a splash-and-dash Corbyn minority government. It keeps Boris in place as party leader whereas extended coalition governments do not.
Brexit is one of those issues where you just can’t afford nuance, let alone fudge. It’s polarising. It’s like being in favour of committing suicide, or against it. “Well we might ask the nation to kill itself, we’re not sure. Depends whether we have a noose.”
This works both ways. Remainers think Brexit is economic suicide. Leavers think No Brexit is cultural/political suicide.
Labour have about a week to sort this out, or they could be facing electoral suicide.
Disagree. At the moment they just need to be more reasonable than the other side. Which they are.
Under May, there was a clear Brexit policy. Vote for the WA, that is Brexit. That was sensible, and the labour position was muddled.
Now the labour position still has large issues, but its somewhat workable, but the tories isn't.
So Labour are in a better position.
What is Labour’s official position on Brexit then? I don’t know. Genuinely. And I’m a politics geek. And if I don’t know I suggest 98% of Brits don’t know, including Jeremy Corbyn Esq of London N1, which is a terrible place to be when you’re going into an election which will be consumed with Brexit
There position is there will be a referendum. Most remainers believe that they will win that referendum. It hardly matters what Labour's position will be in that referendum at this stage, no even what remain will be up against in that referendum, what matters to a lot of people will be they will get a referendum whether they vote Labour or LD, but voting LD in many areas might let the Tories in.
F1: raining in Monza. First practice starts at 10am.
Edited extra bit: could rain the whole session. Slung a load of 10p bets on the lower half of the field, each way, to 'win' first practice. Longest is Kubica at 1301.
This is the problem with the feeding frenzy. It's a bit of fun and it's being shoved out like its news/shocking Boris doesn't have knowledge of wholesale fish prices/done to demean
Knowing Sky they will have Kay Burley interviewing some fishermen about Boris shocking lack of fish smarts
Very hard to judge how this johnson-bashing stuff is going down, out there. Is Boris getting sympathy, or is he inviting scorn?
I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Important points with which I totally agree.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Brexit is one of those issues where you just can’t afford nuance, let alone fudge. It’s polarising. It’s like being in favour of committing suicide, or against it. “Well we might ask the nation to kill itself, we’re not sure. Depends whether we have a noose.”
This works both ways. Remainers think Brexit is economic suicide. Leavers think No Brexit is cultural/political suicide.
Labour have about a week to sort this out, or they could be facing electoral suicide.
Disagree. At the moment they just need to be more reasonable than the other side. Which they are.
Under May, there was a clear Brexit policy. Vote for the WA, that is Brexit. That was sensible, and the labour position was muddled.
Now the labour position still has large issues, but its somewhat workable, but the tories isn't.
So Labour are in a better position.
What is Labour’s official position on Brexit then? I don’t know. Genuinely. And I’m a politics geek. And if I don’t know I suggest 98% of Brits don’t know, including Jeremy Corbyn Esq of London N1, which is a terrible place to be when you’re going into an election which will be consumed with Brexit
It is to go to the EU and say "please give us a good deal that we can campaign against"
That isn't, however, Labour's current Brexit policy. Labour's current Brexit policy is: "we'll negotiate a good deal. And then we'll campaign against it."
It is actually very simple to resolve, amazed it hasnt been suggested.
They appoint Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell, Caroline Flint to negotiate with the EU rather than Thornberry and Starmer and to work independently of the Labour leadership and cabinet.
Solved, next problem please?
I'm not sure the EU would appreciate being sent backbenchers to negotiate with them, they might consider that a little offensive. 'We are too busy to deal with you ourselves' isn't a great bargaining chip
This is the Speakers ruling, still valid, in relation to the "Queen's Consent" from the recent Cooper Benn bill :
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Important points with which I totally agree.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Brexit is one of those issues where you just can’t afford nuance, let alone fudge. It’s polarising. It’s like being in favour of committing suicide, or against it. “Well we might ask the nation to kill itself, we’re not sure. Depends whether we have a noose.”
This works both ways. Remainers think Brexit is economic suicide. Leavers think No Brexit is cultural/political suicide.
Labour have about a week to sort this out, or they could be facing electoral suicide.
Disagree. At the moment they just need to be more reasonable than the other side. Which they are.
Under May, there was a clear Brexit policy. Vote for the WA, that is Brexit. That was sensible, and the labour position was muddled.
Now the labour position still has large issues, but its somewhat workable, but the tories isn't.
So Labour are in a better position.
What is Labour’s official position on Brexit then? I don’t know. Genuinely. And I’m a politics geek. And if I don’t know I suggest 98% of Brits don’t know, including Jeremy Corbyn Esq of London N1, which is a terrible place to be when you’re going into an election which will be consumed with Brexit
There position is there will be a referendum. Most remainers believe that they will win that referendum. It hardly matters what Labour's position will be in that referendum at this stage, no even what remain will be up against in that referendum, what matters to a lot of people will be they will get a referendum whether they vote Labour or LD, but voting LD in many areas might let the Tories in.
But even that is unclear. An esteemed PB poster had to ask for Labour’s official position on a new referendum the other day, and it took me some time to dig it out, because Corbyn has always been so begrudging and mealy-mouthed on the issue. Because he’s a Leaver.
It’s too late for Labour to undo the damage done by this havering, but they still need to find a new, crisp Brexit-policy formulation, or the damage will worsen.
Is there not a potential flip side on a post nov election, though(assuming extension is enacted)? Which is that anti-no deal Tories may be more inclined to vote Tory in this scenario?
How? Boris is going to have to go for No Deal just to avoid Farage kicking him daily.
Boris will refuse to extend, as Peston reported yesterday he will either stay in post and challenge the Commons to impeach him rather than ask Brussels for an extension or resign and let Corbyn do the extension and thus destroy Labour in Labour Leave seats for betraying the Brexit vote as Swinson immediately VONCs Corbyn straight after extension to force a general election
You expect Swinson to be LotO?
Without Swinson Corbyn cannot become PM and she can stop him staying PM too post extension, Swinson not Corbyn holds the real power in the opposition now a long with Blackford and Hammond on the Government side
Only the LotO can VONC. Swinson will not be the LotO - Johnson’s successor will.
This is the problem with the feeding frenzy. It's a bit of fun and it's being shoved out like its news/shocking Boris doesn't have knowledge of wholesale fish prices/done to demean
Knowing Sky they will have Kay Burley interviewing some fishermen about Boris shocking lack of fish smarts
Very hard to judge how this johnson-bashing stuff is going down, out there. Is Boris getting sympathy, or is he inviting scorn?
Both I'd guess. The Boris bounce people will be pissed off with his treatment, boris haters will see it as evidence of how terrible and evil he is
A thought on that ICM poll - the most significant thing about it for me is not the hypothetical, but the actual and Labour on 30%. That’s the first time it’s vote has been that high in any poll for a long time and does indicate a slow rebuilding of the 2017 coalition. If that is sustained and combines with strong LD performance in places where Labour can’t win, the Tories are going to need more than the 37% ICM gives them.
This is the problem with the feeding frenzy. It's a bit of fun and it's being shoved out like its news/shocking Boris doesn't have knowledge of wholesale fish prices/done to demean
Knowing Sky they will have Kay Burley interviewing some fishermen about Boris shocking lack of fish smarts
Very hard to judge how this johnson-bashing stuff is going down, out there. Is Boris getting sympathy, or is he inviting scorn?
Both I'd guess. The Boris bounce people will be pissed off with his treatment, boris haters will see it as evidence of how terrible and evil he is
I don't think anyone cares how Boris is treated.
The Boris bounce will be people who are pleased Boris is standing up for people and pissed off with Parliament for refusing to implement the will of the people.
I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Important points with which I totally agree.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Do explain it to the uninitiated then.....
They want to play centre forward in the football team but will campaign to ban football.
Edit: They will take part in the qualifying rounds of F1 and campaign to ban F1.
As you say, the last point is pretty much undeniable.
I did some quick calcs a few days ago based on YouGov's age breakdown of the EUref vote coupled with age-related UK mortality rates.
My conclusion was that if everyone still alive who voted then voted the same way again, andthose who have reached 18 since June 2016 vote with the same turnout and in the same proportions as the 18-24 year olds did, then...
... the 51.9%-48.1% Leave-Remain split automatically becomes circa 50-50*.
It's an inexact calculation because I don't have mortality tables that match the YouGov age ranges. If someone with a statistical analysis background would like to do a better calculation, I'd love to see it.
Also it does beg the question why aren't the polling companies weighting to a split that takes mortality into account?
(*PS this might still be underweighting Remain, since Leave voters were generally poorer and less well-educated - IIRC such groups have a worse than average mortality experience.)
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Not once have I heard a Labour frontbencher outline exactly what their preferred WA/PD would look like. Nor have they explained how they would actually go about negotiating with the EU who have made it perfectly clear that the deal on the table is the deal. There can be some minor tinkering - but the essence of the deal is what we are going to have to accept.
So they are claiming to be able to deliver something that they cannot or will not define via a process that is not open to them.
I am not saying anyone else has a better way forward - but the Labour position is quite simply not coherent. It is a series of political strategies - not a coherent strategy. And it will ever be thus when you have a party leader who is opposed to the EU as a capitalist cabal and a party that largely does not share his views on this.
Interesting article. Of course people die at quite a rate, mostly older of course and there are over 600,000 UK deaths per year. Over three years that's a lot.
Secondly, in 2018 only about half of over 75s used the internet. In my experience a lot of that group vote enthusiastically but don't answer questions about politics on the phone, internet (obviously) or street. Obviously pollsters factor all this in, but do they do it right?
Thirdly, though leavers voted leave for a myriad of reasons, from joining EFTA right down to the belief that it would keep out johnny foreigner, more or less 100% of leavers voted implicitly for a Competent Leave. Once this seems unavailable (and people might be forgiven for thinking this could be the case through the actions and inactions of our beloved politicians) they may get bit forgetful about their past actions.
I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Important points with which I totally agree.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Do explain it to the uninitiated then.....
They want to play centre forward in the football team but will campaign to ban football.
Edit: They will take part in the qualifying rounds of F1 and campaign to ban F1.
Edit II: you get the idea.
They will negotiate a rebate of £25,000 per citizen to be paid direct to each by the EU on Brexit then campaign to reject it and remain
Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required in the national interest.
Corbyn does not have to lead it....merely by acting sensibly in a coalition he can detoxify himself from the worst excesses of Tory scaremongering.....
It is a set of circumstances that he cannot afford to waste...go Jezza
If Johnson tries to wriggle out of seeking an extension as required by the Benn bill this could well happen. The anti-government coalition also has a majority in the HoL of course, so it could pass legislation.
That isn't, however, Labour's current Brexit policy. Labour's current Brexit policy is: "we'll negotiate a good deal. And then we'll campaign against it."
It is actually very simple to resolve, amazed it hasnt been suggested.
They appoint Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell, Caroline Flint to negotiate with the EU rather than Thornberry and Starmer and to work independently of the Labour leadership and cabinet.
Solved, next problem please?
I'm not sure the EU would appreciate being sent backbenchers to negotiate with them, they might consider that a little offensive. 'We are too busy to deal with you ourselves' isn't a great bargaining chip
They'd be very happy for anyone but Boris to negotiate with them.
This is the Speakers ruling, still valid, in relation to the "Queen's Consent" from the recent Cooper Benn bill :
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
This is why we need to rewrite the rules of Parliament to take away such power from the Speaker. No Speaker should be able to twist things to suit their own agenda - they are the servant of the House, nothing more, nothing less.
Standing Orders need radical reform. And interpretation should not be left in the hands of any Speaker of any type. Bercow has damaged Parliament by his capricious and incoherent approach to the rules of the House.
A thought on that ICM poll - the most significant thing about it for me is not the hypothetical, but the actual and Labour on 30%. That’s the first time it’s vote has been that high in any poll for a long time and does indicate a slow rebuilding of the 2017 coalition. If that is sustained and combines with strong LD performance in places where Labour can’t win, the Tories are going to need more than the 37% ICM gives them.
1. There’s an ICM poll with Labour on 30?! Where? I’ve been traveling. Genuine Q
2. You sound pleased. I thought you officially hated Labour and Corbz?
Thinking around it further, my best guess is these are the more significant:
Some people who said they voted Remain have forgotten that they voted Leave
Some people who voted Leave are harder for pollsters to find
The electorate has changed since 2016
The first two would tend to cancel each other out, I think. The last is an undeniable fact - do pollsters make no effort to incorporate it in their models, or is it simply too difficult ?
The people who make up the electorate change at about 600k per annum. BUT, does their collective view change ? Yes, but a lot less than that. There is some in built movement towards the right among those IN the electorate but that ebbs and flows.
I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Important points with which I totally agree.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Do explain it to the uninitiated then.....
They want to play centre forward in the football team but will campaign to ban football.
Edit: They will take part in the qualifying rounds of F1 and campaign to ban F1.
Edit II: you get the idea.
They will negotiate a rebate of £25,000 per citizen to be paid direct to each by the EU on Brexit then campaign to reject it and remain
They cannot stop people voting Leave, what they can do is mitigate what they believe the disaster will look like.
The question is how do you best describe that approach in a way that both tells people what they want to hear and doesn't distract others who want to hear that argument from a different viewpoint.
Interesting article. Of course people die at quite a rate, mostly older of course and there are over 600,000 UK deaths per year. Over three years that's a lot.
Secondly, in 2018 only about half of over 75s used the internet. In my experience a lot of that group vote enthusiastically but don't answer questions about politics on the phone, internet (obviously) or street. Obviously pollsters factor all this in, but do they do it right?
Thirdly, though leavers voted leave for a myriad of reasons, from joining EFTA right down to the belief that it would keep out johnny foreigner, more or less 100% of leavers voted implicitly for a Competent Leave. Once this seems unavailable (and people might be forgiven for thinking this could be the case through the actions and inactions of our beloved politicians) they may get bit forgetful about their past actions.
Did anyone in 2016 vote deliberately for the current horlicks ?
I noticed on yesterday's Question Time where the audience was split 48-52 to reflect the referendum result the first question from the audience came from a very angry man who said "I voted Remain but this is disgraceful. We voted Leave so we should have left by now".
I wondered as I'm sure those poor souls who have shared pub space with him in the last three years must have whether the BBC counted him ias a Leaver or a Remainer?
An obvious plant which facial scanning (for gammoniness) should have picked up BEFORE the programme. Slack from the Beeb.
This is the Speakers ruling, still valid, in relation to the "Queen's Consent" from the recent Cooper Benn bill :
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
This is why we need to rewrite the rules of Parliament to take away such power from the Speaker. No Speaker should be able to twist things to suit their own agenda - they are the servant of the House, nothing more, nothing less.
Standing Orders need radical reform. And interpretation should not be left in the hands of any Speaker of any type. Bercow has damaged Parliament by his capricious and incoherent approach to the rules of the House.
The Speaker is taking the Miller court decision to it's logical conclusion. Now you could see if the courts will make a different decision but I seriously doubt they would (or in fact could).
Thinking around it further, my best guess is these are the more significant:
Some people who said they voted Remain have forgotten that they voted Leave
Some people who voted Leave are harder for pollsters to find
The electorate has changed since 2016
The first two would tend to cancel each other out, I think. The last is an undeniable fact - do pollsters make no effort to incorporate it in their models, or is it simply too difficult ?
The people who make up the electorate change at about 600k per annum. BUT, does their collective view change ? Yes, but a lot less than that. There is some in built movement towards the right among those IN the electorate but that ebbs and flows.
Yes maybe, but the basis for weighting is 'how did people vote in 2016?'. If people have drifted towards, or away from, Leave that should be picked up in their current voting intenttion, not in how they voted in 2016.
This is the Speakers ruling, still valid, in relation to the "Queen's Consent" from the recent Cooper Benn bill :
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
The Speaker's ruling IMHO is not valid for the new bill because there is a major distinction between the prior bills and this bill.
The original notification bill gave authority to notify to the PM but left the decision whether to notify or not to the PM in her role using royal prerogative. The bill did not instruct the PM that she had to notify.
Similarly the prior extension request left the decision on whether to accept an extension in the hands of the PM, she was not compelled to accept.
This bill unlike any prior precedent in this chain compels the PM to accept the extension and gives all choice to Parliament like the bill Blair vetoed under royal consent regarding the Iraq War.
I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Important points with which I totally agree.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Do explain it to the uninitiated then.....
They want to play centre forward in the football team but will campaign to ban football.
Edit: They will take part in the qualifying rounds of F1 and campaign to ban F1.
Edit II: you get the idea.
They will negotiate a rebate of £25,000 per citizen to be paid direct to each by the EU on Brexit then campaign to reject it and remain
They cannot stop people voting Leave, what they can do is mitigate what they believe the disaster will look like.
The question is how do you best describe that approach in a way that both tells people what they want to hear and doesn't distract others who want to hear that argument from a different viewpoint.
The answer is: you can’t.
That said, the Tories’ position on Brexit isn’t vastly superior, as others have noted. It’s clearer, but still fogged with doubt on the details of No Deal/New Deal
What the Tories do have (like the LDs, SNP, BXP) is a leader whose personal Brexit position is well defined. Not so much with Corbo
Thinking around it further, my best guess is these are the more significant:
Some people who said they voted Remain have forgotten that they voted Leave
Some people who voted Leave are harder for pollsters to find
The electorate has changed since 2016
The first two would tend to cancel each other out, I think. The last is an undeniable fact - do pollsters make no effort to incorporate it in their models, or is it simply too difficult ?
The people who make up the electorate change at about 600k per annum. BUT, does their collective view change ? Yes, but a lot less than that. There is some in built movement towards the right among those IN the electorate but that ebbs and flows.
But just what is that "movement towards the right" ?
IMO, it's simply that people tend not to change their views much as they age. What was mainstream thirty or forty years ago appears reactionary today.
I don't think there's any evidence at all that people's opinions tend to become more Leave as they age.
I don’t get this idea that “even Michael Foot” got 200 seats so Corbyn has a secure core. Corbyn doesn’t have Scotland. It could be argued that, for today’s electorate, his manifesto is arguably more extreme and scary than Foot’s (something people don’t factor in when they say things like “Corbyn would be a middle of the road politician in the 60s-70s”). Foot’s cabinet was still full of heavyweight and respected politicians who had significant government experience. Tribal allegiances, whilst still present, are not as fixed as in 1983. And Corbyn has an incoherent position on THE issue of the day.
Important points with which I totally agree.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
Do explain it to the uninitiated then.....
They want to play centre forward in the football team but will campaign to ban football.
Edit: They will take part in the qualifying rounds of F1 and campaign to ban F1.
Edit II: you get the idea.
They will negotiate a rebate of £25,000 per citizen to be paid direct to each by the EU on Brexit then campaign to reject it and remain
They cannot stop people voting Leave, what they can do is mitigate what they believe the disaster will look like.
The question is how do you best describe that approach in a way that both tells people what they want to hear and doesn't distract others who want to hear that argument from a different viewpoint.
The answer is: you can’t.
That said, the Tories’ position on Brexit isn’t vastly superior, as others have noted. It’s clearer, but still fogged with doubt on the details of No Deal/New Deal
What the Tories do have (like the LDs, SNP, BXP) is a leader whose personal Brexit position is well defined. Not so much with Corbo
Yes - one is stark madness; the other is just utterly confused.
I'm all for politicians going to fish auctions. What I do not like is them standing in front of a new set of police recruits delivering a speech. That I find rather sinister.
I noticed on yesterday's Question Time where the audience was split 48-52 to reflect the referendum result the first question from the audience came from a very angry man who said "I voted Remain but this is disgraceful. We voted Leave so we should have left by now".
I wondered as I'm sure those poor souls who have shared pub space with him in the last three years must have whether the BBC counted him ias a Leaver or a Remainer?
An obvious plant which facial scanning (for gammoniness) should have picked up BEFORE the programme. Slack from the Beeb.
Are you claiming there aren’t Remainers who are now angry we haven’t left? You should get out more. I personally know several (just as I know regretful ex-Brexiteers).
They tend to be smart, and fiercely democratic. ‘Yes I wanted Remain but a vote is a vote, dammit. Who are these dreadful MPs’ etc etc.
This is the problem with the feeding frenzy. It's a bit of fun and it's being shoved out like its news/shocking Boris doesn't have knowledge of wholesale fish prices/done to demean
Knowing Sky they will have Kay Burley interviewing some fishermen about Boris shocking lack of fish smarts
Very hard to judge how this johnson-bashing stuff is going down, out there. Is Boris getting sympathy, or is he inviting scorn?
For the sympathy for the poor, bullied devil thing to have any impact, a significant number of people would have to have at least a sliver of compassion for Beelzebub J. currently. It may be my own prejudices kicking in but I think that's a pretty small and shrinking group.
This is the Speakers ruling, still valid, in relation to the "Queen's Consent" from the recent Cooper Benn bill :
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
This is why we need to rewrite the rules of Parliament to take away such power from the Speaker. No Speaker should be able to twist things to suit their own agenda - they are the servant of the House, nothing more, nothing less.
Standing Orders need radical reform. And interpretation should not be left in the hands of any Speaker of any type. Bercow has damaged Parliament by his capricious and incoherent approach to the rules of the House.
The "rules of parliament" by which I assume you mean how the HoC operates are in the gift of MP's. The Speaker through advice of the Clerks determines the conduct of business and gives rulings as necessary.
The government has failed in their attempts to remove Bercow because he retains the support of the majority of MP's. Government supporters and their media allies may rant at Bercow but he is not their man. He is first and foremost the Commons man. Usually the former is not an issue because we usually have majority government through single party or coalition. BREXIT and minority government have caused huge tensions in the HoC but that is not the Speakers concern.
It takes maybe 2 seconds for the absurdity to reveal itself.
“We’re going to march right back to Brussels and this time get a really good deal which we will tell everyone to vote against because it’s a really bad deal, Hahahahahahahauuuurghhhhjjjjb,prf8f36?;^0<<“
This is the Speakers ruling, still valid, in relation to the "Queen's Consent" from the recent Cooper Benn bill :
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
The Speaker's ruling IMHO is not valid for the new bill because there is a major distinction between the prior bills and this bill.
The original notification bill gave authority to notify to the PM but left the decision whether to notify or not to the PM in her role using royal prerogative. The bill did not instruct the PM that she had to notify.
Similarly the prior extension request left the decision on whether to accept an extension in the hands of the PM, she was not compelled to accept.
This bill unlike any prior precedent in this chain compels the PM to accept the extension and gives all choice to Parliament like the bill Blair vetoed under royal consent regarding the Iraq War.
If the Govt. chose to dispute the Speaker's ruling, who needs to go to court to get it resolved - the Govt., or the Speaker to make a thing happen? Or does Parliament act as a court in that instance and rule on it itself?
This is the problem with the feeding frenzy. It's a bit of fun and it's being shoved out like its news/shocking Boris doesn't have knowledge of wholesale fish prices/done to demean
Knowing Sky they will have Kay Burley interviewing some fishermen about Boris shocking lack of fish smarts
Very hard to judge how this johnson-bashing stuff is going down, out there. Is Boris getting sympathy, or is he inviting scorn?
For the sympathy for the poor, bullied devil thing to have any impact, a significant number of people would have to have at least a sliver of compassion for Beelzebub J. currently. It may be my own prejudices kicking in but I think that's a pretty small and shrinking group.
Quite possibly, but we are all prone to subconscious bias on these emotive topics. Which is why Polls, Please.
In a sense, it's what Mrs May should have done on accession.
'Look folks, this is dumb, but you voted for it and as your PM I am honour bound to do my best to get the country the best possible deal and one which acknowledges the range of views represented in the Referendum, including the 48% who did not want to leave at all.'
In a way, it's kind of what she tried to do but without putting it like that.
It takes maybe 2 seconds for the absurdity to reveal itself.
“We’re going to march right back to Brussels and this time get a really good deal which we will tell everyone to vote against because it’s a really bad deal, Hahahahahahahauuuurghhhhjjjjb,prf8f36?;^0<<“</p>
No - they can say it's a good deal (it would clearly be better than May's deal as some red lines would have been removed) but it still removes our ability to have a say in matters that impact us so it is actually better to stay,
This is the Speakers ruling, still valid, in relation to the "Queen's Consent" from the recent Cooper Benn bill :
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
The Speaker's ruling IMHO is not valid for the new bill because there is a major distinction between the prior bills and this bill.
The original notification bill gave authority to notify to the PM but left the decision whether to notify or not to the PM in her role using royal prerogative. The bill did not instruct the PM that she had to notify.
Similarly the prior extension request left the decision on whether to accept an extension in the hands of the PM, she was not compelled to accept.
This bill unlike any prior precedent in this chain compels the PM to accept the extension and gives all choice to Parliament like the bill Blair vetoed under royal consent regarding the Iraq War.
The government has not disputed the Speakers ruling. End of.
Your demeanor there in the back row is not promising but yes of course -
1. Negotiate a super soft Brexit - WA + PD modified for CU and SM alignment. 2. Hold a Referendum on this versus Remain. 3. Allow Labour campaigning on either side - the Wilson precedent. 4. Remains wins easily, Brexit cancelled.
Is there not a potential flip side on a post nov election, though(assuming extension is enacted)? Which is that anti-no deal Tories may be more inclined to vote Tory in this scenario?
How? Boris is going to have to go for No Deal just to avoid Farage kicking him daily.
Boris will refuse to extend, as Peston reported yesterday he will either stay in post and challenge the Commons to impeach him rather than ask Brussels for an extension or resign and let Corbyn do the extension and thus destroy Labour in Labour Leave seats for betraying the Brexit vote as Swinson immediately VONCs Corbyn straight after extension to force a general election
You expect Swinson to be LotO?
Without Swinson Corbyn cannot become PM and she can stop him staying PM too post extension, Swinson not Corbyn holds the real power in the opposition now a long with Blackford and Hammond on the Government side
Only the LotO can VONC. Swinson will not be the LotO - Johnson’s successor will.
Why would Johnson have a successor?
Johnson would be LotO.
If the Conservatives are in opposition you think he’ll still be leader?
Ah but has the prime minister won? There has been so much speculation about bluffs, false flags and war-gamed scenarios in this looking-glass world that I've quite forgotten what Boris and Cummings gain from proroguing parliament in the first place.
No surprise to see the court uphold the Scottish court decision . This in a strange way though helps the anti no dealers and certainly is likely to cement their opposition to an early election .
The key thing the suspension doesn’t encompass the Brexit date and because of that the courts really don’t want to get involved .
Ah but has the prime minister won? There has been so much speculation about bluffs, false flags and war-gamed scenarios in this looking-glass world that I've quite forgotten what Boris and Cummings gain from proroguing parliament in the first place.
Preventing Parliament from stopping us leaving with no deal.
Re the OP isn't another factor that a lot of people voted in the referendum who had not voted previously and they did not reappear in 2017? How doe that affect the weighting?
Not once have I heard a Labour frontbencher outline exactly what their preferred WA/PD would look like. Nor have they explained how they would actually go about negotiating with the EU who have made it perfectly clear that the deal on the table is the deal. There can be some minor tinkering - but the essence of the deal is what we are going to have to accept.
So they are claiming to be able to deliver something that they cannot or will not define via a process that is not open to them.
I am not saying anyone else has a better way forward - but the Labour position is quite simply not coherent. It is a series of political strategies - not a coherent strategy. And it will ever be thus when you have a party leader who is opposed to the EU as a capitalist cabal and a party that largely does not share his views on this.
I agree, their position is a set of political strategies. But if they're going into "just deliver the bastard thing" mode then the solution is to keep the WA, change the PD to say "we love free trade but we don't want to be a libertarian pirate island" and pass it subject to a referendum.
If the Tories want to attack it for being *the same* as the thing they tried and failed to pass then they're welcome to, but I imagine they'd attack it as a traitorous sell-out to avoid being out-flanked by BXP. Which gives Labour the perfect cover.
They could do the PD in a week, pass it as an MV subject to a quickie referendum the following week, spend the period up to the referendum passing all the other legislation, have the thing decided by Christmas and be out by New Year's Day. Or still in with the whole thing over bar the incoherent yelling of the Tories and the Brexit Partiers, depending what the voters do in the referendum.
Your demeanor there in the back row is not promising but yes of course -
1. Negotiate a super soft Brexit - WA + PD modified for CU and SM alignment. 2. Hold a Referendum on this versus Remain. 3. Allow Labour campaigning on either side - the Wilson precedent. 4. Remains wins easily, Brexit cancelled.
Very happy to field questions.
Serious one will get a serious response.
If you don't have Leave on that ballot, you have just lost your northern seats.
They may not consider super-soft Brexit actully leaving.
Exactly. Whereas the Lib Dems will give us a referendum where we choose between Remain and ??????
The deal we currently have available with the EU I believe.
The thoroughly well worked out plan, with timetable, that the Leave side will have worked out and put forward in easy to understand terms for everyone.
In a sense, it's what Mrs May should have done on accession.
'Look folks, this is dumb, but you voted for it and as your PM I am honour bound to do my best to get the country the best possible deal and one which acknowledges the range of views represented in the Referendum, including the 48% who did not want to leave at all.'
In a way, it's kind of what she tried to do but without putting it like that.
Thing is what faith would you have in someone to negotiate a good deal if they didn't want the thing in the first place?
Prima facie it is logical - democratic mandate says we need to do this so we will do our best albeit we disagree with its premise. But it is this last that undoes the whole. If they disagree with its premise why on earth are they working towards it? Why not try to convince people, democratically, to take another path?
It takes maybe 2 seconds for the absurdity to reveal itself.
“We’re going to march right back to Brussels and this time get a really good deal which we will tell everyone to vote against because it’s a really bad deal, Hahahahahahahauuuurghhhhjjjjb,prf8f36?;^0<<“</p>
No - they can say it's a good deal (it would clearly be better than May's deal as some red lines would have been removed) but it still removes our ability to have a say in matters that impact us so it is actually better to stay,
It’s like stand up comedy. Quite good stand up, at that. Why should Brussels give a “better” deal to a government which doesn’t actually want or believe in any deal, and who will then campaign against their “own” deal, anyway? PLEASE GIVE ME A HUNDRED QUID BECAUSE I HATE MONEY AND I WANT TO THROW A HUNDRED QUID IN THE NEAREST CANAL. It is beyond bizarre.
Thornberry’s humiliation on QT showed how people will react to this stance. I sincerely hope Labour persist with it. They could suffer generational damage.
Through Cummins master strategising we now have Corbyn the leader of the largest party of a sizeable anti-govt block (and so majority) in the House of Commons. It would be madness of Corbyn to throw away this position in an immediate election- go for a VONC and install an anti-no deal coalition Govt now. It can stay in power for nearly 3 years if required in the national interest.
Corbyn does not have to lead it....merely by acting sensibly in a coalition he can detoxify himself from the worst excesses of Tory scaremongering.....
It is a set of circumstances that he cannot afford to waste...go Jezza
I agree. Do nothing. He has a de facto majority of 20. If he plays his cards right by November we'll have lost Johnson and his government will be dead and buried. The shortest worst and most repulsive government ever.
It takes maybe 2 seconds for the absurdity to reveal itself.
“We’re going to march right back to Brussels and this time get a really good deal which we will tell everyone to vote against because it’s a really bad deal, Hahahahahahahauuuurghhhhjjjjb,prf8f36?;^0<<“</p>
No - they can say it's a good deal (it would clearly be better than May's deal as some red lines would have been removed) but it still removes our ability to have a say in matters that impact us so it is actually better to stay,
It’s like stand up comedy. Quite good stand up, at that. Why should Brussels give a “better” deal to a government which doesn’t actually want or believe in any deal, and who will then campaign against their “own” deal, anyway? PLEASE GIVE ME A HUNDRED QUID BECAUSE I HATE MONEY AND I WANT TO THROW A HUNDRED QUID IN THE NEAREST CANAL. It is beyond bizarre.
Thornberry’s humiliation on QT showed how people will react to this stance. I sincerely hope Labour persist with it. They could suffer generational damage.
Are you sad enough to be watching QT while abroad on holiday?
I see he can't be arsed visiting West Coast prawn, crab and scallop fishermen who bring much more value to the UK economy than the pelagic boys, and for whom transportation is ultra time sensitive. Of course they don't have a few politicised big owners with a megaphone straight to the Tory party's ear.
Anyone hear the spokesman from Zanu describe Mugabe's death as 'untimely'?
The catastophe was simply that Zanu PF was so much stronger than the other players in the game and so the carefully balanced Lancaster House agreement toppled over as soon as it was implemented. That Robert Mugabe was a complete shithouse was beside the point. I am damned if anything much different could have been done. A stronger UK position would inevitably have ended in escalating the civil unrest/war with UK troops being slaughtered by all sides.
Comments
They appoint Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell, Caroline Flint to negotiate with the EU rather than Thornberry and Starmer and to work independently of the Labour leadership and cabinet.
Solved, next problem please?
Knowing Sky they will have Kay Burley interviewing some fishermen about Boris shocking lack of fish smarts
Edited extra bit: could rain the whole session. Slung a load of 10p bets on the lower half of the field, each way, to 'win' first practice. Longest is Kubica at 1301.
Except the last sentence - Labour's Brexit position is not incoherent.
"As the House will recall, no Queen’s Consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."
It’s too late for Labour to undo the damage done by this havering, but they still need to find a new, crisp Brexit-policy formulation, or the damage will worsen.
Johnson would be LotO.
A thought on that ICM poll - the most significant thing about it for me is not the hypothetical, but the actual and Labour on 30%. That’s the first time it’s vote has been that high in any poll for a long time and does indicate a slow rebuilding of the 2017 coalition. If that is sustained and combines with strong LD performance in places where Labour can’t win, the Tories are going to need more than the 37% ICM gives them.
The Boris bounce will be people who are pleased Boris is standing up for people and pissed off with Parliament for refusing to implement the will of the people.
Edit: They will take part in the qualifying rounds of F1 and campaign to ban F1.
Edit II: you get the idea.
As you say, the last point is pretty much undeniable.
I did some quick calcs a few days ago based on YouGov's age breakdown of the EUref vote coupled with age-related UK mortality rates.
My conclusion was that if everyone still alive who voted then voted the same way again, andthose who have reached 18 since June 2016 vote with the same turnout and in the same proportions as the 18-24 year olds did, then...
... the 51.9%-48.1% Leave-Remain split automatically becomes circa 50-50*.
It's an inexact calculation because I don't have mortality tables that match the YouGov age ranges. If someone with a statistical analysis background would like to do a better calculation, I'd love to see it.
Also it does beg the question why aren't the polling companies weighting to a split that takes mortality into account?
(*PS this might still be underweighting Remain, since Leave voters were generally poorer and less well-educated - IIRC such groups have a worse than average mortality experience.)
Giovinazzi 501
Grosjean 376
Gasly 326
Magnussen 326
Kvyat 326
Raikkonen 191
Stroll 161
Perez 131
Just tiny sums, of course.
So they are claiming to be able to deliver something that they cannot or will not define via a process that is not open to them.
I am not saying anyone else has a better way forward - but the Labour position is quite simply not coherent. It is a series of political strategies - not a coherent strategy. And it will ever be thus when you have a party leader who is opposed to the EU as a capitalist cabal and a party that largely does not share his views on this.
Secondly, in 2018 only about half of over 75s used the internet. In my experience a lot of that group vote enthusiastically but don't answer questions about politics on the phone, internet (obviously) or street. Obviously pollsters factor all this in, but do they do it right?
Thirdly, though leavers voted leave for a myriad of reasons, from joining EFTA right down to the belief that it would keep out johnny foreigner, more or less 100% of leavers voted implicitly for a Competent Leave. Once this seems unavailable (and people might be forgiven for thinking this could be the case through the actions and inactions of our beloved politicians) they may get bit forgetful about their past actions.
Second referendum anyone?
However he has to make a decision re a future manifesto which will be influenced by the BP.
Failing to go full on no deal will see them still hurting the Tories .
And if he goes full on no deal that will also hurt them .
Neither the Tories or Labour have win win choices , it’s a case of damage limitation.
Edit: corrected myself.
Standing Orders need radical reform. And interpretation should not be left in the hands of any Speaker of any type. Bercow has damaged Parliament by his capricious and incoherent approach to the rules of the House.
2. You sound pleased. I thought you officially hated Labour and Corbz?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus interesting character.
The question is how do you best describe that approach in a way that both tells people what they want to hear and doesn't distract others who want to hear that argument from a different viewpoint.
The original notification bill gave authority to notify to the PM but left the decision whether to notify or not to the PM in her role using royal prerogative. The bill did not instruct the PM that she had to notify.
Similarly the prior extension request left the decision on whether to accept an extension in the hands of the PM, she was not compelled to accept.
This bill unlike any prior precedent in this chain compels the PM to accept the extension and gives all choice to Parliament like the bill Blair vetoed under royal consent regarding the Iraq War.
That said, the Tories’ position on Brexit isn’t vastly superior, as others have noted. It’s clearer, but still fogged with doubt on the details of No Deal/New Deal
What the Tories do have (like the LDs, SNP, BXP) is a leader whose personal Brexit position is well defined. Not so much with Corbo
IMO, it's simply that people tend not to change their views much as they age. What was mainstream thirty or forty years ago appears reactionary today.
I don't think there's any evidence at all that people's opinions tend to become more Leave as they age.
They tend to be smart, and fiercely democratic. ‘Yes I wanted Remain but a vote is a vote, dammit. Who are these dreadful MPs’ etc etc.
Brexit is a wide and intriguing spectrum.
We will still be in the EU
The government has failed in their attempts to remove Bercow because he retains the support of the majority of MP's. Government supporters and their media allies may rant at Bercow but he is not their man. He is first and foremost the Commons man. Usually the former is not an issue because we usually have majority government through single party or coalition. BREXIT and minority government have caused huge tensions in the HoC but that is not the Speakers concern.
“We’re going to march right back to Brussels and this time get a really good deal which we will tell everyone to vote against because it’s a really bad deal, Hahahahahahahauuuurghhhhjjjjb,prf8f36?;^0<<“
'Look folks, this is dumb, but you voted for it and as your PM I am honour bound to do my best to get the country the best possible deal and one which acknowledges the range of views represented in the Referendum, including the 48% who did not want to leave at all.'
In a way, it's kind of what she tried to do but without putting it like that.
1. Negotiate a super soft Brexit - WA + PD modified for CU and SM alignment.
2. Hold a Referendum on this versus Remain.
3. Allow Labour campaigning on either side - the Wilson precedent.
4. Remains wins easily, Brexit cancelled.
Very happy to field questions.
Serious one will get a serious response.
Or is he just thinking of the proscriptions ?
The key thing the suspension doesn’t encompass the Brexit date and because of that the courts really don’t want to get involved .
tin pot dictatorPrime MinisterOh, wait...
Con: 46.3% (+20.7)
Ind (Quinn): 39.4% (+39.4)
Lab: 9.6% (-1.9)
PCF: 4.8% (+4.8)
Conservative gain from Independent
This is a seat which was lost in May, by the same candidate because of the national situation back then.
Sorry don't have the actual figures.
If the Tories want to attack it for being *the same* as the thing they tried and failed to pass then they're welcome to, but I imagine they'd attack it as a traitorous sell-out to avoid being out-flanked by BXP. Which gives Labour the perfect cover.
They could do the PD in a week, pass it as an MV subject to a quickie referendum the following week, spend the period up to the referendum passing all the other legislation, have the thing decided by Christmas and be out by New Year's Day. Or still in with the whole thing over bar the incoherent yelling of the Tories and the Brexit Partiers, depending what the voters do in the referendum.
They may not consider super-soft Brexit actully leaving.
Coherent? Maybe not....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-prorogation-of-parliament-is-lawful-high-court-rules
Prima facie it is logical - democratic mandate says we need to do this so we will do our best albeit we disagree with its premise. But it is this last that undoes the whole. If they disagree with its premise why on earth are they working towards it? Why not try to convince people, democratically, to take another path?
It is beyond bizarre.
Thornberry’s humiliation on QT showed how people will react to this stance. I sincerely hope Labour persist with it. They could suffer generational damage.
Evil Empire 1
It's going to penalties.....
There is no political route to prevent that. There ought to be a legal one.