Jeezo, the state of some of the replies on that thread. I'm guessing those lads will be at the vanguard of any rightwing spasm, the ones that aren't bots anyway
Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.
I read that and was frankly disappointed. No defence of why Bercow was right to over rule the officials, just a list of misdemeanours by the government. Anyway it's an issue that requires impartiality - you won't find that on an FT thread.
Since the far right have been emboldened by the success of the Leave vote and have drastically ratcheted up their activities since, I see no specific downside from that perspective from not giving them what they want.
"...Those conventions play a valuable role in keeping a system running smoothly which has generally worked well over the centuries. Breaking them should not go without consequences."
Mrs May broke a convention in pulling a business motion in December. Bercow redressed it in terms of timing. Good for him. It's Mrs May who will suffer the consequences of flouting conventions.
And what about the convention of holding fair elections without cheating? That particular convention has been flouted frequently in recent years by Mr Herdson`s friends.
If you have evidence of cheating, you should report it.
The HoC could remove Bercow as Speaker whenever it wanted. But it clearly does not want to do that, because Bercow is supporting the House as a whole, rather than being a sop to this failing government.
Bercow doesn't like conventions, but Parliament seems to be following suit. Pledging to obey a referendum result and then reneging is surely against convention.
An obvious result would be Ukip MPs again. They could join the SNP in being contrary for the sake of it, and give Mr Eagles nightmares.
Farage got 8000 votes in Buckingham in the 2010 GE, I suspect he'd get many more after a revocation. In the referendum, they mirrored the final results.
If Bercow succeeds in his cunning plan, he's toast anyway.
I don't think parliament pledged to obey anything - they passed legislation for an advisory referendum. The person who promised there would be one referendum and the UK would definitely leave depending on that was David Cameron, but he was a huge liar who also promised a "renegotiation" which was ludicrously fake and that he'd stay on as PM, a promise that he broke in less than a day.
I understand Leavers getting narked off that the rules seem to be changing from out under them but a parliament isn't constrained by a previous failed prime minister, now mercifully long gone.
Any suggestions why Survation's results differ so much from Yougov 's?
Or do they? The big difference seems to be Yougov finding lots of Leave voters saying Don't Know/ Won't vote, whereas Survation does not. Remain support is about the same in each case.
Bercow doesn't like conventions, but Parliament seems to be following suit. Pledging to obey a referendum result and then reneging is surely against convention.
An obvious result would be Ukip MPs again. They could join the SNP in being contrary for the sake of it, and give Mr Eagles nightmares.
Farage got 8000 votes in Buckingham in the 2010 GE, I suspect he'd get many more after a revocation. In the referendum, they mirrored the final results.
If Bercow succeeds in his cunning plan, he's toast anyway.
Nigel Farage came third in a two horse race in 2010. I doubt he’d be rushing to repeat that experience.
Jeezo, the state of some of the replies on that thread. I'm guessing those lads will be at the vanguard of any rightwing spasm, the ones that aren't bots anyway
A simple case of Francis Urquart SeanT and Floater using multiple identities. Relax.
Bercow's ruling this week is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. If the government had had a majority it would easily have brushed Grieve's amendment aside, and any majority government would do so in future. You - as do most Tories - seem to forget that you allowed May to throw it all away in 2017.
How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.
The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.
The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.
The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.
The HoC could remove Bercow as Speaker whenever it wanted. But it clearly does not want to do that, because Bercow is supporting the House as a whole, rather than being a sop to this failing government.
You may not like it but there it is.
That you think the only positions are supporting the house or being a sop to the government rather demonstrates the silliness that abounds on discussion of Bercow. Precedent can be departed from for solid reasons, it can be right, but if he had stuck with it on this occasion for example that would hardly have been being a sop to the government. I have trouble accepting people genuinely believe those are the only 2 options.
Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for: a party promising a referendum to have a majority MPs who backed a referendum to Leave in said referendum MPs then backed the result of the referendum two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU
The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.
Bercow doesn't like conventions, but Parliament seems to be following suit. Pledging to obey a referendum result and then reneging is surely against convention.
An obvious result would be Ukip MPs again. They could join the SNP in being contrary for the sake of it, and give Mr Eagles nightmares.
Farage got 8000 votes in Buckingham in the 2010 GE, I suspect he'd get many more after a revocation. In the referendum, they mirrored the final results.
If Bercow succeeds in his cunning plan, he's toast anyway.
Nigel Farage came third in a two horse race in 2010. I doubt he’d be rushing to repeat that experience.
Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for: a party promising a referendum to have a majority MPs who backed a referendum to Leave in said referendum MPs then backed the result of the referendum two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU
The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.
A minority of a minority of the electoiorate you mean.
"The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs."
Two problems. It's after the event and often they have a choice of two possible replacements - both of the same mind.
I don't want to open a discussion on how representative democracy can be neither under the party system, but referenda have some advantages. Its a pity we've seen the last of them.
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
Two elegant threads from David Allen Green. In addition to the general point that parliament should be allowed to discuss its own business, there's another good reason in my view for Bercow's intervention. The government's dodgy manoeuvre in pulling the meaningful vote had the effect of stopping the clock on the Brexit sequencing. The amendment, if carried, partially restores the timetable to the original intention of the act.
Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.
I read that and was frankly disappointed. No defence of why Bercow was right to over rule the officials, just a list of misdemeanours by the government. Anyway it's an issue that requires impartiality - you won't find that on an FT thread.
Bercow doesn't like conventions, but Parliament seems to be following suit. Pledging to obey a referendum result and then reneging is surely against convention.
An obvious result would be Ukip MPs again. They could join the SNP in being contrary for the sake of it, and give Mr Eagles nightmares.
Farage got 8000 votes in Buckingham in the 2010 GE, I suspect he'd get many more after a revocation. In the referendum, they mirrored the final results.
If Bercow succeeds in his cunning plan, he's toast anyway.
Nigel Farage came third in a two horse race in 2010. I doubt he’d be rushing to repeat that experience.
Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.
The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.
The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.
They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.
Bercow doesn't like conventions, but Parliament seems to be following suit. Pledging to obey a referendum result and then reneging is surely against convention.
An obvious result would be Ukip MPs again. They could join the SNP in being contrary for the sake of it, and give Mr Eagles nightmares.
Farage got 8000 votes in Buckingham in the 2010 GE, I suspect he'd get many more after a revocation. In the referendum, they mirrored the final results.
If Bercow succeeds in his cunning plan, he's toast anyway.
Nigel Farage came third in a two horse race in 2010. I doubt he’d be rushing to repeat that experience.
A seven times loser. Is that a record?
Screaming Lord Sutch must have stood more times.
Farage was outpolled by a pro-EU Conservative in 2010 as I recall.
Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
If one went into the middle of a field and related one's opinions to some sheep then that would also constitute expressing a view. This does not imply that there would be any real value to the exercise.
Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.
The electorate is all the people entitled to vote, therefore a minority of the electorate voted to leave. Even if every single one of those people who voted leave were 'severely disgruntled' (a dubious proposition), still a minority of the electorate.
The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.
The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.
They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.
Although, if the ref had taken place under the rules of the Scottish devolution vote of 1979, Brexit would be deemed not to have carried sufficient support for a change.
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
"Only a shallow person fails to judge by appearances?"
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
Oleaginous is a special word reserved entirely for Keith Vaz
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
Yes, it's an interesting deal. The Social Democrats have agreed to large chunks of Centre Party policy that they vehemently attacked during the election, while the Centre Party campaigned explicitly on getting rid of the Social Democrats in government. As with Brexit, a long period of trying other things and failing may have softened up their voters to saying "oh well". The Left Party is fed up as they're expected to support the government (as otherwise the right can defeat it) but have no influence on it. Nonetheless, they may end up gaining protest votes, as may the conservatives. Hard to be sure.
Highlights include a Swedish language test as a condition for citizenship, abolition of the highest rate of tax, tax breaks for pensioners, a lot of environmental spending, part-privatisation of job centres and more parental leave.
Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.
Although, if the ref had taken place under the rules of the Scottish devolution vote of 1979, Brexit would be deemed not to have carried sufficient support for a change.
Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.
Although, if the ref had taken place under the rules of the Scottish devolution vote of 1979, Brexit would be deemed not to have carried sufficient support for a change.
That would probably have been a sensible rule to out in place for both recent referendums. Unfortunately it's a bit late to worry about it now.
Highlights include a Swedish language test as a condition for citizenship, abolition of the highest rate of tax, tax breaks for pensioners, a lot of environmental spending, part-privatisation of job centres and more parental leave.
I was very puzzled by this conversation until I realised I was misreading a rather crucial word. I was genuinely baffled by the idea that you needed a language test to become a citizen of Swindon.
Mr. Rook, the referendum was a perfect opportunity to express a view.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.
Although, if the ref had taken place under the rules of the Scottish devolution vote of 1979, Brexit would be deemed not to have carried sufficient support for a change.
That would probably have been a sensible rule to out in place for both recent referendums. Unfortunately it's a bit late to worry about it now.
Seeing as constitutional innovation is in vogue, why don’t we apply the 40% of the electorate hurdle to any decision to Remain in Euref2? It would be so progressive.
This bit stood out for me - “ The other is in his inadequate response to claims of bullying and harassment within the House, which again should, of itself, have been enough to prompt his departure.”
I know that Brexit is the cause celebre du jour but governments are big and brutal enough to look after themselves and May’s government has shown an unwelcome disregard for Parliament and has needed taking down a peg or two for a while.
But the hidden, often junior, ordinary workers of Parliament, those who keep it functioning are being badly treated, are being forgotten and Bercow’s failure to address this has been utterly shameful.
How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.
An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.
Highlights include a Swedish language test as a condition for citizenship, abolition of the highest rate of tax, tax breaks for pensioners, a lot of environmental spending, part-privatisation of job centres and more parental leave.
I was very puzzled by this conversation until I realised I was misreading a rather crucial word. I was genuinely baffled by the idea that you needed a language test to become a citizen of Swindon.
Swindon has the best roundabout in the country, let no-one say it is boring!
Highlights include a Swedish language test as a condition for citizenship, abolition of the highest rate of tax, tax breaks for pensioners, a lot of environmental spending, part-privatisation of job centres and more parental leave.
I was very puzzled by this conversation until I realised I was misreading a rather crucial word. I was genuinely baffled by the idea that you needed a language test to become a citizen of Swindon.
Swindon has the best roundabout in the country, let no-one say it is boring!
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
Yes, it's an interesting deal. The Social Democrats have agreed to large chunks of Centre Party policy that they vehemently attacked during the election, while the Centre Party campaigned explicitly on getting rid of the Social Democrats in government. As with Brexit, a long period of trying other things and failing may have softened up their voters to saying "oh well". The Left Party is fed up as they're expected to support the government (as otherwise the right can defeat it) but have no influence on it. Nonetheless, they may end up gaining protest votes, as may the conservatives. Hard to be sure.
The danger for the Liberals and Centre is they rely on Conservatives voting tactically to take them over the 4% threshold.
On the Justice Select Commitee we did a report on the cost-effectiveness of different kinds of incarceration internationally - probably the best thing I helped do in 13 years - and I recall that one part of the evidence was that sentence under 6 months are actually counter-productive, because:
a) They bring casual criminals into contact with serious criminals, who offer you seemingly attractive serious criminal options when released b) They are just long enough to make you lose your job, which shatters your chance of getting back on the straight and narrow c) They don't give time for serious rehab work and prisons therefore just don't bother with you - you'll be out in 3 months, so they just feed you and hope you won't be a nuisance.
Much better to give serious criminals longer sentences with good rehab work, and minor criminals intensive supervision and conselling.
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
In fact, I believe the Centre Party have broken a manifesto promise. They campaigned with an explicit promise not to govern with the Social Democrats.
We can be more certain than "I doubt if that will end well for them." There is no doubt.
Bercow has declared war on the Conservatives so why shouldn't they declare war on him?
If they put up a candidate at the next election it at least guarantees we're rid of him one way or another.
Think its very unlikely Theresa would do it though.
Err the Conservatives declared war on Bercow when they tried to oust him 3 seconds before the 2015 election (a move which resulted in me putting far too much money on another hung parliament as I though that indicated the Cons felt their electoral position weak)
Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
All very minor differences; hardly worth doing the survey - except for the dip in Labour support if they don't back a second referendum called for by others. Which we already knew from previous (actually more dramatic) poll results.
Very interesting, and, leaving aside what's actually right and wrong for Britain, it rather bears out Corbyn's judgment that rushing into a second referendum will lose votes - but also McDonnell's view that Labour would need to back Remain if it happened. I'm not sure it's stable, though - people may well feel differently after a few weeks more chaos.
On the Justice Select Commitee we did a report on the cost-effectiveness of different kinds of incarceration internationally - probably the best thing I helped do in 13 years - and I recall that one part of the evidence was that sentence under 6 months are actually counter-productive, because:
a) They bring casual criminals into contact with serious criminals, who offer you seemingly attractive serious criminal options when released b) They are just long enough to make you lose your job, which shatters your chance of getting back on the straight and narrow c) They don't give time for serious rehab work and prisons therefore just don't bother with you - you'll be out in 3 months, so they just feed you and hope you won't be a nuisance.
Much better to give serious criminals longer sentences with good rehab work, and minor criminals intensive supervision and conselling.
"Intensive supervision and counselling" sounds expensive though....
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
In fact, I believe the Centre Party have broken a manifesto promise. They campaigned with an explicit promise not to govern with the Social Democrats.
We can be more certain than "I doubt if that will end well for them." There is no doubt.
There does have to be a government though, and few others are viable.
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
I'd say the odds on him retiring in 2019 are a little short...
"Intensive supervision and counselling" sounds expensive though....
It absolutely is. But cheaper than imprisonment, even before you add on the effects of lower crime. The Norwegians do it, and IIRC their reoffending rate (within 2 years) was something like 20%, vs. a truly frightening figure for Britain (something like 75% - and that's just the ones we catch).
My cousin was a probation worker (now retired) - he was seriously keen to help get people straight, but said the budget only stretched to meeting them once every couple of weeks. At that level, other influences (friends, people you meet in the pub, etc.) play a greater role. In Norway, there's an officer calling round every day or two to discuss how the job-hunt is going, what you plan to do tomorrow, etc.
Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.
Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that it's the government, not the Speaker, whose view of the balance between the executive and the legislature was actually ruled to be unlawful by the Supreme Court.
Though we must also remember that the judges were later convicted of being Enemies of the People in the Court of Tabloid Opinion.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Agreed. But people who live in glass houses shouldn't cast the first stone.
How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.
An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
In fact, I believe the Centre Party have broken a manifesto promise. They campaigned with an explicit promise not to govern with the Social Democrats.
We can be more certain than "I doubt if that will end well for them." There is no doubt.
There does have to be a government though, and few others are viable.
I think it perhaps shows poor judgement to make a promise to the electorate and back out of it weeks later.
I think it was not unanticipated that the Swedish election might not provide a conclusive result. So, it was unwise to make the promise in the first place.
Still, what do I know?
You're a LibDem, so maybes you have some additional insight into the electoral cost of breaking manifesto promises because "there does have to be a government" ?
Still, why the rush to help an attractive teenager with her pleas for help on Twitter and the embarrassed shuffling of feet and total lack of action when it comes to Asia Bibi, at rather more risk than this teenager and from exactly the same psychotic death cult adherents?
Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.
You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.
WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.
Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
I'd say the odds on him retiring in 2019 are a little short...
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
"Only a shallow person fails to judge by appearances?"
They do help. I think that if Michael Gove looked youthful and dynamic, with exactly the same policies and thinking, he's be miles ahead in surveys as Best PM. And apart of Boris's remaining appeal is apparently (and totally mysteriously to me) that many women think he's sexy - I have a LibDem-voting friend who thinks he's a real magnet.
Mr. Jonathan, appeasing political extremes is not clever.
However, teaching the electorate that mainstream parties can and will ignore them when the little people have the temerity to disagree with the political class, who assumes the guise of masters and not servants of the public, will help fuel said extremes.
Of course, the far left needs no help, as it already occupies the Labour front bench, but the far right, almost certainly through a new party rather than occupation of the Conservatives, could benefit significantly.
[If we were to end up remaining, there would be ructions, but these would be diminished by holding a second referendum. Not doing so would be a worse course of action, in term's of public disenchantment with mainstream politics].
Utterly pathetic. We should be taking on the knuckle draggers, not appeasing them you wimp!
These pig-ignorant thickies should be laughed at, mocked and confronted, not conceded to.
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
"Only a shallow person fails to judge by appearances?"
Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.
You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.
WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.
Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.
It's hardly all over the place. With the exception of Con+6, it has been Con+4 to Lab+3 - which is pretty consistent. Perhaps because it flip flops around zero it gives that impression.
Mr. Jonathan, appeasing political extremes is not clever.
However, teaching the electorate that mainstream parties can and will ignore them when the little people have the temerity to disagree with the political class, who assumes the guise of masters and not servants of the public, will help fuel said extremes.
Of course, the far left needs no help, as it already occupies the Labour front bench, but the far right, almost certainly through a new party rather than occupation of the Conservatives, could benefit significantly.
[If we were to end up remaining, there would be ructions, but these would be diminished by holding a second referendum. Not doing so would be a worse course of action, in term's of public disenchantment with mainstream politics].
Utterly pathetic. We should be taking on the knuckle draggers, not appeasing them you wimp!
These pig-ignorant thickies should be laughed at, mocked and confronted, not conceded to.
What are you doing to laugh at, mock and confront Corbyn and his band of merry jew-haters?
On the Justice Select Commitee we did a report on the cost-effectiveness of different kinds of incarceration internationally - probably the best thing I helped do in 13 years - and I recall that one part of the evidence was that sentence under 6 months are actually counter-productive, because:
a) They bring casual criminals into contact with serious criminals, who offer you seemingly attractive serious criminal options when released b) They are just long enough to make you lose your job, which shatters your chance of getting back on the straight and narrow c) They don't give time for serious rehab work and prisons therefore just don't bother with you - you'll be out in 3 months, so they just feed you and hope you won't be a nuisance.
Much better to give serious criminals longer sentences with good rehab work, and minor criminals intensive supervision and conselling.
"Intensive supervision and counselling" sounds expensive though....
Not something likely to happen with the governments bodged and expensive probation privatisation:
A friend of mine, Former RN Officer turned Probation officer with years of experience, has left the service this year in despair over how the Probation service is being managed. He now does supermarket deliveries and enjoys his job again.
The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.
The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.
They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.
But didn't personally believe in it.
If they didn’t personally believe in it, they shouldn’t have stood under that manifesto. They are now ignoring the wishes of those who elected them.
"we now seem be sliding by default towards the worst possible option of all: an economic, social and political catastrophe far greater than most people have yet begun to imagine, as we shall only discover when it hits us."
On the Justice Select Commitee we did a report on the cost-effectiveness of different kinds of incarceration internationally - probably the best thing I helped do in 13 years - and I recall that one part of the evidence was that sentence under 6 months are actually counter-productive, because:
a) They bring casual criminals into contact with serious criminals, who offer you seemingly attractive serious criminal options when released b) They are just long enough to make you lose your job, which shatters your chance of getting back on the straight and narrow c) They don't give time for serious rehab work and prisons therefore just don't bother with you - you'll be out in 3 months, so they just feed you and hope you won't be a nuisance.
Much better to give serious criminals longer sentences with good rehab work, and minor criminals intensive supervision and conselling.
"Intensive supervision and counselling" sounds expensive though....
Leaving aside the fact that new interventions in any area are typically expensive, this ignores the potential to save huge amounts of money through (a) having fewer prisoners to look after and (b) reducing recidivism.
It's just the same with state investment in housing. Sticking up loads of new council and housing association properties would cost a fortune, but how much do we lose (and not just through the enormous housing benefit bill) as a consequences of a chronic under-supply of properties?
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.
On the Justice Select Commitee we did a report on the cost-effectiveness of different kinds of incarceration internationally - probably the best thing I helped do in 13 years - and I recall that one part of the evidence was that sentence under 6 months are actually counter-productive, because:
a) They bring casual criminals into contact with serious criminals, who offer you seemingly attractive serious criminal options when released b) They are just long enough to make you lose your job, which shatters your chance of getting back on the straight and narrow c) They don't give time for serious rehab work and prisons therefore just don't bother with you - you'll be out in 3 months, so they just feed you and hope you won't be a nuisance.
Much better to give serious criminals longer sentences with good rehab work, and minor criminals intensive supervision and conselling.
"Intensive supervision and counselling" sounds expensive though....
Not something likely to happen with the governments bodged and expensive probation privatisation:
A friend of mine, Former RN Officer turned Probation officer with years of experience, has left the service this year in despair over how the Probation service is being managed. He now does supermarket deliveries and enjoys his job again.
And who was in charge of Probation when it was privatised?
Bercow has declared war on the Conservatives so why shouldn't they declare war on him?
If they put up a candidate at the next election it at least guarantees we're rid of him one way or another.
Think its very unlikely Theresa would do it though.
I did not think he should have acted as he did with an obvious bias towards remain but you need to remember that the ERG do not represent all conservatives and indeed are in a minority of conservative mps
I am content for the party to stand a candidate against him at the next GE but it does not guarantee the party gets rid of him, he may win
"Intensive supervision and counselling" sounds expensive though....
It absolutely is. But cheaper than imprisonment, even before you add on the effects of lower crime. The Norwegians do it, and IIRC their reoffending rate (within 2 years) was something like 20%, vs. a truly frightening figure for Britain (something like 75% - and that's just the ones we catch).
My cousin was a probation worker (now retired) - he was seriously keen to help get people straight, but said the budget only stretched to meeting them once every couple of weeks. At that level, other influences (friends, people you meet in the pub, etc.) play a greater role. In Norway, there's an officer calling round every day or two to discuss how the job-hunt is going, what you plan to do tomorrow, etc.
One of the reasons that Cameron buggering up the Referendum and resigning was so disappointing was that he was one of the very few politicians of recent times who might have actually expended some of his political capital on addressing social issues like re-offending. I see no evidence that May is interested.
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
"Only a shallow person fails to judge by appearances?"
"I'm not happy."
"OK then, which one are you?"
Two behaviorists met in the street. One said, 'You're very well, how am I?'
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
"Only a shallow person fails to judge by appearances?"
They do help. I think that if Michael Gove looked youthful and dynamic, with exactly the same policies and thinking, he's be miles ahead in surveys as Best PM. And apart of Boris's remaining appeal is apparently (and totally mysteriously to me) that many women think he's sexy - I have a LibDem-voting friend who thinks he's a real magnet.
How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.
An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.
He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.
He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.
I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.
Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.
The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.
Still, why the rush to help an attractive teenager with her pleas for help on Twitter and the embarrassed shuffling of feet and total lack of action when it comes to Asia Bibi, at rather more risk than this teenager and from exactly the same psychotic death cult adherents?
You've answered your own question. Asia Bibi isn't a pretty young girl and neither is she an anti-social media starlet.
(These shouldn't be the governing factors as to who lives and who dies, of course, but that's the world. Ain't it grand?)
Of course the Conservatives might simply be in the first years of a new convention for them - The Speaker as an arm of Conservative policy and legislative administration.
In fairness, Blair started that by forcing Martin on the House. Even Andrew Rawnsley described him as undistinguished and partisan.
That is not to say that further attempts to undermine Bercow by the government are a Good Thing. Nor that he's wrong to be making life difficult for the government.
However, I also don't think this pushback would be happening but for his ummm, other difficulties and narcissistic desire to take centre stage.
That’s the issue. He is not a good role model and the very fact that his evenhandedness on the most important issue du jour can be doubted undermines his impartiality
How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.
An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.
He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.
He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias
Whatever the merits or otherwise of Bercow in general, last week he did the British people a massive service by allowing an amendment that will at least attempt to stop May wasting another week or two before deciding what to do next.
The can cannot be kicked any more.
It is time for Parliament to make a decision and implement it. Or hold a GE.
The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.
The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.
They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.
But didn't personally believe in it.
If they didn’t personally believe in it, they shouldn’t have stood under that manifesto. They are now ignoring the wishes of those who elected them.
You make the false assumption that they voted the way they did purely on Brexit policy. May called a Brexit election, but that was not what happend, Labour went on social care and generational inequality.
In any case political manifestos have never been binding. We elect representatives, not place men and women.
How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.
An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.
He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.
He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias
You are a loyalist Big_G I expect you to say no less.... but if he upholds Parliament's rights the he gets my vote.
O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.
I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.
I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.
Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.
The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.
The Moderates and Christian Democrats would strike a deal with the Swedish Democrats. The Liberals and Centre are utterly opposed.
I wouldn't be surprised if the three right wing parties had a majority next time.
Comments
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1083633905704546304?s=21
My view is that the end result is probably right but the route to it was terrible.
Being aware of risks and actively promoting them are not the same thing. The fire brigade is not in favour of arson.
The HoC could remove Bercow as Speaker whenever it wanted. But it clearly does not want to do that, because Bercow is supporting the House as a whole, rather than being a sop to this failing government.
You may not like it but there it is.
I understand Leavers getting narked off that the rules seem to be changing from out under them but a parliament isn't constrained by a previous failed prime minister, now mercifully long gone.
Or do they? The big difference seems to be Yougov finding lots of Leave voters saying Don't Know/ Won't vote, whereas Survation does not. Remain support is about the same in each case.
Farage can be too combative, but they could always put a woman up.
The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.
a party promising a referendum to have a majority
MPs who backed a referendum
to Leave in said referendum
MPs then backed the result of the referendum
two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU
The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.
"The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs."
Two problems. It's after the event and often they have a choice of two possible replacements - both of the same mind.
I don't want to open a discussion on how representative democracy can be neither under the party system, but referenda have some advantages. Its a pity we've seen the last of them.
Also, to correct Mr. Divvie a bit further, more than two-thirds of the electorate voted in the referendum. So the Leave vote was a majority of a majority of the electorate, not a minority of a minority.
Farage was outpolled by a pro-EU Conservative in 2010 as I recall.
The electorate is all the people entitled to vote, therefore a minority of the electorate voted to leave. Even if every single one of those people who voted leave were 'severely disgruntled' (a dubious proposition), still a minority of the electorate.
Unimpressive, but he did make mincemeat of Cleggy in a debate. Mind you, Cleggy was defending the indefensible.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/dec/03/recep-tayyip-erdogan-compared-to-gollum-insult-praise
Bercow has declared war on the Conservatives so why shouldn't they declare war on him?
If they put up a candidate at the next election it at least guarantees we're rid of him one way or another.
Think its very unlikely Theresa would do it though.
"My objection to Bercow is that he is the Gollum of British politics."
Now you mention it - even if we shouldn't judge on appearances. He did remind me of Kenneth Baker in some ways. Full of himself and oleaginous (a great word). Bur politics is all about appearances.
But to be honest, if we're talking about Farage he reminds me more of Mr Toad in the Wind in the Willows claymation series from the 80s.
And he looks quite like him too...
This bit stood out for me - “ The other is in his inadequate response to claims of bullying and harassment within the House, which again should, of itself, have been enough to prompt his departure.”
I know that Brexit is the cause celebre du jour but governments are big and brutal enough to look after themselves and May’s government has shown an unwelcome disregard for Parliament and has needed taking down a peg or two for a while.
But the hidden, often junior, ordinary workers of Parliament, those who keep it functioning are being badly treated, are being forgotten and Bercow’s failure to address this has been utterly shameful.
https://youtu.be/s3Vd7dr33o8
Even though I have only driven to Swindon once...
a) They bring casual criminals into contact with serious criminals, who offer you seemingly attractive serious criminal options when released
b) They are just long enough to make you lose your job, which shatters your chance of getting back on the straight and narrow
c) They don't give time for serious rehab work and prisons therefore just don't bother with you - you'll be out in 3 months, so they just feed you and hope you won't be a nuisance.
Much better to give serious criminals longer sentences with good rehab work, and minor criminals intensive supervision and conselling.
We can be more certain than "I doubt if that will end well for them." There is no doubt.
Why is Johnboy Bercow so special? This failing government has visited several constitutional faux pas on the country, yet apparently that’s okay!
My cousin was a probation worker (now retired) - he was seriously keen to help get people straight, but said the budget only stretched to meeting them once every couple of weeks. At that level, other influences (friends, people you meet in the pub, etc.) play a greater role. In Norway, there's an officer calling round every day or two to discuss how the job-hunt is going, what you plan to do tomorrow, etc.
I think it was not unanticipated that the Swedish election might not provide a conclusive result. So, it was unwise to make the promise in the first place.
Still, what do I know?
You're a LibDem, so maybes you have some additional insight into the electoral cost of breaking manifesto promises because "there does have to be a government" ?
Well, good luck to the girl.
Still, why the rush to help an attractive teenager with her pleas for help on Twitter and the embarrassed shuffling of feet and total lack of action when it comes to Asia Bibi, at rather more risk than this teenager and from exactly the same psychotic death cult adherents?
Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.
You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.
WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.
Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.
you mean a Little More Short..
These pig-ignorant thickies should be laughed at, mocked and confronted, not conceded to.
"OK then, which one are you?"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/probation-uk-privatisation-rehabilitation-criminals-reform-justice-inquiry-transforming-a8410356.html
A friend of mine, Former RN Officer turned Probation officer with years of experience, has left the service this year in despair over how the Probation service is being managed. He now does supermarket deliveries and enjoys his job again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/11/brexit-negotiations-game-chess-theresa-may-dangerously-close/
It's just the same with state investment in housing. Sticking up loads of new council and housing association properties would cost a fortune, but how much do we lose (and not just through the enormous housing benefit bill) as a consequences of a chronic under-supply of properties?
I think we can all guess.
I am content for the party to stand a candidate against him at the next GE but it does not guarantee the party gets rid of him, he may win
Tulsi Gabbard: Democrat says she will run for president in 2020
He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias
Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.
The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.
(These shouldn't be the governing factors as to who lives and who dies, of course, but that's the world. Ain't it grand?)
The can cannot be kicked any more.
It is time for Parliament to make a decision and implement it. Or hold a GE.
In any case political manifestos have never been binding. We elect representatives, not place men and women.
I wouldn't be surprised if the three right wing parties had a majority next time.