Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the likely failure of today’s confidence vote then what?

123578

Comments

  • Soubry puts the boot in to Corbyn
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Sean_F said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
    Well she might also have wanted to be involved in something so historic. And remember that the Tories have been breaking pairing arrangements lately.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    Sean_F said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
    Did Paul Flynn ask for a pair ?

    Is he present today ?
  • Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
    of course failing to honour a pair with her on the vote last night wouldn't have attracted any attention at all.
    Sorry to hear about Harry Kane.
    Thank you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debacle. This is the Tories' own making.
    That might be a credible argument for a confidence vote, but for yesterdays vote ??
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,844

    And the FTPA is, of course, another legacy of the political genius who got us into this mess, D Cameron Esq.

    I think we need a 'big open and generous' apology to the nation. It might even work. He's good at that sort of thing. I remember his Bloody Sunday one. Top notch.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited January 2019
    Dont mention the wall

    Michal Martin leader of Fianna Fail says RoI politicans all know they are heading for a hard border.

    Varadkar doubles up and says no and hes making no further preparations for it

    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/dont-mention-the-war-private-understanding-hard-border-is-increasingly-likely-martin-claims-37717865.html
  • Nigelb said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debacle. This is the Tories' own making.
    That might be a credible argument for a confidence vote, but for yesterdays vote ??
    Well, it was going to be so close that the whips didn't want to take any risks...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
    Rot. That vote wasn’t exactly close was it.

  • The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.

    and it was sensible for that period

    now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
    That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
    no doubt there is fun to be had, but in between there is no governance and things the country needs to do just dont get done
    Like what?
    ooh we could reform the house of Lords perhaps, have an economic policy, build some roads and houses, reform University financing, reform overseas aid, stick some meaningful green policies like maritime no fishing zones, plant some forests, delegate more powers down to local government and finance it properly etc
    Yep all of these things could be being addressed instead of a stupid pointless thing called Brexit. An obsession of people who will mainly be dead in another 20 to 30 years - though I do hope enough of us oldies who voted remain will be alive to see the day when we go back in and the UK has to accept a full fat version of the EU with the Euro and all of the other madcap ever-closer-union "advances" that would not have been there had we stayed in. It will be hilarious to watch the swivel-eyed going into apoplectic overdrive.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    kinabalu said:

    And the FTPA is, of course, another legacy of the political genius who got us into this mess, D Cameron Esq.

    I think we need a 'big open and generous' apology to the nation. It might even work. He's good at that sort of thing. I remember his Bloody Sunday one. Top notch.
    Rather spoiled by his being somewhere in (I think) the Guardian today saying he didn't regret holding the referendum....
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Because Cameron bottled out of taking on the headbangers himself and thought that the electorate could do it for him. Probably the worst single political judgment ever made by any British PM, especially since we now know the decision was taken against the advice of his closest colleagues.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Scott_P said:
    I expect that minister not to be reselected by his constituency association...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Mortimer said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
    Rot. That vote wasn’t exactly close was it.

    So? It’s just another own goal.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545
    In meetings all day today so can someone fill me in on the big story - did the ground level letterboxes bill get a second reading?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,997

    Sean_F said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
    Well she might also have wanted to be involved in something so historic. And remember that the Tories have been breaking pairing arrangements lately.
    Having a baby on the floor of the House of Commons, or in the No lobby, would certainly be historic
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    I expect that minister not to be reselected by his constituency association...
    rumours of Greg Clarke
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    I am not sympathetic to their cause, but UKIP should be the most disgruntled group. They campaigned long and hard, and with sufficient diligence to get their referendum. And they won it. But the whole thing has unwound because the government did not take the possibility of their winning seriously and had no plan in place for what to do. That is the undemocratic bit. Giving an option without the means to deliver it is the real betrayal.
  • Sean_F said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
    Well she might also have wanted to be involved in something so historic. And remember that the Tories have been breaking pairing arrangements lately.
    or Corbyn doesn't have a grip on what he's talking about.

    Which seems *most* likely?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    Sean_F said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
    Well she might also have wanted to be involved in something so historic. And remember that the Tories have been breaking pairing arrangements lately.
    If she wanted to be involved fair enough - let's hope there are no bad consequences - but it rather weakens the case for outrage.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    For similar reasons to Smithson junior, perhaps ?
    Expecting Norway would readily be agreed shortly thereafter.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2019
    I'm not watching - Was Corbyn's speech as incoherent and rambling as it appears from the Guardian Live Blog?
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,777
    edited January 2019

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do Laing, Winterton and Hoyle get a vote in the confidence motion ?

    Bercow + 7 Sinn Fein don't/won't...

    2 tellers each side that don't count also ?

    650 - Bercow = 649
    649 - Sinn Fein = 642
    642 - 4 tellers = 638 max ?

    But I note the 2017 vote was 323 to 309 = 632..

    The Deputy Speakers don’t vote.

    Thanks,

    650 - (Bercow+ 3 Deputies) = 646
    646 - Sinn Fein = 639
    639 - 4 tellers = 635 max ?
    Yes, but Bercow would only ever vote in a tie.
    Can anyone confirm if Pulpstar has this right?

    Do 3 deputy speakers and 4 tellers definitely not vote in a VONC? And Paul Flynn is ill and unable to vote? So including the Speaker and 7 Sinn Fein there will be 16 no voters. 634 will vote - the same number who voted yesterday, when 432 were against the Deal and 202 for the Deal?

  • Sean_F said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    She wanted to vote in person, so that all could view her martyrdom.
    Well she might also have wanted to be involved in something so historic. And remember that the Tories have been breaking pairing arrangements lately.
    Having a baby on the floor of the House of Commons, or in the No lobby, would certainly be historic
    Would it count as two votes if it was in the No lobby?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    The FTPA was created by the Lib Dems because they feared the Tory party might ditch David Cameron and replace him with headbanger who might cut and run and call an early election.

    and it was sensible for that period

    now we have the spectacle of a government held to ransom by its own backbenchers, anybody can flounce on anything and theres no downside until the next GE
    That's a feature not a bug, surely. I'm enjoying the House of Commons actually acting like a legislature and not a patsy of the Government.
    no doubt there is fun to be had, but in between there is no governance and things the country needs to do just dont get done
    Like what?
    ooh we could reform the house of Lords perhaps, have an economic policy, build some roads and houses, reform University financing, reform overseas aid, stick some meaningful green policies like maritime no fishing zones, plant some forests, delegate more powers down to local government and finance it properly etc
    Yep all of these things could be being addressed instead of a stupid pointless thing called Brexit. An obsession of people who will mainly be dead in another 20 to 30 years - though I do hope enough of us oldies who voted remain will be alive to see the day when we go back in and the UK has to accept a full fat version of the EU with the Euro and all of the other madcap ever-closer-union "advances" that would not have been there had we stayed in. It will be hilarious to watch the swivel-eyed going into apoplectic overdrive.
    and you were doing so well until you got to swivel eyed
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    I

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    That is the undemocratic bit. Giving an option without the means to deliver it is the real betrayal.
    There was an option to Leave presented last night, leaving the EU is hardly some great impossibility.

    The problem is the incoherence of what Leave wanted and campaigned for means no form of Leave has a mandate.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    tpfkar said:

    In meetings all day today so can someone fill me in on the big story - did the ground level letterboxes bill get a second reading?

    They are the bane of any deliverers life...
  • Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    I expect that minister not to be reselected by his constituency association...
    rumours of Greg Clarke
    Very likely.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    I'm not watching - Was Corbyn's speech as incoherent and rambling as it appears from the Guardian Live Blog?

    Our workshop foreman spontaneously mentioned it, said Corbyn was a joke.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
    of course failing to honour a pair with her on the vote last night wouldn't have attracted any attention at all.
    Sorry to hear about Harry Kane.
    Damn. I'd missed the Kane news. That may have scuppered my FA Cup bet. Perhaps I can switch to Man Utd as another top six club unlikely to be distracted by the sharp end of the Champions League.
  • John Baron congratulates PM on only losing her vote by 230 compared to his mahoosive loss before highlighting the risk of a Lab Govt
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2019

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    I am not sympathetic to their cause, but UKIP should be the most disgruntled group. They campaigned long and hard, and with sufficient diligence to get their referendum. And they won it. But the whole thing has unwound because the government did not take the possibility of their winning seriously and had no plan in place for what to do. That is the undemocratic bit. Giving an option without the means to deliver it is the real betrayal.
    'cept the Deal is leaving. I mean beyond Norway, Canada, you name it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited January 2019

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Because Cameron bottled out of taking on the headbangers himself and thought that the electorate could do it for him. Probably the worst single political judgment ever made by any British PM, especially since we now know the decision was taken against the advice of his closest colleagues.
    spot on

    cameron simply struggled with party management and had no bridge to the parts of the Conservative party old Etonians couldnt reach
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    Mortimer said:

    Corbyn makes big attack on Tories forcing heavily pregnant Tulipp to come to vote yesterday..... Soubry raises point of order to ask if a pair was offered.... Bercow confirms it was ....

    Irrelivent because all trust was lost after the last pairing debarcle. This is the Tories own making.
    Rot. That vote wasn’t exactly close was it.

    It was close enough that the government chose to renege on its agreement.
  • Mark Francois allowed to speak and in support of TMay...

    Still a bell end
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    I'm not watching - Was Corbyn's speech as incoherent and rambling as it appears from the Guardian Live Blog?

    Worse.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    JonathanD said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    I

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    That is the undemocratic bit. Giving an option without the means to deliver it is the real betrayal.
    There was an option to Leave presented last night, leaving the EU is hardly some great impossibility.

    The problem is the incoherence of what Leave wanted and campaigned for means no form of Leave has a mandate.
    Of course we can leave. Lots of countries aren't in the EU. And we can leave with minimal disruption. It will just take about 10 years, if not longer. Cameron said during the campaign that Article 50 would be invoked immediately. It wasn't unreasonable for us punters to assume that there was a plan in place. I voted to remain, but I seriously weighed up the alternative. So I was as misled as anyone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
  • Just in case there was any glimmer of doubt in Tory MPs about their willingness to not vote for May, Corbyn spends two days at the dispatch box in screaming hysteria.
  • Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    I expect that minister not to be reselected by his constituency association...
    rumours of Greg Clarke
    Very likely.
    I think it is astounding that the country is being allowed to hurl towards No Deal when Corbyn's Labour and May's Tories are almost agreed. The political declaration should be changed.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I'm not watching - Was Corbyn's speech as incoherent and rambling as it appears from the Guardian Live Blog?

    Our workshop foreman spontaneously mentioned it, said Corbyn was a joke.
    Corbyn's seems to be getting worse day by day.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Just heard suella braveman on wato. What a complete ar*e
  • Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    I expect that minister not to be reselected by his constituency association...
    rumours of Greg Clarke
    He perhaps is putting his country before career and party. That would be novel wouldn't it? He has a degree in economics, so he perhaps doesn't agree that a hard brexit will be fine. Boris, by perfect contrast has a degree in....?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    I am not sympathetic to their cause, but UKIP should be the most disgruntled group. They campaigned long and hard, and with sufficient diligence to get their referendum. And they won it. But the whole thing has unwound because the government did not take the possibility of their winning seriously and had no plan in place for what to do. That is the undemocratic bit. Giving an option without the means to deliver it is the real betrayal.
    Nah. If the Leave campaigns had been honest about the deliverables there wouldn't have been a Leave result.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    For similar reasons to Smithson junior, perhaps ?
    Expecting Norway would readily be agreed shortly thereafter.
    This is what I call the Gove Defence (easily countered by the "Logic Gambit"). If Leavers really were dumb enough not to wargame possible outcomes of a Leave vote then they deserve the bewilderment that currently possesses them.

    Cameron would likely resign, so who could possibly take over? Well "me [Gove], obviously". So what could derail that....

    It is the most basic scenario analysis that was lacking. The dolts. Not anyone on this site, obvs. OBVS.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Is Flynn definitely too ill to attend?

    If so, and if Govt gets Lady Hermon, then the Betfair favourite must lose (unless any Con/DUP vote against Govt).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited January 2019
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
    pressure groups have been with us for as long as I can remember, One has just taken over the Labour party,

    If the EU was the most important thing in our lives the referendum should never have been called ot the work should have been does to make it clear what was being voted for. Its as simple as that. Doing no downside planning was monumentally incompetent.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    stjohn said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do Laing, Winterton and Hoyle get a vote in the confidence motion ?

    Bercow + 7 Sinn Fein don't/won't...

    2 tellers each side that don't count also ?

    650 - Bercow = 649
    649 - Sinn Fein = 642
    642 - 4 tellers = 638 max ?

    But I note the 2017 vote was 323 to 309 = 632..

    The Deputy Speakers don’t vote.

    Thanks,

    650 - (Bercow+ 3 Deputies) = 646
    646 - Sinn Fein = 639
    639 - 4 tellers = 635 max ?
    Yes, but Bercow would only ever vote in a tie.
    Can anyone confirm if Pulpstar has this right?

    Do 3 deputy speakers and 4 tellers definitely not vote in a VONC? And Paul Flynn is ill and unable to vote? So including the Speaker and Sinn Fein there will be 16 no voters. 634 will vote - the same number who voted yesterday, when 432 were against the Deal and 202 for the Deal?

    I don't think it is necessarily right that a Dep Speaker doesn't vote in a VoNC. They do stand as party politicians at elections (unlike the Speaker), and while they give up any active political role in parliament outside of their Dep Speaker roles, they do remain part of their party's caucus. I think they can therefore vote (it'd be interesting to see the data from 1979, particularly given that that vote was carried by just 1).

    Flynn is ill but I don't think we know whether he's so ill that he can't vote. He may not have voted yesterday because the whips advised him that it would not be close and that his vote wouldn't matter. That assurance can't be given today. Again, in 1979, Callaghan instructed Alfred Broughton (who was terminally ill and died five days later) not to attend due to the risk that the journey might kill him. Had he gone to Westminster (and arrived), Labour would have survived.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Harrumph. I've been limited to £1 an MP today by Sporting Index. I mean, really.

    LOL. What price and value did you screw them for yesterday?
    Not that much really, I took under £150 off them yesterday, being allowed a maximum £3.75 an MP on two occasions.

    I do have a good track record with them, I admit, but presumably they have plenty of people on the other side of the spreads if they set them where they set them. Yesterday there was obviously plenty of upward pressure on the price, which rose as high as 223-231 at one point (and an eight point spread was pretty cheeky - it's only three points today). I'm not taking advantage of them but of their other customers. They should be prepared to take the rough with the smooth.
    Definitely!

    Today’s vote is also going to be a lot more predictable than yesterday’s, it’s going to be 325-310 less maybe a couple of abstentions from the Opposition or a Conservative who’s happy to end his career. There’s no reason they shouldn’t allow £100 a seat on such a market.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2019

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
    pressure groups have been with us for as long as I can remember, One has just taken over the Labour party,

    If the EU the most important thing in our lives the referendum should never have been called ot the work should have been does to make it clear what was being voted for. Its as simple as that. Doing no downside planning was monumentally incompetent.
    There was plenty of downside planning. Or "Project Fear" as the Leavers called it. So was it right to call something which could have had such a downside? Of course it was.

    I could link to dozens of papers detailing why a Corbyn government would be a disaster. Doesn't mean (sadly) that Corbyn's Labour Party should be banned from taking part in the next GE.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Can we just have customs union and workers rights alignment written into the WA and be done with it now?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    May has the same answer to every question. It’s just moronic.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    edited January 2019

    stjohn said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do Laing, Winterton and Hoyle get a vote in the confidence motion ?

    Bercow + 7 Sinn Fein don't/won't...

    2 tellers each side that don't count also ?

    650 - Bercow = 649
    649 - Sinn Fein = 642
    642 - 4 tellers = 638 max ?

    But I note the 2017 vote was 323 to 309 = 632..

    The Deputy Speakers don’t vote.

    Thanks,

    650 - (Bercow+ 3 Deputies) = 646
    646 - Sinn Fein = 639
    639 - 4 tellers = 635 max ?
    Yes, but Bercow would only ever vote in a tie.
    Can anyone confirm if Pulpstar has this right?

    Do 3 deputy speakers and 4 tellers definitely not vote in a VONC? And Paul Flynn is ill and unable to vote? So including the Speaker and Sinn Fein there will be 16 no voters. 634 will vote - the same number who voted yesterday, when 432 were against the Deal and 202 for the Deal?

    I don't think it is necessarily right that a Dep Speaker doesn't vote in a VoNC. They do stand as party politicians at elections (unlike the Speaker), and while they give up any active political role in parliament outside of their Dep Speaker roles, they do remain part of their party's caucus. I think they can therefore vote (it'd be interesting to see the data from 1979, particularly given that that vote was carried by just 1).

    Flynn is ill but I don't think we know whether he's so ill that he can't vote. He may not have voted yesterday because the whips advised him that it would not be close and that his vote wouldn't matter. That assurance can't be given today. Again, in 1979, Callaghan instructed Alfred Broughton (who was terminally ill and died five days later) not to attend due to the risk that the journey might kill him. Had he gone to Westminster (and arrived), Labour would have survived.
    Laing, Hoyle, Winterton, Bercow, 7 SF and Gregory Campbell of the DUP are the abstentions from the https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-06-29/division/529E63FC-2CE0-40C8-831C-38FFB4C65FDE/EconomyAndJobs?outputType=Party division. + 1 more Labour, can't work out who though.

    It's not O'Mara or Woodcock. Or Flynn.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:
    I expect that minister not to be reselected by his constituency association...
    If they don't avoid a hard brexit, 50% of them will be out of a job anyway.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
    pressure groups have been with us for monumentally incompetent.
    There was plenty of downside planning. Or "Project Fear" as the Leavers call it. So was it right to call something which could have had such a downside? Of course it was.

    I could link to dozens of papers detailing why a Corbyn government would be a disaster. Doesn't mean (sadly) that Corbyn's Labour Party should be banned from taking part in the next GE.
    PR stunts are not planning. Planning has a balance of risks and recommendations as to what to do to mitigate them. They also look at upsides since you need to plan for those as well

    HMG did neither.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Freggles said:

    Can we just have customs union and workers rights alignment written into the WA and be done with it now?

    Yep. Or rather of course not they've got to go through this farrago but yep they should.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    May has the same answer to every question. It’s just moronic.

    The same questions keep getting asked though.
  • FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    I am not sympathetic to their cause, but UKIP should be the most disgruntled group. They campaigned long and hard, and with sufficient diligence to get their referendum. And they won it. But the whole thing has unwound because the government did not take the possibility of their winning seriously and had no plan in place for what to do. That is the undemocratic bit. Giving an option without the means to deliver it is the real betrayal.
    Nah. If the Leave campaigns had been honest about the deliverables there wouldn't have been a Leave result.
    Indeed. While remain might have been accused of exaggerating (although that is looking less and less accurate), Leave lied and obfuscated throughout the entire campaign. They were surprisingly quite clever though, in a populist kind of way. Labelling genuine economic concerns "Project Fear" they managed to neutralise the impact of economic probabilities while falling back on the most basic and odious irrational fear there is; that of the foreigner
  • In 1979 the Deputy Speakers voted. Don't know if they would again
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
    pressure groups have been with us for as long as I can remember, One has just taken over the Labour party,

    If the EU was the most important thing in our lives the referendum should never have been called ot the work should have been does to make it clear what was being voted for. Its as simple as that. Doing no downside planning was monumentally incompetent.
    Was that last paragraph intentionally incoherent or have you had a good lunch?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    MikeL said:

    Is Flynn definitely too ill to attend?

    If so, and if Govt gets Lady Hermon, then the Betfair favourite must lose (unless any Con/DUP vote against Govt).

    If the deputy speakers are voting I think it edges the likely total up to 311 in my opinion.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    Nothing I've seen indicates that the undoubted huge frustration with the Brexit process will turn into a groundswell of support for a Corbyn government.

    I think defeat for him tonight will be a blessing in disguise for Labour. On two counts: there will be a massive "what the hell are you playing at this close to Brexit?" narrative, and he needs to let TMay own Brexit (/lack thereof) until at least March 29th.

    I suspect a GE now would probably leave us more or less where we are now. But him picking up the pieces a fortnight before D-Day would mean Brexit gets added to the large pile of stuff which is his fault very soon after.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Pulpstar said:

    May has the same answer to every question. It’s just moronic.

    The same questions keep getting asked though.
    Sometimes I think the HOC over-debates things. Everyone knows how they're going to vote, just get on with it.
  • The reasons the same question are being asked and same responses are given shows how polarised the mps are.

    TM is not going to suddenly move to a CU or anything else until she is able to consider how to move forward. It is clear that she is seeking to retain ERG and DUP support but hopefully to find a compromise on her deal, but it is clear she is anti a second referendum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    For similar reasons to Smithson junior, perhaps ?
    Expecting Norway would readily be agreed shortly thereafter.
    This is what I call the Gove Defence (easily countered by the "Logic Gambit"). If Leavers really were dumb enough not to wargame possible outcomes of a Leave vote then they deserve the bewilderment that currently possesses them. ....
    Agreed, of course.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    edited January 2019

    MikeL said:

    Is Flynn definitely too ill to attend?

    If so, and if Govt gets Lady Hermon, then the Betfair favourite must lose (unless any Con/DUP vote against Govt).

    If the deputy speakers are voting I think it edges the likely total up to 311 in my opinion.
    Correct. But I personally don't believe they will vote - indeed I would be astounded if they vote.

    It's 311-324 if Govt just gets DUP.

    If they get Hermon it's 310-325.

    If get Hermon and Flynn isn't there it's then 309-325.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Again, in 1979, Callaghan instructed Alfred Broughton (who was terminally ill and died five days later) not to attend due to the risk that the journey might kill him. Had he gone to Westminster (and arrived), Labour would have survived.

    For the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost. I was not aware of that story. Amazing.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    It is a future trade agreements (and headbanger) thing. A Customs Union prevents us doing independent trade deals but it doesn't prevent us trading with China, US etc. and we can take advantage of the numerous free trade deals that the EU have negotiated. It hardly featured in the referendum campaign. It is a totem for the headbangers.

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
    pressure groups have been with us for monumentally incompetent.
    There was plenty of downside planning. Or "Project Fear" as the Leavers call it. So was it right to call something which could have had such a downside? Of course it was.

    I could link to dozens of papers detailing why a Corbyn government would be a disaster. Doesn't mean (sadly) that Corbyn's Labour Party should be banned from taking part in the next GE.
    PR stunts are not planning. Planning has a balance of risks and recommendations as to what to do to mitigate them. They also look at upsides since you need to plan for those as well

    HMG did neither.
    Did you read the NIESR reports?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited January 2019

    Pulpstar said:

    May has the same answer to every question. It’s just moronic.

    The same questions keep getting asked though.
    Sometimes I think the HOC over-debates things. Everyone knows how they're going to vote, just get on with it.
    The debate is merely to allow Hansard to record an MP's words for posterity...
  • May has the same answer to every question. It’s just moronic.

    Indeed, unless you compare her to Mr. Shoutyman/ Jeremy "2Es" Corbyn, and then she looks like a colossus of intellect!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,844
    edited January 2019
    IanB2 said:

    The first part was what I was floating this morning. From my experience in industrial relations, things always seem the worst in the moments before a way through is found and agreed. The problem, I think, is that our PM (despite her underestimated skills in progressing determinedly down a single path, on which I have commented before) doesn't have the skill set to deliver a majority in Parliament for any proposal of her own.

    She seems to lack political skills, which is not great for a politician.

    Yet I am far from convinced that anybody else who the Tories could have picked post DC would have done substantially better.

    I think the problem with Brexit is, fundamentally, Brexit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    edited January 2019
    Scott_P said:
    But surely tax is only for the little people ?

    (C. Leona Helmsley)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    Is Flynn definitely too ill to attend?

    If so, and if Govt gets Lady Hermon, then the Betfair favourite must lose (unless any Con/DUP vote against Govt).

    If the deputy speakers are voting I think it edges the likely total up to 311 in my opinion.
    Correct. But I personally don't believe they will vote - indeed I would be astounded if they vote.
    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-06-29/division/529E63FC-2CE0-40C8-831C-38FFB4C65FDE/EconomyAndJobs?outputType=Party = 257 Labour

    Winterton, Hoyle + 2 tellers = 261.

    262 Labour were elected. Who is the missing link ?!
  • The reasons the same question are being asked and same responses are given shows how polarised the mps are.

    TM is not going to suddenly move to a CU or anything else until she is able to consider how to move forward. It is clear that she is seeking to retain ERG and DUP support but hopefully to find a compromise on her deal, but it is clear she is anti a second referendum.

    Yes, and if anything last night's vote made the polarisation worse. The fact that both the ERG and the ultra-remainers/people's-voters were jubilant at the result means that both extremes think they are winning - so why would either side compromise?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,008

    JonathanD said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Single Market (and Norway deal).

    I

    I don't know why May is so resistant to a CU. I understand her resistance to the SM because of her anti- immigration views. If she conceded on the CU, she'd have trouble with her headbangers (but she has that in spades anyway) but she would take the wind out of Corbyn's sails.
    Apparently the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals than the ones negotiated by the EU. You just have to close your eyes and say "I believe in Liam Fox" three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    That is the undemocratic bit. Giving an option without the means to deliver it is the real betrayal.
    There was an option to Leave presented last night, leaving the EU is hardly some great impossibility.

    The problem is the incoherence of what Leave wanted and campaigned for means no form of Leave has a mandate.
    Of course we can leave. Lots of countries aren't in the EU. And we can leave with minimal disruption. It will just take about 10 years, if not longer.
    10 years? Project Fear. David Davis is confident "within a year, everything will be ironed out".

    No one can starve to death in just a year. Everything will be fine.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758
    Freggles said:

    Can we just have customs union and workers rights alignment written into the WA and be done with it now?

    Yes. If only to give those morons in the ERG their just desserts.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited January 2019
    The governments of the day hid behind the EU pronouncements because it was always a convenient fig-leaf for unpopular policies. It came back to bite them on the bum. They couldn't then say "See what the Romans have done for us?"

    They only had the hyperbolic Project Fear. When we have eat each other, can I have a fat one without a gammy leg, please? Monty Python fans will know what I mean.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2019

    Nothing I've seen indicates that the undoubted huge frustration with the Brexit process will turn into a groundswell of support for a Corbyn government.

    I think defeat for him tonight will be a blessing in disguise for Labour. On two counts: there will be a massive "what the hell are you playing at this close to Brexit?" narrative, and he needs to let TMay own Brexit (/lack thereof) until at least March 29th.

    I suspect a GE now would probably leave us more or less where we are now. But him picking up the pieces a fortnight before D-Day would mean Brexit gets added to the large pile of stuff which is his fault very soon after.

    At some point, and I don't think it will occur soon with Corbyn in charge, voters will have been exposed to so much division amongst the Conservatives, that the Labour Party could support the deal and not be punished for it at a subsequent general election. The impression would be that the Labour Party had saved the day.

    With the FTPA however, the wait is too long to contemplate such a move now, IMO (Nick?).
  • May has the same answer to every question. It’s just moronic.

    Indeed, unless you compare her to Mr. Shoutyman/ Jeremy "2Es" Corbyn, and then she looks like a colossus of intellect!
    At this moment TM would be an asset to the party v Corbyn in a GE
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?

    It's not an immigration thing. That's to do with the Sing three times.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - beca UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
    pressure groups have been with us for monumentally incompetent.
    There was plenty of downside planning. Or "Project Fear" as the L part in the next GE.
    PR stunts are not planning. Planning has a balance of risks and recommendations as to what to do to mitigate them. They also look at upsides since you need to plan for those as well

    HMG did neither.
    Did you read the NIESR reports?
    were they the government of the day ?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    Is Flynn definitely too ill to attend?

    If so, and if Govt gets Lady Hermon, then the Betfair favourite must lose (unless any Con/DUP vote against Govt).

    If the deputy speakers are voting I think it edges the likely total up to 311 in my opinion.
    Correct. But I personally don't believe they will vote - indeed I would be astounded if they vote.

    It's 311-324 if Govt just gets DUP.

    If they get Hermon it's 310-325.

    If get Hermon and Flynn isn't there it's then 309-325.
    Even though precedent seems to be that they did in 1979, and that they stood as party MPs?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    The reasons the same question are being asked and same responses are given shows how polarised the mps are.

    TM is not going to suddenly move to a CU or anything else until she is able to consider how to move forward. It is clear that she is seeking to retain ERG and DUP support but hopefully to find a compromise on her deal, but it is clear she is anti a second referendum.

    Yes, and if anything last night's vote made the polarisation worse. The fact that both the ERG and the ultra-remainers/people's-voters were jubilant at the result means that both extremes think they are winning - so why would either side compromise?
    They're both as bad as each other.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Scott_P said:
    Luckily for her the IRS is shut down for the foreseeable future.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    Is Flynn definitely too ill to attend?

    If so, and if Govt gets Lady Hermon, then the Betfair favourite must lose (unless any Con/DUP vote against Govt).

    If the deputy speakers are voting I think it edges the likely total up to 311 in my opinion.
    Correct. But I personally don't believe they will vote - indeed I would be astounded if they vote.

    It's 311-324 if Govt just gets DUP.

    If they get Hermon it's 310-325.

    If get Hermon and Flynn isn't there it's then 309-325.
    Thanks. So then I think the likely winning band is 300-309.
  • Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:
    But surely tax is only for the little people ?

    (C. Leona Helmsley)
    It is the question her father no doubt asks whenever he sees an attractive woman who has avoided taxes, "is she really likely to go down?"
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    If Govt do win by 16 tonight then worth noting that if DUP do jump ship they only lose by 4.

    So if they could win a Peterborough by-election they would then only need to get one Independent Lab MP onside for a tie.

    A long shot but not totally inconceivable.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Anyone betting on 310-319 is in large part betting on the efficiency of Labour’s whipping operation.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,008
    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Can we just have customs union and workers rights alignment written into the WA and be done with it now?

    Yes. If only to give those morons in the ERG their just desserts.
    Just desserts? What does that mean? Endless Eccles cakes? Semolina ad infinitum? Unlimited rice pudding?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    failing french president needs overseas distraction shock

    really he's so deep in the poo atm it's all he can do
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,844
    Apols if posted before but I do like Gove as Trigger in this ...

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1085261972063600641
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,758

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Barnesian said:

    Anorak said:

    PB Brains Trust: In brief, what is the problem with CU membership? Is it an immigration thing, a "future trade agreements" thing, or just a headbanger thing?



    es.
    Why. The. Fuck. Did. You. Vote. Leave?
    why did the Conservatives call the referendum

    Slightly non-sequitorial but I'll answer - because 4m Kippers were effectively disenfranchised and so campaigned for a political party to include the pledge to have a referendum in their manifesto. It's how politics/pressure groups work.
    they had no seats, they werent the government and they got lots of Tory votes because the Tories told their supporters to eff and vote UKIP

    Not that clever really
    It was a pressure group. Arguably the most successful one in history. It's how pressure groups work.
    pressure groups have been with us for monumentally incompetent.
    There was plenty of downside planning. Or "Project Fear" as the Leavers call it. So was it right to call something which could have had such a downside? Of course it was.

    I could link to dozens of papers detailing why a Corbyn government would be a disaster. Doesn't mean (sadly) that Corbyn's Labour Party should be banned from taking part in the next GE.
    PR stunts are not planning. Planning has a balance of risks and recommendations as to what to do to mitigate them. They also look at upsides since you need to plan for those as well

    HMG did neither.
    It also involves passing the relevant legislation with the power to bring it in as required, working on the practical issues of import and export, drafting the mini deals needed to mitigate inconvenience, getting any scheme by which EU citizens are to register actually up and running etc etc. As I have said before the incompetence of this government is truly mind blowing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Anyone betting on 310-319 is in large part betting on the efficiency of Labour’s whipping operation.

    I'm in profit on that band but only because I've laid a monkey on the 320-329 band. Even the DUP changing their mind doesn't get it to 320.
This discussion has been closed.