Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
What you're forgetting is if the Tories mess this up they're history. They get replaced by the Brexit Party
How can the Brexit Party win a seat like Esher and Walton, for example?
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 1. Let the people of NI choose to join it, let them at periodic elections continue to choose to remain in it and give them the right to terminate it at a time of their choosing. Not controlled by London, Dublin, Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else but the voters of Northern Ireland.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
Option 1 is fair enough but that means it will be definite because there will never be a majority to get rid of it .
Your second option I’ll put down to it being late and you had a few drinks ! You seriously think the EU are going to allow what could end up being a puppet for Westminster to veto things , a non EU nation having a veto .
You seem to be very concerned about terminating democracy but don’t see much problem with the government inflicting a no deal on the country without a mandate .
Were voters promised by Vote Leave the UK would leave with a deal and an orderly departure ?
Would they have won by saying we’ll leave without one?
Voters were asked "Leave or Remain". Both options are clear. Leave is with or without a deal. Simples.
It’s not simples . We keep hearing non stop that Leavers knew what they were voting for , apparently Cameron made it clear . So what do I do with the Vote Leave promise about a deal and an orderly departure not rupture with the EU. Is that a lie then ? So we believe Cameron but not Vote Leave . You can’t have it both ways ? But of course Leavers have selective memories. If you want no deal put that specific question to the public .
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 1. Let the people of NI choose to join it, let them at periodic elections continue to choose to remain in it and give them the right to terminate it at a time of their choosing. Not controlled by London, Dublin, Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else but the voters of Northern Ireland.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
No sensible person gives a shit about Irish backstops except completely bonkers Tories with nothing interesting to occupy their minds. Why not go to an art galley or even a film. Have you any idea how long it is since the Palestinians had any say over their governance at all? Go and demontrate for them. It actually affects their lives.
Wow. Where to start with this garbage?
The no true Scotsman fallacy?
Or the idea we should have Northern Ireland be treated like Palestine?
Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
While the nightmare for leftwingers is Boris or Farage get into power and find enough wedge issues to keep their voters onside and stay in power
That's a choice between undesirable and fucking hell! I think you can guess which way I swing.
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 1. Let the people of NI choose to join it, let them at periodic elections continue to choose to remain in it and give them the right to terminate it at a time of their choosing. Not controlled by London, Dublin, Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else but the voters of Northern Ireland.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
No sensible person gives a shit about Irish backstops except completely bonkers Tories with nothing interesting to occupy their minds. Why not go to an art galley or even a film. Have you any idea how long it is since the Palestinians had any say over their governance at all? Go and demontrate for them. It actually affects their lives.
Wow. Where to start with this garbage?
The no true Scotsman fallacy?
Or the idea we should have Northern Ireland be treated like Palestine?
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 1. Let the people of NI choose to join it, let them at periodic elections continue to choose to remain in it and give them the right to terminate it at a time of their choosing. Not controlled by London, Dublin, Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else but the voters of Northern Ireland.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
Option 1 is fair enough but that means it will be definite because there will never be a majority to get rid of it .
Your second option I’ll put down to it being late and you had a few drinks ! You seriously think the EU are going to allow what could end up being a puppet for Westminster to veto things , a non EU nation having a veto .
You seem to be very concerned about terminating democracy but don’t see much problem with the government inflicting a no deal on the country without a mandate .
Were voters promised by Vote Leave the UK would leave with a deal and an orderly departure ?
Would they have won by saying we’ll leave without one?
Voters were asked "Leave or Remain". Both options are clear. Leave is with or without a deal. Simples.
It’s not simples . We keep hearing non stop that Leavers knew what they were voting for , apparently Cameron made it clear . So what do I do with the Vote Leave promise about a deal and an orderly departure not rupture with the EU. Is that a lie then ? So we believe Cameron but not Vote Leave . You can’t have it both ways ? But of course Leavers have selective memories. If you want no deal put that specific question to the public .
Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
What you're forgetting is if the Tories mess this up they're history. They get replaced by the Brexit Party
How can the Brexit Party win a seat like Esher and Walton, for example?
The LDs may win that one but Esher and Walton is in Elmbridge which voted 59.5% Remain, yet overall at least 62% of Conservative constituencies are in areas which voted Leave
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 1. Let the people of NI choose to join it, let them at periodic elections continue to choose to remain in it and give them the right to terminate it at a time of their choosing. Not controlled by London, Dublin, Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else but the voters of Northern Ireland.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
Option 1 is fair enough but that means it will be definite because there will never be a majority to get rid of it .
Your second option I’ll put down to it being late and you had a few drinks ! You seriously think the EU are going to allow what could end up being a puppet for Westminster to veto things , a non EU nation having a veto .
You seem to be very concerned about terminating democracy but don’t see much problem with the government inflicting a no deal on the country without a mandate .
Were voters promised by Vote Leave the UK would leave with a deal and an orderly departure ?
Would they have won by saying we’ll leave without one?
The second option I don't believe the EU would agree to. It would be legitimate if they want to annex NI but it isn't on the table so nor should be the backstop.
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 1. Let the people of NI choose to join it, let them at periodic elections continue to choose to remain in it and give them the right to terminate it at a time of their choosing. Not controlled by London, Dublin, Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else but the voters of Northern Ireland.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
Option 1 is fair enough but that means it will be definite because there will never be a majority to get rid of it .
Your second option I’ll put down to it being late and you had a few drinks ! You seriously think the EU are going to allow what could end up being a puppet for Westminster to veto things , a non EU nation having a veto .
You seem to be very concerned about terminating democracy but don’t see much problem with the government inflicting a no deal on the country without a mandate .
Were voters promised by Vote Leave the UK would leave with a deal and an orderly departure ?
Would they have won by saying we’ll leave without one?
Voters were asked "Leave or Remain". Both options are clear. Leave is with or without a deal. Simples.
It’s not simples . We keep hearing non stop that Leavers knew what they were voting for , apparently Cameron made it clear . So what do I do with the Vote Leave promise about a deal and an orderly departure not rupture with the EU. Is that a lie then ? So we believe Cameron but not Vote Leave . You can’t have it both ways ? But of course Leavers have selective memories. If you want no deal put that specific question to the public .
Vote Leave wasn’t the government or trying to firm the government
Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
What you're forgetting is if the Tories mess this up they're history. They get replaced by the Brexit Party
How can the Brexit Party win a seat like Esher and Walton, for example?
The LDs may win that one but Esher and Walton is in Elmbridge which voted 59.5% Remain, yet overall at least 62% of Conservative constituencies are in areas which voted Leave
That doesn't mean that they would vote Leave today, nor that the way to win them is to campaign on a Leave manifesto. For instance, there was that Focaldata analysis last year that suggested Johnson's constituency had moved from 43.6% to 51.4% Remain, whilst Gove's constituency had moved from 48% to 50.2% Remain.
Also I'd remind you that the Tories didn't get a majority in the last GE - they need to win more seats than in 2017 to gain a majority. Who do they take those extra seats from?
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 1. Let the people of NI choose to join it, let them at periodic elections continue to choose to remain in it and give them the right to terminate it at a time of their choosing. Not controlled by London, Dublin, Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else but the voters of Northern Ireland.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
Option 1 is fair enough but that means it will be definite because there will never be a majority to get rid of it .
Your second option I’ll put down to it being late and you had a few drinks ! You seriously think the EU are going to allow what could end up being a puppet for Westminster to veto things , a non EU nation having a veto .
You seem to be very concerned about terminating democracy but don’t see much problem with the government inflicting a no deal on the country without a mandate .
Were voters promised by Vote Leave the UK would leave with a deal and an orderly departure ?
Would they have won by saying we’ll leave without one?
Voters were asked "Leave or Remain". Both options are clear. Leave is with or without a deal. Simples.
It’s not simples . We keep hearing non stop that Leavers knew what they were voting for , apparently Cameron made it clear . So what do I do with the Vote Leave promise about a deal and an orderly departure not rupture with the EU. Is that a lie then ? So we believe Cameron but not Vote Leave . You can’t have it both ways ? But of course Leavers have selective memories. If you want no deal put that specific question to the public .
What did the ballot paper say? Simples
Did the ballot paper say leave the single market and customs union ? If you’re happy to include no deal in the Leave question then I’m happy to include staying in the single market or a customs union . Both are still leaving the EU but versions of Leave as the UK is officially out .
But of course that bit that you were originally promised by Cameron is set in stone but the bit about a deal from Vote Leave isn’t .
My advice stop digging , you’re not winning this !
It is difficult for me to understand the force of Trump within the underpriveliged classes in USA; to be so poor in a land full of rich bastards e.g. Trump. But it probably wouldn't have been so difficult for our great grandparents (mine anyway). I feel for these people without having any experience of their circumstances. Clinton showed herself to be totally unworthy with her commentary on these people and I can hate her for it without remorse .
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
Doesn't the Govt determine parliamentary hols?
I think the point is that the dates of their summer "hols" have now been finalised and approved, short of some kind of emergency procedure they are now fixed. And yes, the Government would control the recall of Parliament.
But if the Opposition want to use FTPA/VoNC to trigger a general election, then the above thread implies that the VoNC has to be tabled by 25th July, the last day of the current session, in order to have a VoNC on their first day back on 3 September, which is the last day possible for all the procedures to be followed through in order to have a GE on a Thursday before Brexit day. You get a few extra days if you're OK having the election not on Thursday for the first time in 88 years.
I have said all along there are two very easy ways to make the backstop democratic.
Option 2: Keep the backstop as indefinite but for its duration the voters of NI should continue to be represented at all levels of the EU. They should keep their MEPs with full voting rights and for the duration of the backstop Arlene Foster (or her successor) should take the place of the UK Prime Minister in the European Council with full rights including the right of veto.
Terminating democracy and not giving voters a choice is not a valid option. No matter what level of inconvenience or even death may be the result of not terminating democracy.
Option 1 is fair enough but that means it will be definite because there will never be a majority to get rid of it .
Your second option I’ll put down to it being late and you had a few drinks ! You seriously think the EU are going to allow what could end up being a puppet for Westminster to veto things , a non EU nation having a veto .
You seem to be very concerned about terminating democracy but don’t see much problem with the government inflicting a no deal on the country without a mandate .
Were voters promised by Vote Leave the UK would leave with a deal and an orderly departure ?
Would they have won by saying we’ll leave without one?
Voters were asked "Leave or Remain". Both options are clear. Leave is with or without a deal. Simples.
It’s not simples . We keep hearing non stop that Leavers knew what they were voting for , apparently Cameron made it clear . So what do I do with the Vote Leave promise about a deal and an orderly departure not rupture with the EU. Is that a lie then ? So we believe Cameron but not Vote Leave . You can’t have it both ways ? But of course Leavers have selective memories. If you want no deal put that specific question to the public .
What did the ballot paper say? Simples
Did the ballot paper say leave the single market and customs union ? If you’re happy to include no deal in the Leave question then I’m happy to include staying in the single market or a customs union . Both are still leaving the EU but versions of Leave as the UK is officially out .
But of course that bit that you were originally promised by Cameron is set in stone but the bit about a deal from Vote Leave isn’t .
My advice stop digging , you’re not winning this !
It's the ballot paper stupid not some imaginary extension thereof, and it's not a game dickhead.
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
Doesn't the Govt determine parliamentary hols?
I think the point is that the dates of their summer "hols" have now been finalised and approved, short of some kind of emergency procedure they are now fixed. And yes, the Government would control the recall of Parliament.
But if the Opposition want to use FTPA/VoNC to trigger a general election, then the above thread implies that the VoNC has to be tabled by 25th July, the last day of the current session, in order to have a VoNC on their first day back on 3 September, which is the last day possible for all the procedures to be followed through in order to have a GE on a Thursday before Brexit day. You get a few extra days if you're OK having the election not on Thursday for the first time in 88 years.
Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
What you're forgetting is if the Tories mess this up they're history. They get replaced by the Brexit Party
How can the Brexit Party win a seat like Esher and Walton, for example?
The LDs may win that one but Esher and Walton is in Elmbridge which voted 59.5% Remain, yet overall at least 62% of Conservative constituencies are in areas which voted Leave
That doesn't mean that they would vote Leave today, nor that the way to win them is to campaign on a Leave manifesto. For instance, there was that Focaldata analysis last year that suggested Johnson's constituency had moved from 43.6% to 51.4% Remain, whilst Gove's constituency had moved from 48% to 50.2% Remain.
Also I'd remind you that the Tories didn't get a majority in the last GE - they need to win more seats than in 2017 to gain a majority. Who do they take those extra seats from?
Over 400 constituencies voted for the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections last month, the Tories currently only hold 318.
Both Hillingdon, containing Uxbridge and Surrey Heath voted for the Brexit Party
Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
What you're forgetting is if the Tories mess this up they're history. They get replaced by the Brexit Party
How can the Brexit Party win a seat like Esher and Walton, for example?
The LDs may win that one but Esher and Walton is in Elmbridge which voted 59.5% Remain, yet overall at least 62% of Conservative constituencies are in areas which voted Leave
That doesn't mean that they would vote Leave today, nor that the way to win them is to campaign on a Leave manifesto. For instance, there was that Focaldata analysis last year that suggested Johnson's constituency had moved from 43.6% to 51.4% Remain, whilst Gove's constituency had moved from 48% to 50.2% Remain.
Also I'd remind you that the Tories didn't get a majority in the last GE - they need to win more seats than in 2017 to gain a majority. Who do they take those extra seats from?
Over 400 constituencies voted for the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections last month, the Tories currently only hold 318.
Both Hillingdon, containing Uxbridge and Surrey Heath voted for the Brexit Party
I think you're wasting your time with Sid. It's either cups or incompetence.
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
It is difficult for me to understand the force of Trump within the underpriveliged classes in USA; to be so poor in a land full of rich bastards e.g. Trump. But it probably wouldn't have been so difficult for our great grandparents (mine anyway). I feel for these people without having any experience of their circumstances. Clinton showed herself to be totally unworthy with her commentary on these people and I can hate her for it without remorse .
Hillary actually won the votes of the poor overall, even if Trump may have won the white poor it was the skilled working class and the lower middle class where he polled best, not the poorest Americans
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
Doesn't the Govt determine parliamentary hols?
I think the point is that the dates of their summer "hols" have now been finalised and approved, short of some kind of emergency procedure they are now fixed. And yes, the Government would control the recall of Parliament.
But if the Opposition want to use FTPA/VoNC to trigger a general election, then the above thread implies that the VoNC has to be tabled by 25th July, the last day of the current session, in order to have a VoNC on their first day back on 3 September, which is the last day possible for all the procedures to be followed through in order to have a GE on a Thursday before Brexit day. You get a few extra days if you're OK having the election not on Thursday for the first time in 88 years.
emergency procedure it is then.
Why? There's still a month to go in which a VoNC can be tabled.
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
It is difficult for me to understand the force of Trump within the underpriveliged classes in USA; to be so poor in a land full of rich bastards e.g. Trump. But it probably wouldn't have been so difficult for our great grandparents (mine anyway). I feel for these people without having any experience of their circumstances. Clinton showed herself to be totally unworthy with her commentary on these people and I can hate her for it without remorse .
Hillary actually won the votes of the poor overall, even if Trump may have won the white poor it was the skilled working class and the lower middle class where he polled best, not the poorest Americans
who were the deplorables then? Was she racist too?
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Hunt seems seriously into Big Stick stuff - as I understand it, he suggested yesterday that we might join the US in a war with Iran.
As I have said before Jeremy Hunt is the British Mitt Romney, Romney wanted a $10 trillion increase in defence spending over 10 years and took a tough line with Iran in 2012.
Even Trump refused to send a missile strike against Iran when the drone was shot down pursuing sanctions again
It is difficult for me to understand the force of Trump within the underpriveliged classes in USA; to be so poor in a land full of rich bastards e.g. Trump. But it probably wouldn't have been so difficult for our great grandparents (mine anyway). I feel for these people without having any experience of their circumstances. Clinton showed herself to be totally unworthy with her commentary on these people and I can hate her for it without remorse .
Hillary actually won the votes of the poor overall, even if Trump may have won the white poor it was the skilled working class and the lower middle class where he polled best, not the poorest Americans
who were the deplorables then? Was she racist too?
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
Doesn't the Govt determine parliamentary hols?
I think the point is that the dates of their summer "hols" have now been finalised and approved, short of some kind of emergency procedure they are now fixed. And yes, the Government would control the recall of Parliament.
But if the Opposition want to use FTPA/VoNC to trigger a general election, then the above thread implies that the VoNC has to be tabled by 25th July, the last day of the current session, in order to have a VoNC on their first day back on 3 September, which is the last day possible for all the procedures to be followed through in order to have a GE on a Thursday before Brexit day. You get a few extra days if you're OK having the election not on Thursday for the first time in 88 years.
emergency procedure it is then.
Why? There's still a month to go in which a VoNC can be tabled.
It is difficult for me to understand the force of Trump within the underpriveliged classes in USA; to be so poor in a land full of rich bastards e.g. Trump. But it probably wouldn't have been so difficult for our great grandparents (mine anyway). I feel for these people without having any experience of their circumstances. Clinton showed herself to be totally unworthy with her commentary on these people and I can hate her for it without remorse .
Hillary actually won the votes of the poor overall, even if Trump may have won the white poor it was the skilled working class and the lower middle class where he polled best, not the poorest Americans
who were the deplorables then? Was she racist too?
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
What you're forgetting is if the Tories mess this up they're history. They get replaced by the Brexit Party
How can the Brexit Party win a seat like Esher and Walton, for example?
The LDs may win that one but Esher and Walton is in Elmbridge which voted 59.5% Remain, yet overall at least 62% of Conservative constituencies are in areas which voted Leave
That doesn't mean that they would vote Leave today, nor that the way to win them is to campaign on a Leave manifesto. For instance, there was that Focaldata analysis last year that suggested Johnson's constituency had moved from 43.6% to 51.4% Remain, whilst Gove's constituency had moved from 48% to 50.2% Remain.
Also I'd remind you that the Tories didn't get a majority in the last GE - they need to win more seats than in 2017 to gain a majority. Who do they take those extra seats from?
Over 400 constituencies voted for the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections last month, the Tories currently only hold 318.
Both Hillingdon, containing Uxbridge and Surrey Heath voted for the Brexit Party
And Euro elections attract "kick the cat" protest votes on a low turnout. Compare with 2014 - Farage's UKIP topped the polls with 27% of the vote, but got half that in the 2015 GE and gained one seat. Farage got 30% of the vote in the 2019 Euros.
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
Doesn't the Govt determine parliamentary hols?
I think the point is that the dates of their summer "hols" have now been finalised and approved, short of some kind of emergency procedure they are now fixed. And yes, the Government would control the recall of Parliament.
But if the Opposition want to use FTPA/VoNC to trigger a general election, then the above thread implies that the VoNC has to be tabled by 25th July, the last day of the current session, in order to have a VoNC on their first day back on 3 September, which is the last day possible for all the procedures to be followed through in order to have a GE on a Thursday before Brexit day. You get a few extra days if you're OK having the election not on Thursday for the first time in 88 years.
emergency procedure it is then.
Why? There's still a month to go in which a VoNC can be tabled.
Corbyn, dependent on LibDems and SNP, is going to be a strictly limited experiment for now. That shouldn't be the end of the world for the Tories - on the contrary, if it's as bad as they think, they will be elected back next time. Perhaps what they really worry about is that it won't be as bad as they predict?
The problem at the moment is that normal political rules - mess up and get thrown out on your ear - don't necessarily seem to apply because the polarisation of the electorate means that the voters have priorities other than competence.
So, from a Tory perspective the nightmare scenario is that Corbyn gets into power, it's really truly awful, but Corbyn finds enough wedge issues to keep his voters onside and stays in power.
What you're forgetting is if the Tories mess this up they're history. They get replaced by the Brexit Party
How can the Brexit Party win a seat like Esher and Walton, for example?
The LDs may win that one but Esher and Walton is in Elmbridge which voted 59.5% Remain, yet overall at least 62% of Conservative constituencies are in areas which voted Leave
That doesn't mean that they would vote Leave today, nor that the way to win them is to campaign on a Leave manifesto. For instance, there was that Focaldata analysis last year that suggested Johnson's constituency had moved from 43.6% to 51.4% Remain, whilst Gove's constituency had moved from 48% to 50.2% Remain.
Also I'd remind you that the Tories didn't get a majority in the last GE - they need to win more seats than in 2017 to gain a majority. Who do they take those extra seats from?
Over 400 constituencies voted for the Brexit Party in the European Parliament elections last month, the Tories currently only hold 318.
Both Hillingdon, containing Uxbridge and Surrey Heath voted for the Brexit Party
And Euro elections attract "kick the cat" protest votes on a low turnout. Compare with 2014 - Farage's UKIP topped the polls with 27% of the vote, but got half that in the 2015 GE and gained one seat. Farage got 30% of the vote in the 2019 Euros.
As the Tories promised an EU referendum in 2015, they have now still not delivered the result of, Boris will deliver it, Deal or No Deal
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
And Euro elections attract "kick the cat" protest votes on a low turnout. Compare with 2014 - Farage's UKIP topped the polls with 27% of the vote, but got half that in the 2015 GE and gained one seat. Farage got 30% of the vote in the 2019 Euros.
As the Tories promised an EU referendum in 2015, they have now still not delivered the result of, Boris will deliver it, Deal or No Deal
But the devil remains in the detail........the WA offered the result of the referendum.......Boris led the blocking of it (remember Chuck Chequers?)
Yet ultimately, these images are not reassuring. They are testament to the fact that everything has gone so weird, so quickly – which makes it so very, very worrying. Boris Johnson might still be a big beast Conservative and front runner to be our next prime minister, but he still seems unable to escape the shadows of a rackety past. And if Boris cannot be trusted with his finger on the blouse button, what hope is there for his finger on the nuclear button?
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Hunt seems seriously into Big Stick stuff - as I understand it, he suggested yesterday that we might join the US in a war with Iran.
As I have said before Jeremy Hunt is the British Mitt Romney, Romney wanted a $10 trillion increase in defence spending over 10 years and took a tough line with Iran in 2012.
Even Trump refused to send a missile strike against Iran when the drone was shot down pursuing sanctions again
Except up to now, Hunt has been in favour of de-escalation (not unlike his namesake, Mr Corbyn).
And yes, Trump is not in favour of foreign wars (and on his record, even Netanyahu's bark is worse than his bite).
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Hunt seems seriously into Big Stick stuff - as I understand it, he suggested yesterday that we might join the US in a war with Iran.
Well given they’ve said they are throwing over the nuclear treaty despite the Europeans sticking to it - would you just let them develop nukes?
Short of regime change and occupation you can't stop them if they really want to.
I agree
He’s criticising Hunt for implying we might fight a war. Surely keeping the option open makes sense
It's the same as no deal brexit. Leaving it on the table gives leverage, even if its a stupid idea.
Not quite - No Deal Brexit offers about as much leverage as the 5 year old insisting on a diet of ice cream and Milky Way Stars for every meal.
Worryingly that analogy actually works going forward. Occasionally a parent will give in and provides such a diet but within a few days the children will feel ill and start asking for normal food.
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Hunt seems seriously into Big Stick stuff - as I understand it, he suggested yesterday that we might join the US in a war with Iran.
Well given they’ve said they are throwing over the nuclear treaty despite the Europeans sticking to it - would you just let them develop nukes?
Short of regime change and occupation you can't stop them if they really want to.
I agree
He’s criticising Hunt for implying we might fight a war. Surely keeping the option open makes sense
It's the same as no deal brexit. Leaving it on the table gives leverage, even if its a stupid idea.
Not quite - No Deal Brexit offers about as much leverage as the 5 year old insisting on a diet of ice cream and Milky Way Stars for every meal.
Worryingly that analogy actually works going forward. Occasionally a parent will give in and provides such a diet but within a few days the children will feel ill and start asking for normal food.
Especially if EU spies watch British television and already know it is just a bluff.
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Hunt seems seriously into Big Stick stuff - as I understand it, he suggested yesterday that we might join the US in a war with Iran.
Well given they’ve said they are throwing over the nuclear treaty despite the Europeans sticking to it - would you just let them develop nukes?
Short of regime change and occupation you can't stop them if they really want to.
I agree
He’s criticising Hunt for implying we might fight a war. Surely keeping the option open makes sense
It's the same as no deal brexit. Leaving it on the table gives leverage, even if its a stupid idea.
Not quite - No Deal Brexit offers about as much leverage as the 5 year old insisting on a diet of ice cream and Milky Way Stars for every meal.
Worryingly that analogy actually works going forward. Occasionally a parent will give in and provides such a diet but within a few days the children will feel ill and start asking for normal food.
Especially if EU spies watch British television and already know it is just a bluff.
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
John Gummer (Lord Deben), chair of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), told Sky News that Heathrow's expansion would use up the majority of the envelope the aviation industry would have between now and 2050, implying that other expansions should not be permitted if Britain is to hit its climate targets.
When I heard the word 'envelope' I thought they were talking about airspace - it's a term used in aviation. But actually they're just talking about carbon.
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Hunt seems seriously into Big Stick stuff - as I understand it, he suggested yesterday that we might join the US in a war with Iran.
Well given they’ve said they are throwing over the nuclear treaty despite the Europeans sticking to it - would you just let them develop nukes?
Short of regime change and occupation you can't stop them if they really want to.
I agree
He’s criticising Hunt for implying we might fight a war. Surely keeping the option open makes sense
It's the same as no deal brexit. Leaving it on the table gives leverage, even if its a stupid idea.
Not quite - No Deal Brexit offers about as much leverage as the 5 year old insisting on a diet of ice cream and Milky Way Stars for every meal.
Worryingly that analogy actually works going forward. Occasionally a parent will give in and provides such a diet but within a few days the children will feel ill and start asking for normal food.
Especially if EU spies watch British television and already know it is just a bluff.
Do you really think they would be thst devious?
Do you know how hard it is to avoid BBC News in a hotel lounge in Europe - I’ve taken to switching the Tv to French news to avoid the embarrassment
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
I think it's odd that Boris's team think that it's a good idea to keep the story running by releasing that photo of them.
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
There might be a Mexican standoff here. Boris cannot play it down because he cannot be sure what is on the tape (or he can be sure) and the Guardian can't release it until Boris says something contradicted by the tape.
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
No-one has denied the report, so no need to release the tape. Everyone knows it’s there.
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
Except the tape is the centre of the breach of privacy.
Calling police - good citizen
Tipping off the Guardian - but ropey but if you can hear someone then ok
Recording a conversation without permission or knowledge and then broadcasting to the world...
John Gummer (Lord Deben), chair of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), told Sky News that Heathrow's expansion would use up the majority of the envelope the aviation industry would have between now and 2050, implying that other expansions should not be permitted if Britain is to hit its climate targets.
When I heard the word 'envelope' I thought they were talking about airspace - it's a term used in aviation. But actually they're just talking about carbon.
One path to reducing domestic flights would be to develop a high-speed rail network. There has also been renewed interest in high-speed rail in America, though so far limited to a couple of private networks (including Virgin iirc).
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
Except the tape is the centre of the breach of privacy.
Calling police - good citizen
Tipping off the Guardian - but ropey but if you can hear someone then ok
Recording a conversation without permission or knowledge and then broadcasting to the world...
You think the public has no interest in the temperament and character of an aspirant Prime Minister? The judge might manage to keep a straight face through such an argument.
I think it's odd that Boris's team think that it's a good idea to keep the story running by releasing that photo of them.
I want to hear from that pseudonymous poster who did the guest thread header about who was running Boris's campaign and how great they were.
MPs part -- friends of Gavin Williamson and Grant Shapps say it is all down to their man. Success has many fathers. I reckon it is whoever thought of bribing MPs with the £80,000 tax cut (MPs' salary is £79,468).
Overall -- Lynton Crosby: hide 'em away to protect their lead, like with Theresa May in 2017.
ETA: we must not forget in all this chaos that Boris is still overwhelming favourite to beat the empty suit, provided he does not withdraw.
John Gummer (Lord Deben), chair of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), told Sky News that Heathrow's expansion would use up the majority of the envelope the aviation industry would have between now and 2050, implying that other expansions should not be permitted if Britain is to hit its climate targets.
When I heard the word 'envelope' I thought they were talking about airspace - it's a term used in aviation. But actually they're just talking about carbon.
He’s an idiot, forgetting that the status quo has thousands of planes going round in circles for hours at low level, because the airport is well over the usable capacity. The best way to reduce carbon emissions from aircraft around LHR is to get that new runway open yesterday.
Mr. Sandpit, cults are popular these days, but green zealots and hypocrites (I have memories of Caroline Lucas defending her very important, and numerous, flights whilst appealing to everyone else to stop flying so much) have been around for a long while. They're hipster cultists.
May's stupid 2050 carbon neutrality policy being shoved into law during the last few days of her premiership is desperate scrabbling for a legacy. Writing such targets into law is something that should not happen, as it's contrary to a Parliament being unable to bind its successor. And who pays the fine if it fails to be met, and to whom?
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
Except the tape is the centre of the breach of privacy.
Calling police - good citizen
Tipping off the Guardian - but ropey but if you can hear someone then ok
Recording a conversation without permission or knowledge and then broadcasting to the world...
You think the public has no interest in the temperament and character of an aspirant Prime Minister? The judge might manage to keep a straight face through such an argument.
Making a recording from your own home of what you can hear outside of it is not a breach of privacy or of the law.
If it was then local authorities would not recommend that an offended party tape noise nuisance in disputes between neighbours and perhaps have it appear later in some television or radio documentary or reality show.
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
Except the tape is the centre of the breach of privacy.
Calling police - good citizen
Tipping off the Guardian - but ropey but if you can hear someone then ok
Recording a conversation without permission or knowledge and then broadcasting to the world...
If a conversation is so loud it can be heard and recorded in other people’s homes it is not private.
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
Except the tape is the centre of the breach of privacy.
Calling police - good citizen
Tipping off the Guardian - but ropey but if you can hear someone then ok
Recording a conversation without permission or knowledge and then broadcasting to the world...
Recording the row isn't wrong IMO - and I believe is indeed recommended by some councils when dealing with noisy neighbours.
If you're rowing loudly enough to be overheard by others, it's no longer a private conversation. It's also a nuisance.
I am dubious about the neighbours reporting it to the Guardian: then again, the police's 'restrict it' might be a possible reason. I am not dubious about their recording the row.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It is said that there is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what the public may find interesting.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
I think it's odd that Boris's team think that it's a good idea to keep the story running by releasing that photo of them.
I want to hear from that pseudonymous poster who did the guest thread header about who was running Boris's campaign and how great they were.
MPs part -- friends of Gavin Williamson and Grant Shapps say it is all down to their man. Success has many fathers. I reckon it is whoever thought of bribing MPs with the £80,000 tax cut (MPs' salary is £79,468).
Overall -- Lynton Crosby: hide 'em away to protect their lead, like with Theresa May in 2017.
ETA: we must not forget in all this chaos that Boris is still overwhelming favourite to beat the empty suit, provided he does not withdraw.
This is not new from Johnson. It’s how he has always done things. He has never subjected himself to serious, ongoing scrutiny. His interview last night again showed why. In London he got away with it because the role was relatively unimportant and there was only one, friendly, newspaper to worry about. That is not the case now
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It is said that there is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what the public may find interesting.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
Sure, my office colleagues would plump for b) though. And I suspect everyone with #FBPE behind their name on twitter go for a). But that's anecdotal and my own thoughts. I'd like to see some polling on it.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It was in the Yougov daily poll yesterday.
40% not right to tape 30% right to tape, wrong to give to the press 28% right to tape, right to give to the press
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It is said that there is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what the public may find interesting.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
Sure, my office colleagues would plump for b) though. And I suspect everyone with #FBPE behind their name on twitter go for a). But that's anecdotal and my own thoughts. I'd like to see some polling on it.
I’d have thought the Great British Public would go for d).
It’s now a reasonable inference that the row was serious. If it wasn’t, we’d surely have had a full explanation by now, if necessary with Boris Johnson doing his Hugh Grant “I did a bad thing” impression.
Do you think the Guardian are waiting for the right moment to release the tape?
They’re waiting to see if Boris Johnson provably lies when he eventually does give his explanation.
Except the tape is the centre of the breach of privacy.
Calling police - good citizen
Tipping off the Guardian - but ropey but if you can hear someone then ok
Recording a conversation without permission or knowledge and then broadcasting to the world...
Given the vitriol poured on those who reported by certain sections of society I think they probably needed to record it to prove they weren’t making it up. If a conversation is audible outside of ones property then it’s no longer private.
It’s a shame this is paywalled. It is utterly superb. The Tory party - and therefore the country - is in the hands of 18 year-old public schoolboys with no serious connection to or understanding of real life. It’s all one, long, Oxford Union election campaign.
I think it's odd that Boris's team think that it's a good idea to keep the story running by releasing that photo of them.
I want to hear from that pseudonymous poster who did the guest thread header about who was running Boris's campaign and how great they were.
MPs part -- friends of Gavin Williamson and Grant Shapps say it is all down to their man. Success has many fathers. I reckon it is whoever thought of bribing MPs with the £80,000 tax cut (MPs' salary is £79,468).
Overall -- Lynton Crosby: hide 'em away to protect their lead, like with Theresa May in 2017.
ETA: we must not forget in all this chaos that Boris is still overwhelming favourite to beat the empty suit, provided he does not withdraw.
This is not new from Johnson. It’s how he has always done things. He has never subjected himself to serious, ongoing scrutiny. His interview last night again showed why. In London he got away with it because the role was relatively unimportant and there was only one, friendly, newspaper to worry about. That is not the case now
Yes but remember even as Mayor, Boris was advised by Crosby. Probably, in a happy coincidence, it suits them both.
"Jeremy Hunt has announced plans for £15 billion of extra defence spending as he took advantage of Boris Johnson’s troubles to forge ahead with policy announcements."
Hunt seems seriously into Big Stick stuff - as I understand it, he suggested yesterday that we might join the US in a war with Iran.
Well given they’ve said they are throwing over the nuclear treaty despite the Europeans sticking to it - would you just let them develop nukes?
Short of regime change and occupation you can't stop them if they really want to.
I agree
He’s criticising Hunt for implying we might fight a war. Surely keeping the option open makes sense
It's the same as no deal brexit. Leaving it on the table gives leverage, even if its a stupid idea.
Hasn't no deal been on the table, albeit in in incompetently half hearted way? I'd estimate that we're closer to no deal (in both senses) than we've ever been, yet there seems to be f.a. in the leverage stakes in prospect.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It was in the Yougov daily poll yesterday.
40% not right to tape 30% right to tape, wrong to give to the press 28% right to tape, right to give to the press
Thanks, personally I'd stick myself in the 30%. Looks like people are more with Boris than his neighbours on this.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It is said that there is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what the public may find interesting.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
Sure, my office colleagues would plump for b) though. And I suspect everyone with #FBPE behind their name on twitter go for a). But that's anecdotal and my own thoughts. I'd like to see some polling on it.
I think that a newspaper publishing a tape because they don’t like Boris comes under things the public find interesting, whereas a newspaper publishing it because it directly contradicts something he says comes clearly under the public interest.
I suspect the polling would change somewhat in favour of publication if doing so revealed a direct lie. Which is why Boris is keeping his mouth shut about it.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It is said that there is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what the public may find interesting.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
Sure, my office colleagues would plump for b) though. And I suspect everyone with #FBPE behind their name on twitter go for a). But that's anecdotal and my own thoughts. I'd like to see some polling on it.
I’d have thought the Great British Public would go for d).
Only 28% in favour of releasing the row to the press. The number of Tory voters let alone members in that lot will be close to zero.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It is said that there is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what the public may find interesting.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
Sure, my office colleagues would plump for b) though. And I suspect everyone with #FBPE behind their name on twitter go for a). But that's anecdotal and my own thoughts. I'd like to see some polling on it.
I’d have thought the Great British Public would go for d).
Personally, as one who is a Guardian reader, and who is appalled at both Brexit and the prospect of Johnson being PM I think they were right to tape the row, since it might turn out to be useful if something serious had happened, but I'm not certain that giving (or selling???) the tape to the Guardian was the proper thing to do.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter. b) They are curtain twitching busybodies c) Neither d) Both e) Don't know f) Don't care
It is said that there is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what the public may find interesting.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
Sure, my office colleagues would plump for b) though. And I suspect everyone with #FBPE behind their name on twitter go for a). But that's anecdotal and my own thoughts. I'd like to see some polling on it.
I think that a newspaper publishing a tape because they don’t like Boris comes under things the public find interesting, whereas a newspaper publishing it because it directly contradicts something he says comes clearly under the public interest.
I suspect the polling would change somewhat in favour of publication if doing so revealed a direct lie. Which is why Boris is keeping his mouth shut about it.
He's not going to discuss it - and no matter how much the press push him actually most people think it's his private business so there will be no contradictions as you point out. The press need to move on to his HS2, Heathrow, Brexit etc plans and contradictions instead or Hunt doesn't have a chance
Comments
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-48752002/boris-johnson-interview-in-full
The no true Scotsman fallacy?
Or the idea we should have Northern Ireland be treated like Palestine?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7176697/Former-Prime-Minister-GORDON-BROWN-fears-antagonistic-nationalism-mean-end-United-Kingdom.html
Not good for him. Not good at all.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7176633/Twitter-sceptics-amused-Boris-Carries-Mills-Boon-pics.html
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/
"Given that the recess dates have now been approved, the statutory timetable for an early General Election (on Thursday 24 October [last Thursday before B-day]) would on my count require a Vote of No Confidence to be debated no later than Tuesday 3rd September (first day back from summer recess)."
An unsettling look at the calamity of poverty in the US
Justin Webb"
https://unherd.com/2019/06/what-hope-for-americas-deplorables/
Also I'd remind you that the Tories didn't get a majority in the last GE - they need to win more seats than in 2017 to gain a majority. Who do they take those extra seats from?
But of course that bit that you were originally promised by Cameron is set in stone but the bit about a deal from Vote Leave isn’t .
My advice stop digging , you’re not winning this !
But if the Opposition want to use FTPA/VoNC to trigger a general election, then the above thread implies that the VoNC has to be tabled by 25th July, the last day of the current session, in order to have a VoNC on their first day back on 3 September, which is the last day possible for all the procedures to be followed through in order to have a GE on a Thursday before Brexit day. You get a few extra days if you're OK having the election not on Thursday for the first time in 88 years.
Both Hillingdon, containing Uxbridge and Surrey Heath voted for the Brexit Party
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1143292220893728768
Even Trump refused to send a missile strike against Iran when the drone was shot down pursuing sanctions again
https://twitter.com/FT/status/1143293235055517697
If, as looks like it from the headline, Bozo is starting to lose the Telegraph, then he is totally fecked.
I've been up a very long time, so a shower then bed. Night all.
https://twitter.com/AgnesCPoirier/status/1143240157795115010
And Euro elections attract "kick the cat" protest votes on a low turnout. Compare with 2014 - Farage's UKIP topped the polls with 27% of the vote, but got half that in the 2015 GE and gained one seat. Farage got 30% of the vote in the 2019 Euros.
As the Tories promised an EU referendum in 2015, they have now still not delivered the result of, Boris will deliver it, Deal or No Deal
But the devil remains in the detail........the WA offered the result of the referendum.......Boris led the blocking of it (remember Chuck Chequers?)
Yet ultimately, these images are not reassuring. They are testament to the fact that everything has gone so weird, so quickly – which makes it so very, very worrying. Boris Johnson might still be a big beast Conservative and front runner to be our next prime minister, but he still seems unable to escape the shadows of a rackety past. And if Boris cannot be trusted with his finger on the blouse button, what hope is there for his finger on the nuclear button?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7176637/JAN-MOIR-Boris-Johnson-Carrie-Symonds-photo-cheesy-Mills-Boon-scene-taking-fools.html
He’s criticising Hunt for implying we might fight a war. Surely keeping the option open makes sense
And yes, Trump is not in favour of foreign wars (and on his record, even Netanyahu's bark is worse than his bite).
Worryingly that analogy actually works going forward. Occasionally a parent will give in and provides such a diet but within a few days the children will feel ill and start asking for normal food.
https://tinyurl.com/yywtdxth
John Gummer (Lord Deben), chair of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), told Sky News that Heathrow's expansion would use up the majority of the envelope the aviation industry would have between now and 2050, implying that other expansions should not be permitted if Britain is to hit its climate targets.
When I heard the word 'envelope' I thought they were talking about airspace - it's a term used in aviation. But actually they're just talking about carbon.
Calling police - good citizen
Tipping off the Guardian - but ropey but if you can hear someone then ok
Recording a conversation without permission or knowledge and then broadcasting to the world...
Overall -- Lynton Crosby: hide 'em away to protect their lead, like with Theresa May in 2017.
ETA: we must not forget in all this chaos that Boris is still overwhelming favourite to beat the empty suit, provided he does not withdraw.
Mr. Sandpit, cults are popular these days, but green zealots and hypocrites (I have memories of Caroline Lucas defending her very important, and numerous, flights whilst appealing to everyone else to stop flying so much) have been around for a long while. They're hipster cultists.
May's stupid 2050 carbon neutrality policy being shoved into law during the last few days of her premiership is desperate scrabbling for a legacy. Writing such targets into law is something that should not happen, as it's contrary to a Parliament being unable to bind its successor. And who pays the fine if it fails to be met, and to whom?
Humbug.
a) The neighbours were right to tape the row and should publish as a public interest matter.
b) They are curtain twitching busybodies
c) Neither
d) Both
e) Don't know
f) Don't care
If it was then local authorities would not recommend that an offended party tape noise nuisance in disputes between neighbours and perhaps have it appear later in some television or radio documentary or reality show.
If you're rowing loudly enough to be overheard by others, it's no longer a private conversation. It's also a nuisance.
I am dubious about the neighbours reporting it to the Guardian: then again, the police's 'restrict it' might be a possible reason. I am not dubious about their recording the row.
For anyone interested, there's a planned SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch at 07.30.
Watch it live at:
https://www.spacex.com/webcast
They will be attempting to recover all three first stage boosters, and the fairings.
As others have speculated, the known existence of the tape is the reason why Boris is saying nothing, in case he says something that directly contradicts what’s on the tape.
But that's anecdotal and my own thoughts. I'd like to see some polling on it.
40% not right to tape
30% right to tape, wrong to give to the press
28% right to tape, right to give to the press
https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2
I suspect the polling would change somewhat in favour of publication if doing so revealed a direct lie. Which is why Boris is keeping his mouth shut about it.
I am baffled what it is ?
That is all.
They hope he can magic away real world challenges in a similar fashion.