Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Soft thread split, hard thread split, no-deal thread split. Who gives a sh!t as long as we get a thread split by the 15:35 deadline.

I've been thinking about this, and I think it's quite likely that Westminster having first past the post, rarely having coalition governments, and having a winner-takes-all way of seeing / doing things, is a significant factor in the shambles that Brexit has been and continues to be. If we were a country / nation state that was more used to PR, coalitions, and the cooperation and compromise that stem from that, there'd have been much more of an appetite to work across the house to find a route forward. Brexit will affect all of us, not just those that voted Leave. It's not something to have a winner-takes-all approach on.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:That's first past the post for you!

Let's go with separate parliaments for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and then England can have proportional representation like we have in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay (and possibly Stormont?) already. Sound good?

PR good for me. I'm fed up to the back teeth of feeling disenfranchised and Lord knows what long-term Rushcliffe non-Tory voters feel like, for all Clarke seems like a fairly good egg. We have a childish system, which, let's face it, fits what's increasingly looking like a childish House of Commons.

Been there with the AR referendum in 2011. I am in favour of it too, but vote result was fairly overwhelmingly against it

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I've been thinking about this, and I think it's quite likely that Westminster having first past the post, rarely having coalition governments, and having a winner-takes-all way of seeing / doing things, is a significant factor in the shambles that Brexit has been and continues to be. If we were a country / nation state that was more used to PR, coalitions, and the cooperation and compromise that stem from that, there'd have been much more of an appetite to work across the house to find a route forward. Brexit will affect all of us, not just those that voted Leave. It's not something to have a winner-takes-all approach on.

Yes. You will have to accept that fringe parties (or 'political companies' e.g. BP) will get representation through such a system, but it is a price worth paying. We need more competition and more people with ability in the commons. I don't think either Johnson or Corbyn would be leaders of their parties if they were in a position where they had to rely on coalitions to keep themselves in power.

One of the best things about the recent events is that it has shown that there are more people 'of ability' in the commons than I had previously considered. On the other hand it is typical that they are no where near the leadership of their parties and increasingly likely to be stepping down or voted out next election because their radicalized parties have rejected them.

We have Ukip assembly members, and Brexit Party members who used to be Ukip, in the Senedd, and it's not because they're more popular here than in England, but because we have proportional representation.

Afro wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:That's first past the post for you!

Let's go with separate parliaments for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and then England can have proportional representation like we have in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay (and possibly Stormont?) already. Sound good?

PR good for me. I'm fed up to the back teeth of feeling disenfranchised and Lord knows what long-term Rushcliffe non-Tory voters feel like, for all Clarke seems like a fairly good egg. We have a childish system, which, let's face it, fits what's increasingly looking like a childish House of Commons.

Been there with the AR referendum in 2011. I am in favour of it too, but vote result was fairly overwhelmingly against it

True, but that was laughable and deliberately torpedoed below waterline by Cameron who only agreed to ask the public as a sop to the Lib Dems. To be honest, the utterly pathetic way that referendum was dealt with fits right in with this one.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Afro wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:That's first past the post for you!

Let's go with separate parliaments for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and then England can have proportional representation like we have in Holyrood and Cardiff Bay (and possibly Stormont?) already. Sound good?

PR good for me. I'm fed up to the back teeth of feeling disenfranchised and Lord knows what long-term Rushcliffe non-Tory voters feel like, for all Clarke seems like a fairly good egg. We have a childish system, which, let's face it, fits what's increasingly looking like a childish House of Commons.

Been there with the AR referendum in 2011. I am in favour of it too, but vote result was fairly overwhelmingly against it

True, but that was laughable and deliberately torpedoed below waterline by Cameron who only agreed to ask the public as a sop to the Lib Dems. To be honest, the utterly pathetic way that referendum was dealt with fits right in with this one.

Very true. I seem to recall the campaigns being an absolute shambles

It Must Be Love wrote:If Scotland left the UK, it would have as much of a calamitous impact on Scotland as UK would face with No Deal.
The gap in leverage between the UK and Scotland is even greater than EU and the UK. The negotiations would be a bloodbath. SNP's 'white paper' turned out to be a load of lies nearly as big as Boris' Brexit BS.
CC, it's so funny on how you pick on the negatives of UK leaving the EU, but call reality project fear when it applies to Scotland.

Anyway this is the Brexit thread, if we continue this discussion perhaps it should be on another thread.

Do you want lies? Look no further than Bitter Together last time around:-

Vote No to guarantee continued EU membership? Now look at us.

Vote No to protect your pensions. And now the Tories are trying to extend the age for pensions beyond Scot's men and women's average lifespan.

Vote No or lose the Royal Family. Queen moved in to crap all over that claim straight away.

Bitter Together claimed Scotland could not keep the pound as was suggested. Since the indyref the Bank of England's chancellor himself said Scotland using the pound would have been perfectly feasible.

We were told oil was all but gone. Since then two more oil-rich fields have been found off the coast of Scotland.

Vote No to earn greater devolved powers from Westminster. Utter BS powers have actually been taken away since fishing and farming bills from the EU should have been returned to Holyrood but was usurped by Westminster.

Mundell and Cameron waxed lyrical after the No vote claiming Scotland was a valued partner of the UK. Spin that forward two or three years to Mundell in Westminster changing his rhetoric to: 'Scotland is not a partner but a part of the UK.'

Calamitous impact is coming with Brexit. Hmm let us see shall I prefer calamitous impact followed by still being shackled to a decaying union or calamitous impact followed by independence and Scotland being governed by a government elected by Scots for Scots?

Lest we forget in your negotiations that Westminster has a millstone around its neck. What would it do with Trident? After all it is based in Scotland which suits them rather than having them based closer to home. How much would it be worth for them to be allowed to keep Trident in an independent Scotland.

And don't worry your little cotton bedsocks I have transferred this over the Political chat thread.

It Must Be Love wrote:If Scotland left the UK, it would have as much of a calamitous impact on Scotland as UK would face with No Deal ...  UK leaving the EU ...  Scotland ...  if we continue this discussion perhaps it should be on another thread.

There are models for the break up of states - a) Czechoslovakia b) Former Republic of Yugoslavia (without the blood-shed) c) The Soviet Union ...

I am sure there are many other examples.  At the end of the day it all depends on how the two sides go about it and how flexible the two sides are willing to be (e.g. not being bureaucratically intransigent): a) Scotland vs "UK & NI" b) "UK & NI" vs EU

Yes there are differences and "issues" - but ultimately it depends on the two sides, their flexibility and willingness to come to something that is mutually acceptable and recognising the "will of the people" or the "groups of people" involved.

Anyway for me I see Scottish Independence as inevitable - the inevitable outcome of a certain chain of events and actions previously set in motion.

Well Czechoslovakia was a mutual break up that both countries wanted, Yugoslavia is quite possibly the worst example anyone could ever use and the former USSR are still having problems now.

Watching the wave of defections and removing the whip from all those big beasts last week does at first glance look like madness but there is definitely a calculated strategy behind it. I believe Johnson, Cummings & co are trying to achieve a realignment of the Right in British politics. The message appears to be that the 'big tent' of the Tory party is not so big any more and has no more room for One Nation type Tories or even mainstream loyal MPs like Nicholas Soames.

Whilst the project may crash and burn (losing all the more reasonable MPs with cross-party appeal like Greening, Stewart, Grieve, etc ought to put off floating voters) there is a chance it may succeed which I find scary. Right now it looks like the Tory Party is transforming into a hard-right blend of Brexit/Farage Party with an unhealthy dash of US Republican/Tea Party thrown in.

All of Johnson's antics are calculated and soundbites carefully crafted and he is clearly appealing to core voters - the Trump playbook of energising the base.

Right now I daren't dare make any predictions but it appears we are at a highly unpredictable volatile juncture in UK politics, and could easily end up with either of the following, and the number of votes determining such outcomes in a general election could be v small. Also the timing of when an election takes place and what stage Brexit negotiations/fallout is at will be critical:

a) Healthy Tory majority, above 30, following hard-right/no deal agenda, won on back of no-deal posturing tactics and some form of Brexit/Tory party deal.
b) Tories squeak in with single seat majority - may still be vulnerable to rebellions from prominent backbenchers on the more 'moderate' wing who haven't been purged yet.
c) Tories largest party in hung parliament, but struggling for coalition partners due to collapse in DUP vote and unwillingness of Lib Dem to compromise on Brexit
d) Labour/Lib Dem/SNP hung parliament coalition - compromise of softer Norway style Brexit, put to 2nd referendum. Corbyn/McDonnell struggle to get their more radical policies through due to lack of Lib Dem support, but manage to protect NHS from further creeping privatisation.
e) Labour majority - this would probably rely upon a later election held next year when Johnson cops the fallout from either No Deal or No Brexit being delivered. If Labour got in and had majority to carry out more leftist Corbyn/McDonnell agenda it would be v interesting.

I have no idea which of the above scenarios pan out - only certainties seem to be that SNP will be big winners and Lib Dems will pick up a few. Tories under Johnson appear to be putting all their eggs in the hard Brexit basket.

What a terrific post and hard to disagree with it..

Will say though once Brexit has reached a place where it isn't a primary issue you wonder whether there will be enough votes on the right for the Tories to vacate the centre-right which they are doing..

A lot of short termism in this strategy and me thinks they will win but at great cost.

But what does Johnson care ???

He will be gone by 2024 I imagine..As will hundreds of thousands of jobs..

MrInvisible wrote:Watching the wave of defections and removing the whip from all those big beasts last week does at first glance look like madness but there is definitely a calculated strategy behind it.  I believe Johnson, Cummings & co are trying to achieve a realignment of the Right in British politics.  The message appears to be that the 'big tent' of the Tory party is not so big any more and has no more room for One Nation type Tories or even mainstream loyal MPs like Nicholas Soames.

Whilst the project may crash and burn (losing all the more reasonable MPs with cross-party appeal like Greening, Stewart, Grieve, etc ought to put off floating voters) there is a chance it may succeed which I find scary.  Right now it looks like the Tory Party is transforming into a hard-right blend of Brexit/Farage Party with an unhealthy dash of US Republican/Tea Party thrown in.

All of Johnson's antics are calculated and soundbites carefully crafted and he is clearly appealing to core voters - the Trump playbook of energising the base.

Right now I daren't dare make any predictions but it appears we are at a highly unpredictable volatile juncture in UK politics, and could easily end up with either of the following, and the number of votes determining such outcomes in a general election could be v small.  Also the timing of when an election takes place and what stage Brexit negotiations/fallout is at will be critical:

a) Healthy Tory majority, above 30, following hard-right/no deal agenda, won on back of no-deal posturing tactics and some form of Brexit/Tory party deal.  
b) Tories squeak in with single seat majority - may still be vulnerable to rebellions from prominent backbenchers on the more 'moderate' wing who haven't been purged yet.
c) Tories largest party in hung parliament, but struggling for coalition partners due to collapse in DUP vote and unwillingness of Lib Dem to compromise on Brexit
d) Labour/Lib Dem/SNP hung parliament coalition - compromise of softer Norway style Brexit, put to 2nd referendum.  Corbyn/McDonnell struggle to get their more radical policies through due to lack of Lib Dem support, but manage to protect NHS from further creeping privatisation.
e) Labour majority - this would probably rely upon a later election held next year when Johnson cops the fallout from either No Deal or No Brexit being delivered.  If Labour got in and had majority to carry out more leftist Corbyn/McDonnell agenda it would be v interesting.

I have no idea which of the above scenarios pan out - only certainties seem to be that SNP will be big winners and Lib Dems will pick up a few.  Tories under Johnson appear to be putting all their eggs in the hard Brexit basket.

I think there was a cunning plan along these lines, but I also think that Cummings and his gimp Johnson didnt expect parliament to show its teeth to the extent it has, and didn't expect BJ to mess up every single thing he has touched. Almost funny in the way that proroguing has a) helped to force the opposition to get its act together and b) stopped the Conservatives from having time to mitigate the Benn bill.

Right now they got nothing apart from the continued support from the most rabid parts of the press. Even the BBC is no longer always completely following the government spin.

@lostinwales: agree - the proroguing has certainly had some counter-productive effects - last week we saw more unity amongst opposition parties than we've ever had.

MrInvisible wrote: Watching the wave of defections and removing the whip … there is definitely a calculated strategy behind it.  I believe Johnson, Cummings & co are trying to achieve a realignment of the Right in British politics …. the Tory party … has no more room for One Nation type Tories …

… it looks like the Tory Party is transforming into a hard-right blend of Brexit/Farage Party with an unhealthy dash of US Republican/Tea Party …

d) Labour/Lib Dem/SNP hung parliament coalition - compromise of softer Norway style Brexit, put to 2nd referendum

… Tories under Johnson appear to be putting all their eggs in the hard Brexit basket.

Thanks for your considered post.  I have a few queries regarding the bolded sections.

1) “no more room for One Nation type Tories”.  
Why do you consider Johnson’s “faction” as NOT being one nation conservatism?  It certainly seems to be nationalistic, conservative, and one nation.  The whole underpinning philosophy of Brexit is “loss of national sovereignty”

2)  “compromise of softer Norway style Brexit, put to 2nd referendum”
I thought the EU never allowed this to be put on the table?  If not why didn’t Theresa May not suggest this?

3) “appear to be putting all their eggs in the hard Brexit basket”
Surely the Conservative party will be DESTROYED by their own core vote if they don’t carry out the result of the 2016 EU referendum.   Both the massive increase in the Brexit party vote at the last EU election plus comment by actual conservative voters strongly indicate this.  Hence rather than viewing what is happening as a Boris Johnson attempt to shift his party to the "hard right" it could also be viewed as a last attempt to save the conservative party.

ps I have seen conflicting comment regarding ERG attempts in the tory party to direct the process to a no deal - and have seen other comments on the EU's unwillingness to negotiate "fairly" with Britain.  I haven't had time to get my head around it all in terms of evidence (source data and process) - so I haven't been able to form my own opinion on that - other than the process required to negotiate a reasonable deal is necessarily long - longer than that suggested back in 2015 when a EU Referendum was made the centrepoint of the Conservative general election campaign.

"Last attempt to save the Conservative Party ??"

No....Last attempt to save power....

If Ken Clarke...Phil Hammond types aren't Tories then it isn't a Tory Party..

1) “no more room for One Nation type Tories”.
Why do you consider Johnson’s “faction” as NOT being one nation conservatism?

Because his tactics have effectively split the nation in two.

Sorry but Ken Clarke hasn't being a traditional Tory for about 30 years, it's the very reason why he's never been party leader despite being as a political heavyweight.

I think this has already been mentioned but another Conservative politician pointed out that 5million conservative voters voted remain. That is a good sized chunk of the electorate.

The Conservative soul (such as it has, which is always debatable) is made up of the likes of Clarke, Soames, Hammond and Heseltine. These people have now been booted out. On the other hand the membership is now very low and must contain a significant proportion which is either mad or senile or both. This probably gives too much weight to the sources of funding which still seems plentiful and leaning to an extreme position. So we have a party that has power, nobody to answer to and fewer and fewer moderate voices. Oh joy.

Worth pointing out that momentum seems pretty keen on kicking out moderate Labour MP's too.

Bercow is off by the end of October. I hope his successor is of the same mould

I like the fact that he looks like he will go before the general election, and doing so allow the current make-up of MPs to elect his successor

Bercow essentially resigning from the Speaker role before the Tories forced him out.

They can't force him out of the speaker role with 289 mps..

Bless you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They can't force him out of the speaker role with 289 mps..

Bless you.

They can by putting a Tory candidate against him in his constituency at the upcoming GE...

Bless you.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They can't force him out of the speaker role with 289 mps..

Bless you.

They can by putting a Tory candidate against him in his constituency at the upcoming GE...

Bless you.

Doesnt force him out as theres no guarantee they would win.

Bless you.

At present this Tory government are in no position to force a fart out of someone on a baked bean diet.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They can't force him out of the speaker role with 289 mps..

Bless you.

They can by putting a Tory candidate against him in his constituency at the upcoming GE...

Bless you.

Not the speaker's constituency..

Seeing as Bercow was a Tory MP, Duty is completely right.

Bless the pair of you.

Duty281 wrote:Bercow essentially resigning from the Speaker role before the Tories forced him out.

Bercow anticipating what's coming. He'd rather resign before a GE so that this house can install a new speaker.

Isn't it interesting that Cummings, Johnson and the rest of the hard Brexit zealots are refusing to release their text messages to each other but he had no problem going through the private messages of Sonia Khan before having her frog marched out of her job by an armed police officer.

Parliamentary defeats for each Prime Minister

Thatcher - 4 in 11 years
Major - 6 in 7 years
Blair - 4 in 10 years
Brown - 3 in 3 years
Cameron - 10 in 6 years
May - 33 in 3 years
Johnson - 6 in one week

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They can't force him out of the speaker role with 289 mps..

Bless you.

They can by putting a Tory candidate against him in his constituency at the upcoming GE...

Bless you.

Not the speaker's constituency..

Absolutely they can and, indeed, it's what they were talking about doing before Bercow resigned before he was pushed out.

Not going to argue...Sure they can get rid of Bercow but ejecting the speaker looks terrible...Wouldn't happen in my opinion....But your point is noted.

In other news all the failures in Theresa May's team are getting nice honours..

What a crappy system...House of Lords really needs shutting down..

Samo wrote:Parliamentary defeats for each Prime Minister

Thatcher - 4 in 11 years
Major - 6 in 7 years
Blair - 4 in 10 years
Brown - 3 in 3 years
Cameron - 10 in 6 years
May - 33 in 3 years
Johnson - 6 in one week

How many of those defeats were due to Brexit - that that nice old David Cameron introduced into British Politics when he made the EU Referendum the central plank of his 2015 General Election Campaign. It all looked so straight forward - a straight in or out choice. Cameron would be at the helm no matter what the results he told us - all would be sorted within that Parliamentary Period. But when he hot footed it out of Parliament in 2016 like a oily conman selling dodgy wares on the street who had just been rumbled - that certainly was an unexpected turn of events that left many dumbfounded and confused.

'Boris Johnson has secretly ordered the Cabinet Office to turn the government's public internet service into a platform for ''targeted and personalised information'' to be gathered in the run up to Brexit'

What the actual flamingo...

lostinwales wrote:'Boris Johnson has secretly ordered the Cabinet Office to turn the government's public internet service  into a platform for ''targeted and personalised information'' to be gathered in the run up to Brexit'

What the actual flamingo...

According to what I have read - and I don't have the time, expertise or access to source material to confirm - as I suspect is the same for the majority of people that comment here and elsewhere:

This type of activity really kicked off with Obama's team in his first presidential election campaign.  He was initially "unknown" - but then through building a base via the new technology at the time - was able to increase his visibility as well as his campaign funds.  This was never directed as a criticism towards him - at least in terms of the visible media.

Then when Trump did something similar - which apparently was never as sophisticated as that for Obama (who had a more sophisticated and "educated" group around him - apparently) - Trump was heavily criticised for it - and then it became a sort of witchhunt where conspiracy theories were raised by mainstream left wing media of Trump being supported by Putin or even being run by Putin etc etc.

I suspect this type of activity is now the mainstream - including for Corbyn during his Labour Party Leader election campaign when with "Momentum" a base was formed for him - which resulted in a "grass roots" upsurge in support for him - when at the start of the campaign he was essentially an unheard of figure.

Over in France - Emmanuel Macron was a little heard of figure in National French Politics - young - new an outsider. Then a similar type of high tech campaign led to an increase in his visibility - a ground swell of "grass roots" supporters - and he won the Presidential Elections.

I suppose the question is how much can a party in government use governmental resources to push their own profile.

lostinwales wrote:I suppose the question is how much can a party in government use governmental resources to push their own profile.

That seems a fair question.

The disinformation and hate mongering that came from Trump and the Leave campaign as a result of the data identifying the most likely to be duped was the issue, not the data gathering itself

The Great Hack on Netflix shows how 5000 data points were collected on individuals to be able to pinpoint the thickest in society, using government websites to do so is very sneaky - especially when the "Get Ready for Brexit" campaign is live and requires acceptance of cookies to get through to the page

No name Bertie wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I suppose the question is how much can a party in government use governmental resources to push their own profile.

That seems a fair question.

It seems particularly off considering they've just launched a nationwide 'public information' campaign whose ads direct people to enter their details on government websites, ostensibly so they can 'get ready for Brexit'.

Samo wrote:Parliamentary defeats for each Prime Minister

Thatcher - 4 in 11 years
Major - 6 in 7 years
Blair - 4 in 10 years
Brown - 3 in 3 years
Cameron - 10 in 6 years
May - 33 in 3 years
Johnson - 6 in one week

Six defeats out of six for Johnson. Looks like this PM stuff isn't really working out for him.

Oh well. On the bright side, with these kinds of results Johnson has a bright future as the England cricket captain.

And now the Scottish Court has ruled that his Proroguing of Parliament was illegal, on the grounds that it is a clear attempt to circumvent Parliamentary scrutiny of his Brexit policy.

So 0 of 6 in Parliament and a major Court decision saying he is acting illegally, al in the space of a couple of weeks...

That decision is very likely to be overturned in England, though.

Pr4wn wrote:That decision is very likely to be overturned in England, though.

I wouldn't be surprised - while I think the Scottish Court decision is 'ethically' correct*, I suspect that as a matter of Law the Supreme Court will overturn it, as there doesn't seem to be anything written in Statute that would cover such a situation.

* By this I mean that I think their reasoning is correct in fact. Unfortunately, the Law is not governed by pure fact, or by interpretation of motives, but by what can be successfully argued in relation to the written Laws and precedent.

We'll see, but I think it'll be dangerous for the Supreme Court not to agree with this one and rule Johnson was in the wrong. If proroguing for 5 weeks is OK, what's to stop a budding Dictator proroguing for 5 months, 5 years, 50 years? This is setting precedent.

Navy

That's a reasonable point, however I suspect that one of the things that will come out of our current political mess is some additional legislation to cover issues such as when Prorogation can occur and for what duration. I think such legislation would be somewhat similar to the fixed term Parliament act, in providing guidance that can be set aside only with the will of a 2/3rd majority of the House.

Our unwritten constitution may be an advantage in offering flexibility, but every so often there is a hole that gets exploited for political gain.

Pr4wn wrote:That decision is very likely to be overturned in England, though.

So as not to unduly wind up Craig, it is important to note that the Supreme Court is not an English court and is a court of the United Kingdom. English law has no primacy over Scots law - it's just that both legal systems have the same court of last resort for civil matters.

superflyweight wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:That decision is very likely to be overturned in England, though.

So as not to unduly wind up Craig, it is important to note that the Supreme Court is not an English court and is a court of the United Kingdom.  English law has no primacy over Scots law - it's just that both legal systems have the same court of last resort for civil matters.

Spoilsport.

dummy_half wrote:Navy

That's a reasonable point, however I suspect that one of the things that will come out of our current political mess is some additional legislation to cover issues such as when Prorogation can occur and for what duration. I think such legislation would be  somewhat similar to the fixed term Parliament act, in providing guidance that can be set aside only with the will of a 2/3rd majority of the House.

Our unwritten constitution may be an advantage in offering flexibility, but every so often there is a hole that gets exploited for political gain.

Yeah, could be that's what happens. Shame it would allow the current shyster to get away with this though, when the issue is so important.

Polls all over the place..

Con 38 Lab 24.....Huge landslide..

Con 30 Lab 29.....Labour/SNP in Govt.

Wonder if Labour will do something about their Deputy Leader...Just seems to cause trouble for the sake of it..

Latest undermining efforts have been smacked down by Starmer..Thornberry and all..

He must irritate them.

They can't remove him, the right wing press would have a field day with it. That's despite the irony of being absolutely fine with Johnson's withdrawing of the whip of the 21 moderates last week.