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

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 26 Jun 2019, 3:34 pm

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.

by Soul Requiem Tue 17 Sep 2019, 1:23 pm

That's called democracy.

by **Pr4wn** Tue 17 Sep 2019, 1:34 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:That's called democracy.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

by Soul Requiem Tue 17 Sep 2019, 1:36 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:That's called democracy.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Pleased to help thumbsup

by It Must Be Love Tue 17 Sep 2019, 1:40 pm

Pr4wn wrote:They chose to form that coalition. They chose to support those policies, they chose to cast those votes.

Passing it off as "compromises have to be made" makes it sound like they didn't have a choice in the matter.

Well given Lab-LDs couldn't form a majority, there wasn't much of a choice. At this time Britain was recovering from a financial crash and needed some stability.

The public's attitude towards the Lib Dems from 2010-2015 is absolutely bewildering:
-In 2010 election they rejected the LD, only giving them 60 MPs compared to 300 for Tories
-Parliamentary arithmetic necessitated Tory-Lib coalition, but ratio of 5:1 from public meant LDs didn't have much of a mandate
-Voters were then angry that a party they barely voted for couldn't enact the majority of their policy proposals

Just laughably absurd.

by lostinwales Tue 17 Sep 2019, 1:52 pm

If you discount every politician for something they achieved in the past the only one that would be left is Corbyn, because he's never achieved anything.

You have to look at what people are doing and saying now, not looking for reasons to automatically discount them. And it is perfectly possible to agree with some things enemies have done and disagree with some things allies have. Tories like Grieve and amazingly Letwin have done more to protect our rights and future than almost anyone in the Labour front ranks.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 17 Sep 2019, 1:52 pm

The LDs actually did pretty well reining in most of the Tory excesses. They f*cked up big time on the high-profile tuition fees issue and a lot of people haven't forgiven them. Also Nick Clegg was very poor at getting across to the public the nature of being a junior partner in a coalition.

by **Pr4wn** Tue 17 Sep 2019, 1:52 pm

Of course the Lib Dems had a choice as to whether to form a coalition. They could have rejected the Tories' offer and forced another election.

If the Lib Dems were not happy with voting through the Tory agenda at any point, they could have disbanded the coalition, forcing an election.

They didn't. They enabled it.

Also, "stability" after a crisis apparently means that the poor have to pay for it.

by **Afro** Tue 17 Sep 2019, 2:06 pm

IMO the Lib Dems formed the coalition in order to get a foot in the door and force a referendum on voting reform.

They did so expecting the referendum to go in their favour, and enable them to get a more proportional share of MPs, closer to the number that the Tories and Labour would have (think it was 234 Tory, 189 Labour and Lib Dem 150).
It backfired as they ballsed up the referendum campaign and have been going backwards since then.

by It Must Be Love Tue 17 Sep 2019, 2:20 pm

Pr4wn wrote:Of course the Lib Dems had a choice as to whether to form a coalition. They could have rejected the Tories' offer and forced another election.

If the Lib Dems were not happy with voting through the Tory agenda at any point, they could have disbanded the coalition, forcing an election.

They didn't. They enabled it.

LDs wouldn't have been popular with the public if they are forced to go to another election a few weeks after an election. It's a big risk because the Tories were only gaining 20 seats away from gaining a majority, at which point LDs would have no influence to moderate them at all.
If that had happened, I bet you'd be berating the Lib Dems for 'causing the Tories to get a majority'.

Pr4wn wrote:
Also, "stability" after a crisis apparently means that the poor have to pay for it.

Between 2010 and 2015: inequality went down, poverty went down, wages went up, unemployment went down.
Of course it was a mixed record, as there are some metrics the coalition government did badly on: foodbanks, rough sleepers, police cuts etc.
Overall they did an okay job though, and UK in 2015 was one of the fastest growing advanced countries in the world.

Isn't it great that the voters punished Lib Dems in 2015 GE! Tories post 2015 welfare policy was much harsher than during coalition, and they called a EU ref, something they couldn't do from 2010-2015 as they didn't have the votes in parliament.
Fantastic stuff, let's keep punishing smaller parties because we've given them no mandate in the first place, I mean it's served us well during the past 5 years so what could go wrong.

by It Must Be Love Tue 17 Sep 2019, 2:28 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:The LDs actually did pretty well reining in most of the Tory excesses. They f*cked up big time on the high-profile tuition fees issue and a lot of people haven't forgiven them. Also Nick Clegg was very poor at getting across to the public the nature of being a junior partner in a coalition.

Agree with this.
Although the tuition fees episode was more of a PR issue than a policy one.

I'm a student who knows the ins and outs of the new system, and it was actually made fairer.
They basically changed it to a progressive graduate tax. The new rules meant people earning between 16K-21K a year no longer had to pay anything at all for tuition fees. Even 21K onwards, lower incomes had to pay at a slower rate (and as there was a 30 yr write off, this meant eventually had to pay less overall). It is true that the 'ceiling' on how much one could pay was raised to 9K a year, but in reality this was only paid by those earning above average which is... fair enough.

The irony was people moaning about the new tuition fees also tried to supplement their argument by saying, "And the projections say that revenue from tuition fees will be reduced under this brutal policy, oh dear!". I mean just stop for a minute and think about that. If those above average incomes are paying more (9K vs 3K), and the overall revenue is reduced, by definition this MUST mean the poorest are paying less in repayments.

by **Pr4wn** Tue 17 Sep 2019, 3:12 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Of course the Lib Dems had a choice as to whether to form a coalition. They could have rejected the Tories' offer and forced another election.

If the Lib Dems were not happy with voting through the Tory agenda at any point, they could have disbanded the coalition, forcing an election.

They didn't. They enabled it.
LDs wouldn't have been popular with the public if they are forced to go to another election a few weeks after an election. It's a big risk because the Tories were only gaining 20 seats away from gaining a majority, at which point LDs would have no influence to moderate them at all.
If that had happened, I bet you'd be berating the Lib Dems for 'causing the Tories to get a majority'.

Pr4wn wrote:
Also, "stability" after a crisis apparently means that the poor have to pay for it.
Between 2010 and 2015: inequality went down, poverty went down, wages went up, unemployment went down.
Of course it was a mixed record, as there are some metrics the coalition government did badly on: foodbanks, rough sleepers, police cuts etc.
Overall they did an okay job though, and UK in 2015 was one of the fastest growing advanced countries in the world.

Isn't it great that the voters punished Lib Dems in 2015 GE! Tories post 2015 welfare policy was much harsher than during coalition, and they called a EU ref, something they couldn't do from 2010-2015 as they didn't have the votes in parliament.
Fantastic stuff, let's keep punishing smaller parties because we've given them no mandate in the first place, I mean it's served us well during the past 5 years so what could go wrong.

Yeah? And how do those policies look now? It's not about picking on them because they're little. They enabled the benefit cuts while also enabling the cut in the top tax rate.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 17 Sep 2019, 6:50 pm

Cuts in legal aid....

Privatisation of the NHS..

Cut disabled benefits...

Nurses using Foodbanks because of stagnant pay..

Zero hour contracts rocketed..

Privatisation of the Mail...

Cuts to benefits leaving 4m kids in Poverty..

If the Lib Dems curbed Tory excesses I'd hate to have seen what would have happened if they didn't..

by It Must Be Love Tue 17 Sep 2019, 7:06 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
If the Lib Dems curbed Tory excesses I'd hate to have seen what would have happened if they didn't..

You're seeing it right now...

As for your other stats, some of them are misleading. NHS privatisation increased by around 2% between 2010 and 2015. Poverty, including child poverty, went down under the coalition government, as did inequality. It's true 0 hour contracts went up, but there was also an increase in wages accompanied by a reduction in unemployment.
It is a mixed record, but the fact you've just reeled off a partly inaccurate list designed to paint a one sided picture shows you're not using critical thinking.

by Soul Requiem Wed 18 Sep 2019, 8:06 am

It Must Be Love wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
If the Lib Dems curbed Tory excesses I'd hate to have seen what would have happened if they didn't..
You're seeing it right now...

As for your other stats, some of them are misleading. NHS privatisation increased by around 2% between 2010 and 2015. Poverty, including child poverty, went down under the coalition government, as did inequality. It's true 0 hour contracts went up, but there was also an increase in wages accompanied by a reduction in unemployment.
It is a mixed record, but the fact you've just reeled off a partly inaccurate list designed to paint a one sided picture shows you're not using critical thinking.

Wow someone talking sense for a change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

by **Pr4wn** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 9:45 am

The Tories changed the definition of child poverty in 2015, so those figures are misleading.

Also, the link that Soul just provided is from 2013. A bit old. Those "happy" zero hours workers have since brought multiple legal actions against their so-called employers.

by Soul Requiem Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:08 am

2013 is slap bang in the middle of the coalition so relevant to the point made. So if take legal action against my employer that means that everyone at my company is unhappy or is it an isolated incident?

by **Pr4wn** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:12 am

I'm saying that your figures are out of date. They're from six years ago. You think that circumstances don't change between then and now? For employers and employees?

And we're not just talking about minor litigation here, we're talking High Court cases suing for the benefits that regular full-time employees are entitled to.

by Soul Requiem Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:15 am

You do realise the debate was about the Coalition government of 2010-2015 so 2013 is relevant to that time.

Your final point has relevance at all, if you can provide figures to give them any meaning then go ahead.

by **Pr4wn** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:21 am

So you think that if the policies had no lasting effects beyond the life of the coalition itself then they're irrelevant? What planet are you on?

In any case, I concede defeat to your six-year-old survey of fewer than 1% of the total zero-hours workforce.

by Soul Requiem Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:23 am

So you've not got anything to back up your opinion at all then? Pretty standard.

by **Pr4wn** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:25 am

Can you not read? I said I concede defeat to your six-year-old survey of fewer than 1% of the total zero-hours workforce.

They're very happy. I made up those lawsuits, by the way. None have happened.

by Soul Requiem Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:30 am

The lawsuits don't have any relevance to overall happiness, they are isolative to the people bringing forward that action.

Very Happy

by **Pr4wn** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:33 am

I know, right? They're completely irrelevant. And "Isolative" too.

by lostinwales Wed 18 Sep 2019, 10:51 am

It is not irrelevant but it is history, and a lot has happened since then.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 18 Sep 2019, 12:34 pm

Bookmakers think the Tories have only a 29% chance of a majority..

Think they have more of a chance than that..

Leaking 10 seats to the SNP and 20 or so to the Lib Dems probably but on the aggregate of polls should take 60 or so off Labour...

Whatever happens on Oct 31...Corbyn's rating is still dire...

Will it matter ??

by lostinwales Wed 18 Sep 2019, 12:55 pm

Especially with FPTP.

Brexit party will poll significant numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if they had no MP's
Lib Dems will poll significant numbers and will improve their number of MP's. Anywhere where they are close 2nd to Conservatives in particular I'd expect them to win - but there is going to be a huge question mark over how that will translate into MP's
Labour and Conservatives both have a huge bank of safe seats - but outside of those there are going to be some interesting shoot outs.
SNP will dominate Scotland as per for current times. This would suggest that any coalition which relies upon them will have to face up to indyref 2 as a price for their loyalty

Strange times.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 18 Sep 2019, 4:52 pm

The Tories are already way short of a majority at present (without the DUP propping them up). Now they are certain to lose well over 10 seats in Scotland and in England I am sure they will lose seats to the Lib Dems for sure. I'd be gobsmacked if there is a No Deal Brexit if the Tories do not shrink down to around 260 or 270 seats.

by Soul Requiem Wed 18 Sep 2019, 4:57 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:The Tories are already way short of a majority at present (without the DUP propping them up). Now they are certain to lose well over 10 seats in Scotland and in England I am sure they will lose seats to the Lib Dems for sure. I'd be gobsmacked if there is a No Deal Brexit if the Tories do not shrink down to around 260 or 270 seats.

You're only looking at half the picture, you're ignoring all the gains they could and probably will make from Labour in England.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 18 Sep 2019, 5:03 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:The Tories are already way short of a majority at present (without the DUP propping them up). Now they are certain to lose well over 10 seats in Scotland and in England I am sure they will lose seats to the Lib Dems for sure. I'd be gobsmacked if there is a No Deal Brexit if the Tories do not shrink down to around 260 or 270 seats.

You're only looking at half the picture, you're ignoring all the gains they could and probably will make from Labour in England.

A lot depends on Brexit though. A No Deal Brexit and they wouldn't be taking votes from anyone and a No Deal Brexit looks odds on. A deal for Brexit that mirrors Theresa May's deal would seriously pee off those who voted for an all out Brexit and send their votes to the Brexit Party. What scenario do you see that would encourage people to rush to vote for the Tories?

by **superflyweight** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 5:18 pm

Quote function went awry.

by **superflyweight** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 5:20 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:The Tories are already way short of a majority at present (without the DUP propping them up). Now they are certain to lose well over 10 seats in Scotland and in England I am sure they will lose seats to the Lib Dems for sure. I'd be gobsmacked if there is a No Deal Brexit if the Tories do not shrink down to around 260 or 270 seats.

You're only looking at half the picture, you're ignoring all the gains they could and probably will make from Labour in England.

A lot depends on Brexit though. A No Deal Brexit and they wouldn't be taking votes from anyone and a No Deal Brexit looks odds on. A deal for Brexit that mirrors Theresa May's deal would seriously pee off those who voted for an all out Brexit and send their votes to the Brexit Party. What scenario do you see that would encourage people to rush to vote for the Tories?

Them being sectioned under the Mental Health Act

by Soul Requiem Wed 18 Sep 2019, 5:20 pm

Nobody ever rushes to vote for the Tories yet here they still stand, not to mention a general election is likely to happen before Brexit is enacted making your whole lost irrelevant.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 18 Sep 2019, 5:28 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:Nobody ever rushes to vote for the Tories yet here they still stand, not to mention a general election is likely to happen before Brexit is enacted making your whole lost irrelevant.

Plenty will vote for them, but they may not admit it when asked for Polls or to friends, work colleagues etc. Why would you if language then fired at you is that you're mentally deranged etc? Brexit all over again...

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 19 Sep 2019, 8:07 am

Seems if you highlight the shortcomings of a hospital to the Prime Minister and you support a non Govt Party....

Your views aren't supposed to count.

Very worrying but not surprising seeing the BBC spinning for Johnson that the Father of a sick 7 year old girl upset at shortage of staff is a Labour member.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:02 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Seems if you highlight the shortcomings of a hospital to the Prime Minister and you support a non Govt Party....

Your views aren't supposed to count.

Very worrying but not surprising seeing the BBC spinning for Johnson that the Father of a sick 7 year old girl upset at shortage of staff is a Labour member.

by Soul Requiem Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:20 am

Surely the public deserves to be privy to all possible information, I didn't see Trussman66 complaining when details about Johnsons personal life were published.

by lostinwales Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:23 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Seems if you highlight the shortcomings of a hospital to the Prime Minister and you support a non Govt Party....

Your views aren't supposed to count.

Very worrying but not surprising seeing the BBC spinning for Johnson that the Father of a sick 7 year old girl upset at shortage of staff is a Labour member.

It is a difficult question and in a sense it would not have been right not to mention the man's background but it could have been done much more sensitively and it has potentially put him under a lot of pressure at a time when his child is already in hospital.

The most telling thing was Boris saying the press were not there and the guy then asking him who the guys with the cameras were.

Boris really has an unparalleled ability to do the wrong thing. The standard opinion used to be that he was joking around when these things happened and underneath it all he was a smart guy. And yet there he goes again. Every single time. It is not even a distraction technique of the kind that Trump gets credited with

by lostinwales Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:24 am

Soul Requiem wrote:Surely the public deserves to be privy to all possible information, I didn't see Trussman66 complaining when details about Johnsons personal life were published.

The takes I like best are the variations on 'man in photo has previously lost his job on several occasions for lying'

by **superflyweight** Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:43 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Nobody ever rushes to vote for the Tories yet here they still stand, not to mention a general election is likely to happen before Brexit is enacted making your whole lost irrelevant.
Plenty will vote for them, but they may not admit it when asked for Polls or to friends, work colleagues etc. Why would you if language then fired at you is that you're mentally deranged etc? Brexit all over again...

You're a touchy bugger.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:51 am

superflyweight wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Nobody ever rushes to vote for the Tories yet here they still stand, not to mention a general election is likely to happen before Brexit is enacted making your whole lost irrelevant.
Plenty will vote for them, but they may not admit it when asked for Polls or to friends, work colleagues etc. Why would you if language then fired at you is that you're mentally deranged etc? Brexit all over again...

You're a touchy bugger.

Sorry; wasn't a specific dig at you Fly. More a comment on the general trend for slagging off those that might vote in a way that might be considered morally questionable by the other side. Basically, I'm not sure typical, for example, Brexit 'remainer' language when talking about those that voted to leave the EU, is that conducive to people wanting to admit how they might vote in any referendum/election.
It cuts all ways - our politics is entrenched and poisoned.

by lostinwales Thu 19 Sep 2019, 11:45 am

Yes that whole demonisation thing does not build bridges.

Personally I really don't mind that people wanted to vote for Brexit if it is something they really believe in. What really gets me are the ones who voted that way citing reasons which are demonstrably false, or bad conditions that Brexit will only make worse.

by **superflyweight** Thu 19 Sep 2019, 12:13 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Nobody ever rushes to vote for the Tories yet here they still stand, not to mention a general election is likely to happen before Brexit is enacted making your whole lost irrelevant.
Plenty will vote for them, but they may not admit it when asked for Polls or to friends, work colleagues etc. Why would you if language then fired at you is that you're mentally deranged etc? Brexit all over again...

You're a touchy bugger.
Sorry; wasn't a specific dig at you Fly. More a comment on the general trend for slagging off those that might vote in a way that might be considered morally questionable by the other side. Basically, I'm not sure typical, for example, Brexit 'remainer' language when talking about those that voted to leave the EU, is that conducive to people wanting to admit how they might vote in any referendum/election.
It cuts all ways - our politics is entrenched and poisoned.

It's a fair point. Everything has been reduced to a binary choice with very little appreciation of nuance or respect for anyone else's opinion.

My admittedly flippant comment was intended more to highlight the fact that I can't see why anyone on any side of the current political divide would vote Conservative at the moment. If you're for Brexit they've made a bloody hash of it and you couldn't trust them on any of their promises. If you're against Brexit then you don't matter to them.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 19 Sep 2019, 12:28 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Surely the public deserves to be privy to all possible information, I didn't see Trussman66 complaining when details about Johnsons personal life were published.

The takes I like best are the variations on 'man in photo has previously lost his job on several occasions for lying'

Shame the BBC never asks who funds these think tanks they have on regularly that want to privatise the NHS..

But a worried Father gets outed..

Johnson is a public figure looking for votes like Corbyn so you are right I don't complain about more scrutiny.

Pretty desperate argument buddy..

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 19 Sep 2019, 2:22 pm

superflyweight wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Nobody ever rushes to vote for the Tories yet here they still stand, not to mention a general election is likely to happen before Brexit is enacted making your whole lost irrelevant.
Plenty will vote for them, but they may not admit it when asked for Polls or to friends, work colleagues etc. Why would you if language then fired at you is that you're mentally deranged etc? Brexit all over again...

You're a touchy bugger.
Sorry; wasn't a specific dig at you Fly. More a comment on the general trend for slagging off those that might vote in a way that might be considered morally questionable by the other side. Basically, I'm not sure typical, for example, Brexit 'remainer' language when talking about those that voted to leave the EU, is that conducive to people wanting to admit how they might vote in any referendum/election.
It cuts all ways - our politics is entrenched and poisoned.

It's a fair point. Everything has been reduced to a binary choice with very little appreciation of nuance or respect for anyone else's opinion.

My admittedly flippant comment was intended more to highlight the fact that I can't see why anyone on any side of the current political divide would vote Conservative at the moment. If you're for Brexit they've made a bloody hash of it and you couldn't trust them on any of their promises. If you're against Brexit then you don't matter to them.

You're not wrong there. They've proven themselves to be, essentially, utterly useless. Good job the main Opposition leader is pretty much proving to be unelectable...

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 19 Sep 2019, 2:25 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Surely the public deserves to be privy to all possible information, I didn't see Trussman66 complaining when details about Johnsons personal life were published.

The takes I like best are the variations on 'man in photo has previously lost his job on several occasions for lying'

Shame the BBC never asks who funds these think tanks they have on regularly that want to privatise the NHS..

But a worried Father gets outed..

Johnson is a public figure looking for votes like Corbyn so you are right I don't complain about more scrutiny.

Pretty desperate argument buddy..

Hang on a moment. This is the same BBC that others pillory for being lefty tree huggers, in general, and an apologist for remaining in the EU? If they're p!ssing off both sides of the political spectrum from time to time, they're probably spot on with what they're doing.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 19 Sep 2019, 3:38 pm

The supreme court's ruling on the lawfulness of the recent prorogation of parliament is due early next week.

I've tried to follow it despite being at work, but I thought Lord Keen's argument (for the government) here was pretty weak:

Lord Keen says proroguing Parliament doesn't prevent the government and prime minister being held to account.

“It’s a fact that for a period prorogation will affect accountability in Parliament but it doesn’t prevent accountability beyond Parliament," he says.

He argues the prime minister can still be held to account by the public and the media and in upcoming party conferences.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49751323

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 19 Sep 2019, 4:34 pm

Seems the Conference has given the Lib Dems a bounce even going ahead of Labour in one poll..

Interesting to see if they can sustain it..

Unfortunately for the 3rd Party...Conference is one of the few times they get much publicity.

by lostinwales Thu 19 Sep 2019, 5:56 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The supreme court's ruling on the lawfulness of the recent prorogation of parliament is due early next week.

I've tried to follow it despite being at work, but I thought Lord Keen's argument (for the government) here was pretty weak:

Lord Keen says proroguing Parliament doesn't prevent the government and prime minister being held to account.

“It’s a fact that for a period prorogation will affect accountability in Parliament but it doesn’t prevent accountability beyond Parliament," he says.

He argues the prime minister can still be held to account by the public and the media and in upcoming party conferences.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49751323

Nothing confirmed but smart money is on Gov losing. Must be tough when a former Conservative PM is fighting for the other side.

The main problems are that
1) depending on the wording of the ruling they may try and prorogue again straight away
2) its conference season - so Labour and Cons won't want to go back for a couple of weeks anyway.

Any other time in history it would mean governmental resignations all round and maybe even the odd attempt to 'do the decent thing' with a loaded revolver. These days - probably nothing.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 20 Sep 2019, 10:45 am

lostinwales wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The supreme court's ruling on the lawfulness of the recent prorogation of parliament is due early next week.

I've tried to follow it despite being at work, but I thought Lord Keen's argument (for the government) here was pretty weak:

Lord Keen says proroguing Parliament doesn't prevent the government and prime minister being held to account.

“It’s a fact that for a period prorogation will affect accountability in Parliament but it doesn’t prevent accountability beyond Parliament," he says.

He argues the prime minister can still be held to account by the public and the media and in upcoming party conferences.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49751323

Nothing confirmed but smart money is on Gov losing. Must be tough when a former Conservative PM is fighting for the other side.

The main problems are that
1) depending on the wording of the ruling they may try and prorogue again straight away
2) its conference season - so Labour and Cons won't want to go back for a couple of weeks anyway.

Any other time in history it would mean governmental resignations all round and maybe even the odd attempt to 'do the decent thing' with a loaded revolver. These days - probably nothing.

Some hope. They'd screw that up as well...

by Duty281 Fri 20 Sep 2019, 11:38 am

Labour have been trending downwards in the polls since Johnson became Tory Leader, with the LDs going the opposite way, so little surprise to see Labour down to 3rd in that latest YouGov poll. But in the next election, even if Labour do win fewer votes nationally than the LDs, they will still almost certainly win a far greater number of seats thanks to the joys of FPTP.

Incidentally, the Tories have led in every poll but one since Johnson became leader, with the three most recent polls putting the Tories lead at 9, 9 and 12 percent respectively. And they've still got the BP vote to plunder.

by Sponsored content