UK politics - The Yellowhammer Made The Robin Weep

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

Just a reminder of what got the shitstorm started. There's no ambiguity here, "the tactic of using Jo Cox’s death every time someone says something you don’t like". It's not even a true statement. How many times has her murder been invoked in the last few weeks when ever a Brexiter politician has said things that are objectionable to staunch remainers? This is the first time I've heard it being used in recent memory

I've personally seen it used online and on TV quite a few times as a way of shutting people down and framing peoples behaviour in a certain light. My original comment was aimed mainly at Sheriffs use last night because I deemed that she was using it as a political weapon to aim at  Boris, and she knew it, being so outraged at the term surrender, but seemingly not by people being called nazis or talking about lynchings.

And Humbug is really the oddest thing to get upset about, especially if like me you really doubt the motivations for her words. 

[Gaston de Foix]

The interesting question to me is not the respective rights and wrongs of the heated rhetoric.  I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how Boris intends to get a deal (any deal) through the HoC while infuriating the Labour party.  What's his path to victory here?

Another way of asking the question is: has he given up on any attempt to deliver Brexit prior to a general election?

 

 

 

[karaddin]

Edit: NVM, I misread the latest deflection

[Zorral]

Bj's sister suggested, though she also says she and nobody else can know, that his extra horribleness re Cox might be provoked by the pressure on him from those "who are shorting the pound in order to make billions from BREXIT." 

My, that keeps coming up, all those already obscenely bloated hyenas slavering at what they're going to get from the death of the UK.  Somehow this also includes the obscenity that poses as the president of the USA.  He's totally on board with this.

 

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Bj's sister suggested, though she also says she and nobody else can know, that his extra horribleness re Cox might be provoked by the pressure on him from those "who are shorting the pound in order to make billions from BREXIT." 

My, that keeps coming up, all those already obscenely bloated hyenas slavering at what they're going to get from the death of the UK.  Somehow this also includes the obscenity that poses as the president of the USA.  He's totally on board with this.

 

Where did she say this?

How many times are you going to peddle this conspiracy stuff in this thread?

[argonak]

So I saw parliament got back together again.  Is Brexit still happening at the end of October, short of some act of extension?  

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

The interesting question to me is not the respective rights and wrongs of the heated rhetoric.  I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how Boris intends to get a deal (any deal) through the HoC while infuriating the Labour party.  What's his path to victory here?

Another way of asking the question is: has he given up on any attempt to deliver Brexit prior to a general election?

A] He doesn't; he's trying to goad them into calling a GE.

B] Probably - he may still try to bring a reheated version of May's deal back; but I think he needed the prorogation to allow it, as he (probably) won't get enough movement from the EU to call it a different bill.

[Gaston de Foix]

23 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

A] He doesn't; he's trying to goad them into calling a GE.

B] Probably - he may still try to bring a reheated version of May's deal back; but I think he needed the prorogation to allow it, as he (probably) won't get enough movement from the EU to call it a different bill.

If that's his plan, it's pretty a shit one.  Good point about the nexus between prorogation and May's bill, but he can still prorogue for a few days to have a new session if he needs to. 

[polishgenius]

6 hours ago, Raja said:

Heartofice making an comment that shows little understanding & is offensive? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

 

 

 

It's tragic and funny how obvious it is that what really bothers him that it was a woman who dared to say it. You can tell coz of how long it took him to go back and go 'uh duh bluh but yeah Boris is offensive too'.

[Werthead]

On 9/25/2019 at 2:50 AM, SeanF said:

 I apologise if I have misremembered,  but I thought you quoted that number from a writer for Business Insider.

The proportion of jobs that are full-time (75%) has not changed much in 30 years.  The proportion of the working age population in work (76%) is the highest since 1971. The proportion of jobs that are temporary has fallen from 7% to 5% since 2016.  Wages are rising at twice the rate of inflation.  That seems like a pretty tight labour market to me.

That figure was 12% years ago, taking into account labour hours in the market versus those full-time hours required by the working-age population. Underemployment is a huge problem, running at half again the rate experienced during the financial crisis. The "not changed in 30 years" qualifier is irrelevant because of the dramatic rise in the cost of living in the same time period, so the 15% of the population who could afford part-time hours 30 years ago can certainly no longer do so today.

The baseline assessment for the health of the employment market is overall wage growth. If the government's farcical figures were accurate, wage growth would have been strong in Britain for several years running as we have been at effective full employment (~4%) for the same period of time. Instead, we have still not recovered to the average weekly wages (adjusted for inflation) from before the financial crisis, confirming that we have lost more than a decade of any real wage growth whatsoever. Wage growth relative to the nadir baseline of 2015 has been reasonable, but given the dramatic increases in prices, bills and costs since 2008, we are in real terms substantially worse off, and the principle cause has been our incredibly sluggish recovery when compared to almost every other major economy. This can be firmly pinned on the economic underperformance of successive Conservative/coalition governments since 2010, whose success in constantly undermining economic confidence in this country (even pre-2016) has been nothing short of remarkable.

[Which Tyler]

21 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

If that's his plan, it's pretty a shit one.  Good point about the nexus between prorogation and May's bill, but he can still prorogue for a few days to have a new session if he needs to. 

Quite honestly, I'm surprised he didn't do that, rather than makiong sure that no non-tory would vote for him, and then asking them to approve a recess for him to hold a self-congratulatory rally (sorry, party conference).

ETA: Actually, I'm not sure how much notice is required to prorogue

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

It's tragic and funny how obvious it is that what really bothers him that it was a woman who dared to say it. You can tell coz of how long it took him to go back and go 'uh duh bluh but yeah Boris is offensive too'.

Wow you are really stretching here. Nice work.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The electorate knowing what it does now (as opposed to 2016 and even 2017), and clearly knowing what each party's Brexit position is (Leave/no deal, straddle the fence, remain), if the Tory's get back with a majority (esp a majority that will vote through a no deal) then that's pretty much a mandate for the Tory's to do whatever they decide to do. 

Yes. And we again arrive at the point of FPTP helping the Tories there, as in split remain vs. not so split leave vote. And the geographical split.

Again, 80-90% of Labour voters are remainers. Which makes that Labour Leadership stance so utterly bizarre.

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If there was a time for remainer Tories to vote for another party to preserve the union and stay in the EU and deny the Tory party a majority it will be whenever there's a GE before the final Brexit decision is carried out. They don't need to vote Labour, they just need to vote Lib Dem (or Plaid, or whoever) in large enough numbers in the right electorates.

The majority of Tory voters are cheering for that burning clown car. Another part of Cameron's legacy to unify his party. Again, Labour will probably have a much bigger problem with both camps. Last time around the remainers broke for Labour big time, since then the Politburo has not really treated them with respect, mildly put. So Labour is more likely to lose those voters (you know the Blairites, and Neo-Libruls, who are to be blamed for a Tory majority).

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Quite honestly, I'm surprised he didn't do that, rather than makiong sure that no non-tory would vote for him, and then asking them to approve a recess for him to hold a self-congratulatory rally (sorry, party conference).

I thought the Supreme Court just told him that he cannot do that. I have really no idea, how to get out of this mess.

[Werthead]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yes. And we again arrive at the point of FPTP helping the Tories there, as in split remain vs. not so split leave vote. And the geographical split.

Again, 80-90% of Labour voters are remainers. Which makes that Labour Leadership stance so utterly bizarre.

It's interesting this point isn't being made more of in the media or by the opposition parties: a FTTP vote on Brexit favours Leave because of the geographical distribution. An open referendum vote on Brexit favours Remain versus No Deal and is even on Remain versus Deal, so if you're opposed to Brexit or in favour of a Brexit-with-a-Deal, you should be looking seriously at the referendum option.

[The Anti-Targ]

Just heard a Youtube video suggesting there's a legal way for BoJo to get around the Benn Act. Some instrument called an Order of Council (as opposed to an Order in Council). Apparently he (The Privy Council) can issue an Order of Council temporarily suspending The Benn Act so that come 19 Oct when Parliament has failed to pass a deal he is not bound by the Benn Act to sign a letter because the Benn Act is suspended.

If Youtubers know this, and if they are right, then you can bet the Brexiteers know this and they will use it, I would think. Boris was quite prepared to break the law with prorogation, so no doubt he's well prepared to use the law. I would think they knew this when they prorogued. You prorogue to prevent parliament from taking any other action to stop no-deal Brexit, and then when Benn Act D-day comes along you issue an Order of Council to suspend it and it's done. No-deal Brexit achieved.

I think the only guaranteed way to stop no-deal Brexit is VONC and the opposition parties getting over themselves and choosing a PM who will sign the letter.

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

24 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It's interesting this point isn't being made more of in the media or by the opposition parties: a FTTP vote on Brexit favours Leave because of the geographical distribution. An open referendum vote on Brexit favours Remain versus No Deal and is even on Remain versus Deal, so if you're opposed to Brexit or in favour of a Brexit-with-a-Deal, you should be looking seriously at the referendum option.

That's a decent point dude but there are really two referendums we could have, Remain vs No Deal and Remain vs A Deal. They are totally different propositions, proposed for different reasons and it seems to me that neither will work.

Remain vs No Deal is the best option if you want to Remain and finish Brexit. It is simple choice between two-clearly defined alternatives and crucially would receive buy-in from the leave side of the Brexit spectrum because No Deal would be seen as a legitimate form of Brexit. And that’s of overriding importance. If you don’t have buy-in from the leavers it is pointless having a referendum, as the leave leaders, such as Farage and Johnson, could just order their supporters to stand down in the event of Remain vs soft Brexit/May Deal referendum. This would render it hollow and they would pledge to reverse the result in a general election. So, if you don’t put an option on the ballot paper leave accept you may as well not bother – you won’t get out of deciding Brexit through an election this way.

The flaw in this plan is that there is not, nor will there be, a majority in Parliament for it. The Tory rebels will never vote for it, because they are opposed to No Deal above all and so won’t take a risk by putting it on the ballot paper. I can’t see Clarke, Stewart and Gauke voting for a Remain vs No Deal referendum. They would ideally prefer to Remain but they are most interested in finding a compromise; they won’t want to play double or quits.

Parliament is more likely to support a Deal vs Remain referendum. The cosy idea here is that you bring on board, behind one policy, namely a deal subject to a confirmatory vote, the soft-Brexiteers and the Corbyn loyalists as well as the Remainers and thereby get a majority in Parliament for a Brexit solution. And at worst you get a soft Brexit and at best you get Remain.

Yet this is pointless, as I explained above. If the leave option is not acceptable to the leaders of leave they will boycott it and make a No Deal, or their own hard-Brexit deal, the centrepiece of an election campaign. So you can't avoid deciding Brexit via election by having a referendum. And the leavers are on at least 40% in the polls so an electoral reckoning can’t easily be avoided.

The only good solution to this, in my humble feline opinion, is an election producing a hung Parliament where the two choices for a government are Labour + Liberals + SNP + Plaid or Tories + Liberals. This is quite possible based on current polling. If this hung Parliament resulted Jo Swinson could demand an end to Brexit, or a Referendum of the Remain vs No Deal variety (which as a hardcore Remain party the Liberals could support) as the price of confidence and supply. The one thing the Tories fear more than losing the precious golden turkey of Brexit is Corbyn so they might say yes. In this case we could avoid both Brexit and the nightmare of the Corbyn/SNP/Liberal Frankenstein monster government which I suspect would not get very far before bringing about some kind of insane disaster. 

As an aside am I the only one who has started to find Jo Swinson quite attractive since she adopted the revoke policy. I am now filing her under my not-actually-attractive-really-but-I’m-attracted-to-anyway category, along with that stretchy girl from the Incredibles and Hester Shaw from the Mortal Engines books (not the movie). I think it is because she’s an otherwise squishy almost forty centrist female who has gone for a hardline policy which really sticks it to the gammon, or at least that is part of it. I don’t know.

[williamjm]

57 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Just heard a Youtube video suggesting there's a legal way for BoJo to get around the Benn Act. Some instrument called an Order of Council (as opposed to an Order in Council). Apparently he (The Privy Council) can issue an Order of Council temporarily suspending The Benn Act so that come 19 Oct when Parliament has failed to pass a deal he is not bound by the Benn Act to sign a letter because the Benn Act is suspended.

If Youtubers know this, and if they are right, then you can bet the Brexiteers know this and they will use it, I would think. Boris was quite prepared to break the law with prorogation, so no doubt he's well prepared to use the law. I would think they knew this when they prorogued. You prorogue to prevent parliament from taking any other action to stop no-deal Brexit, and then when Benn Act D-day comes along you issue an Order of Council to suspend it and it's done. No-deal Brexit achieved.

John Major seems to have been worried about this. David Allen Green suggests here that there doesn't seem to be any legal basis for this strategy.

Boris was quite prepared to break the law with prorogation

I'm not sure he has shown he's prepared to break the law, they did seem to believe that prorogation was legal. While reading about the above topic I did read an article by Green pointing out that deliberately breaking or ignoring the Benn Act (rather than finding a cunning loophole) would potentially make him and anyone who assisted him guilty of misconduct in a public office (maximum sentence is life imprisonment) and can also be sued for damages by anyone who has suffered losses as a result of it even if they haven't been convicted. I suspect Boris is more committed to his money than he is to Brexit.

[Werthead]

17 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I'm not sure he has shown he's prepared to break the law, they did seem to believe that prorogation was legal. While reading about the above topic I did read an article by Green pointing out that deliberately breaking or ignoring the Benn Act (rather than finding a cunning loophole) would potentially make him and anyone who assisted him guilty of misconduct in a public office (maximum sentence is life imprisonment) and can also be sued for damages by anyone who has suffered losses as a result of it even if they haven't been convicted. I suspect Boris is more committed to his money than he is to Brexit.

Boris's ambition seems to be PM and a long-lasting, well-regarded PM. He has realised his best chance to accomplish this is to deliver Brexit at absolutely any cost, on the grounds that he can immediately blame any negative consequences for No Deal on the EU and Remainers, and win a post-Brexit general election on the basis of having been the guy to deliver actual Brexit, come what may.

Delivering anything which can be deemed a Brexit-in-name-only, or taking any action that leads to Remain or further extensions etc, threatens this position, so Boris is doubling down on trying to get a Brexit done ASAP,  by any means necessary, even blatantly breaking the law, because his calculation is that it will be forgiven once Brexit is done.

Based on what we know of Boris's pre-referendum stance and backed up by Cameron, Boris isn't even intellectually or ideologically committed to Brexit, but it's the horse he's tied his cart to and he is going to ride it wherever the hell it leads. He is not going to be conciliatory about it or switch approach, and he's calculating that any negative consequences can be shut down by changes in the law after Brexit is accomplished.

Boris is a narcissist, maybe not quite at the superhuman levels of Trump, but certainly up there, and this trait will not allow him to countenance failure or defeat.

[The Anti-Targ]

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Boris's ambition seems to be PM and a long-lasting, well-regarded PM. He has realised his best chance to accomplish this is to deliver Brexit at absolutely any cost, on the grounds that he can immediately blame any negative consequences for No Deal on the EU and Remainers, and win a post-Brexit general election on the basis of having been the guy to deliver actual Brexit, come what may.

Delivering anything which can be deemed a Brexit-in-name-only, or taking any action that leads to Remain or further extensions etc, threatens this position, so Boris is doubling down on trying to get a Brexit done ASAP,  by any means necessary, even blatantly breaking the law, because his calculation is that it will be forgiven once Brexit is done.

Based on what we know of Boris's pre-referendum stance and backed up by Cameron, Boris isn't even intellectually or ideologically committed to Brexit, but it's the horse he's tied his cart to and he is going to ride it wherever the hell it leads. He is not going to be conciliatory about it or switch approach, and he's calculating that any negative consequences can be shut down by changes in the law after Brexit is accomplished.

Boris is a narcissist, maybe not quite at the superhuman levels of Trump, but certainly up there, and this trait will not allow him to countenance failure or defeat.

More like the tiger's tail he's grabbed. Tying a horse to a cart seems very orderly, benign, unremarkable and normal. Not sure any of those things apply to Brexit.

[The Anti-Targ]

32 minutes ago, williamjm said:

John Major seems to have been worried about this. David Allen Green suggests here that there doesn't seem to be any legal basis for this strategy.

 

I'd want to see a somewhat more detailed legal analysis of the situation than a tweet can provide to be confident this potential threat is a red herring.

The tweet is suggesting such an order can be judicially reviewed. That would be a key element to confirm. Seems some people think OoCs can't be JR'd, whereas OiCs can be. Someone needs to find the black and white confirmation of the situation in this regard. The other key element is what can OoCs actually be used for. If they can be used to affect the way a piece of legislation is implemented, such as delay its implementation, then that's a concern. If they can't be used for that purpose then it's not much of a concern.