Jump to content
Buce

What's in the news?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I completely agree with this, it would be wonderful if we could head more towards a transparent system in parliament where we can get even more information.

The problem is Bercow is more than happy to invoke "precedent" when he wants to block bullying allegations or something to go his own way etc - then just totally ignore it when he doesn't.

 

If there is a credible case of bullying against him (and what I've heard suggests that there is), then he should be duly investigated - and disciplined or even removed from post if found guilty of serious offences.

My guess is that he's not a very nice man. I just think he's done the right thing in this instance.....anyway, I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

If there is a credible case of bullying against him (and what I've heard suggests that there is), then he should be duly investigated - and disciplined or even removed from post if found guilty of serious offences.

My guess is that he's not a very nice man. I just think he's done the right thing in this instance.....anyway, I'm out.

It's not just the allegations against him, it's how he can and has blocked investigations into others, if you are bullied in the workplace you should be be confident it will be investigated, it isn't right someone can use the power they have to just say they aren't going to do so, then to use that to build support in the house .

Imagine how the staff (allegedly) bullied by Christopher Chope must have felt yesterday when they had to watch the man they accused stand up and praise the man who blocked the investigation into him.

The whole thing is nauseating and hopefully he'll be changed as soon as this is over.

Edited by MattP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Itime for me to agree to disagree and to leave this particular issue.

1

 

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Seriously, I'm out of this now.... :D

1

 

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

anyway, I'm out.

 

 

lol

 

"My name is Alf Bentley and I'm a politicsaholic".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

lol

 

"My name is Alf Bentley and I'm a politicsaholic".

 

lol

 

I keep trying to abstain, honest, guv! 

 

But these bastards ( (c) J. Major) keep quoting me and asking me questions.....one bastard has just quoted me three times over! :D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit plan B debate will last only 90 minutes, says No 10

Downing Street says one amendment would be allowed to motion after defeat of PM’s deal

 

Downing Street has said that if Theresa May’s deal is voted down, any debate over a Brexit plan B would be 90 minutes long and only one amendment would be allowed.

The prime minister’s spokesman told reporters at Thursday morning’s lobby briefing that No 10’s understanding of the Dominic Grieve amendment, which requires May to outline a plan B in three working days if she is defeated, was that only a limited debate would then be allowed.

 

The spokesman said: “[In relation to] the motion that would follow from the Grieve amendment, there would only be 90 minutes of debate on the motion is our understanding and only one amendment could be selected.”

The government was controversially defeated on Wednesday by 308 to 297 after John Bercow, the Speaker, allowed the Conservative backbencher to submit an amendment reducing the amount of time May would have to act.

Any Brexit plan B debate would be likely to be held in a crisis atmosphere with intense pressure on MPs to decide how to act, given that May’s deal would have been voted down.

MPs are also likely to want to submit a string of amendments for a second referendum or in support of a Norway-plus option of remaining in the single market and customs union.

Downing Street said it understood that it would have to table a motion outlining what it would do next by the evening of Monday 21 January, three sitting days after May’s Brexit deal is due to be voted on by MPs.

Few believe May’s deal will pass next Tuesday given that 100 Tory MPs and the DUP have said they will vote against it, although there was a formal acknowledgement that the prime minister hopes to win over a few Labour MPs.

The spokesman also indicated that Downing Street would “consider very seriously” supporting an amendment put down bythe Labour backbenchers John Mann, Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell, calling for guarantees on workers’ rights and environmental standards after Brexit.

 

It is the first time Downing Street has publicly acknowledged it is seeking the support of Labour rebels in pro-leave seats, although the idea was first aired last October, and follows contacts between the government and some of the concerned MPs.

May’s spokesman said: “I think if it is chosen [by the Speaker], then that is something we could consider very seriously.” He added: “The government and the prime minister have a long-standing commitment to strong labour protections.”

On the interpretation of the Grieve amendment, No 10 conceded its understanding of parliamentary procedure, derived from its legislative team, could be overturned by Bercow. “Obviously these things are subject to interpretation by the Speaker of the house,” the spokesman said.

Labour sources said Downing Street’s proposal was insufficient. One said: “Ninety minutes is not enough and entirely consistent with this government’s approach of dodging scrutiny by trying to deny MPs debating time and votes.”

The Labour backbencher Stephen Doughty, who is campaigning for a second referendum, said: “After two defeats in two days where parliament has taken back control, it would be extremely foolish for the government to continue to try to treat parliament with such contempt. They simply make themselves look increasingly desperate and devious.”

The Tory backbencher Sam Gyimah said: “Is this effectively an admission that after two years of negotiations and delaying the MV [meaningful vote] for five weeks, Downing Street astonishingly does not have a plan B on the biggest issue facing the country?”

Edited by Buce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell lol So now a backbencher is going to table another extended amendment and the speaker is going to have to allow it.

This is now the Government v John Bercow and they are going to force him to keep being partial over and over again against his own clerks. PMQ's is going to be the sideshow to Points of Order every Wednesday until March lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between breaking conventions and breaking rules. Got to laugh at Brexiteers getting upset at British parliamentary sovereignty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why Corbyn isn't going along with the calls for a second referendum.

 

Labour in front whilst doing nothing and Leave polling better than it did on the day of the referendum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MattP said:

Seems sensible, short shock clearly doesn't work.

 

Keep up for repeat and serious offenders.

All it ever does is remove the protective factors people have and when they come back out they have nothing and the cycle repeats itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is why Corbyn isn't going along with the calls for a second referendum.

 

Labour in front whilst doing nothing and Leave polling better than it did on the day of the referendum.

 

 

Might be part of the explanation. But I still think the main reason is because he's essentially a Soft Brexiteer. He wants a close relationship with the EU, but wants to Leave so as to have the freedom - as he sees it - for a Labour Govt to be more interventionist re. nationalisations, state subsidy, industrial policy, larger deficit than allowed under ultra-strict EU rules etc.

 

There's also the fact that he's a pig-headed, stubborn git with fixed ideas! The Guardian today reckons McDonnell is talking to those promoting the Norway option, which is interesting. Certainly, Corbyn will be under a lot of internal pressure to table a confidence vote soon after May's Deal is (presumably) defeated and to either support a second referendum or have some other clear alternative if that fails.

 

I reckon the outcome of either an election or a referendum is really unpredictable (not least as both main parties are badly split at every level from support base to MPs). Would there even be a "Tory line" or a "Labour line" if we had a referendum? And what would the party stances on Brexit be if we had an election? Unlike 2017, any election in the coming months would surely be dominated by Brexit....and I could see that working in favour of the Tories.

 

I struggle to see how an election could produce a majority Labour Govt. Labour is surely close to maximum high tide in the South, big cities and university towns. If Labour supports a second referendum, it risks losing seats in the North/Midlands; if it doesn't do so, it loses a lot of the youth vote and seats in the South/cities/uni towns. It's also unlikely that Corbyn would perform as well as in 2017 - and the Tories surely couldn't be any worse. I could just about imagining Labour emerging as the largest party, but reckon there's an equal chance that an election could produce a Tory majority.....if only because of the divided centre-left vote due to Brexit, Middle England's fear of Corbyn and an attitude of not changing the captain/crew at a critical moment in the Brexit journey....

Edited by Alf Bentley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think deep down that Corbyn doesn’t really want to be PM. 

I’m sure he wants the Labour Party in power, and his view of how the country should be to be implemented, but he seems happier opposing than I think he would leading a nation. 

 

And can you really see him being comfortable in No 10, with all the pomp and ceremony that goes with being in the top job?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Milo said:

I honestly think deep down that Corbyn doesn’t really want to be PM. 

I’m sure he wants the Labour Party in power, and his view of how the country should be to be implemented, but he seems happier opposing than I think he would leading a nation. 

 

And can you really see him being comfortable in No 10, with all the pomp and ceremony that goes with being in the top job?

 

 

 

When he stood for the leadership, I don't think he had any desire to be PM. He just wanted to promote his ideas - often opposing, not proposing, as you say - and didn't expect to win.

 

I'm sure you're right that he has no interest in the pomp and ceremony - or even the ego boost of being able to think "I'm the PM".

 

But I do think he has ego of a different sort, meaning that he has come to like the idea of being PM, now that he has a chance.

His ego has always been about thinking "I'm a good man with the right ideas to help the right people".

 

Logically, when presented with an unexpected potential opportunity to put those ideas into practice, rather than just preaching or opposing, he'd surely welcome the chance to do so?

As he'd see it, he might have a chance to go down in history as the bloke who gave the poor a better deal, made big business pay its fair share, gave public utilities back to the people, helped the people of Palestine etc.

That would be quite an ego boost for him and I'd be surprised if he wasn't thinking in those terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Might be part of the explanation. But I still think the main reason is because he's essentially a Soft Brexiteer. He wants a close relationship with the EU, but wants to Leave so as to have the freedom - as he sees it - for a Labour Govt to be more interventionist re. nationalisations, state subsidy, industrial policy, larger deficit than allowed under ultra-strict EU rules etc.

 

There's also the fact that he's a pig-headed, stubborn git with fixed ideas! The Guardian today reckons McDonnell is talking to those promoting the Norway option, which is interesting. Certainly, Corbyn will be under a lot of internal pressure to table a confidence vote soon after May's Deal is (presumably) defeated and to either support a second referendum or have some other clear alternative if that fails.

 

I reckon the outcome of either an election or a referendum is really unpredictable (not least as both main parties are badly split at every level from support base to MPs). Would there even be a "Tory line" or a "Labour line" if we had a referendum? And what would the party stances on Brexit be if we had an election? Unlike 2017, any election in the coming months would surely be dominated by Brexit....and I could see that working in favour of the Tories.

 

I struggle to see how an election could produce a majority Labour Govt. Labour is surely close to maximum high tide in the South, big cities and university towns. If Labour supports a second referendum, it risks losing seats in the North/Midlands; if it doesn't do so, it loses a lot of the youth vote and seats in the South/cities/uni towns. It's also unlikely that Corbyn would perform as well as in 2017 - and the Tories surely couldn't be any worse. I could just about imagining Labour emerging as the largest party, but reckon there's an equal chance that an election could produce a Tory majority.....if only because of the divided centre-left vote due to Brexit, Middle England's fear of Corbyn and an attitude of not changing the captain/crew at a critical moment in the Brexit journey....

 

I think that's pretty much spot on.

 

Personally, I think it's a tactical error to be trying to instigate an election and if I were May I would call his bluff and give him one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Might be part of the explanation. But I still think the main reason is because he's essentially a Soft Brexiteer. He wants a close relationship with the EU, but wants to Leave so as to have the freedom - as he sees it - for a Labour Govt to be more interventionist re. nationalisations, state subsidy, industrial policy, larger deficit than allowed under ultra-strict EU rules etc.

 

There's also the fact that he's a pig-headed, stubborn git with fixed ideas! The Guardian today reckons McDonnell is talking to those promoting the Norway option, which is interesting. Certainly, Corbyn will be under a lot of internal pressure to table a confidence vote soon after May's Deal is (presumably) defeated and to either support a second referendum or have some other clear alternative if that fails.

I think Norway or No Deal is where we are heading now assuming it comes to a conclusion in the near future.

The question might even come down to whether the second referendum extremists are prepared to still vote down Norway to risk winning Remain against No Deal and all the unrest that would come from such a decision, I have no doubt people Caroline Lucas and Anna Soubry would take that risk, but I'm not sure if the same would apply to the more moderate MP's in both the main parties.

Norway keeps us a close as possible with minimal economic impact and satisfies the question of whether we officially have left, that might be tempting for the house, if not the public.
 

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

In the event of an election I can’t see either side winning with a majority, especially not Labour.

Me neither at the minute, even on that polling above Labour are still 23 short of a majority according to Electoral Calculus.
 

41 minutes ago, Buce said:

Personally, I think it's a tactical error to be trying to instigate an election and if I were May I would call his bluff and give him one.

I think they will eventually, but she wants him to be forced into coming out for a second referendum first, soon as he does that I think the Tories can go to the polls. (Unless of course the polls then switch to him having huge support for doing it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think Norway or No Deal is where we are heading now assuming it comes to a conclusion in the near future.

The question might even come down to whether the second referendum extremists are prepared to still vote down Norway to risk winning Remain against No Deal and all the unrest that would come from such a decision, I have no doubt people Caroline Lucas and Anna Soubry would take that risk, but I'm not sure if the same would apply to the more moderate MP's in both the main parties.

Norway keeps us a close as possible with minimal economic impact and satisfies the question of whether we officially have left, that might be tempting for the house, if not the public.
 

Me neither at the minute, even on that polling above Labour are still 23 short of a majority according to Electoral Calculus.
 

I think they will eventually, but she wants him to be forced into coming out for a second referendum first, soon as he does that I think the Tories can go to the polls. (Unless of course the polls then switch to him having huge support for doing it)

Didn’t May say she wouldn’t lead the Tories into another election, hardly motivation for her calling one is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Didn’t May say she wouldn’t lead the Tories into another election, hardly motivation for her calling one is it?

 

I think she actually said that it wasn't her intention to lead them into the next scheduled election in 2022.

 

Sounds like she's left some wriggle room with that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I think she actually said that it wasn't her intention to lead them into the next scheduled election in 2022.

 

Sounds like she's left some wriggle room with that.

Can’t we just burn her at the stake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Didn’t May say she wouldn’t lead the Tories into another election, hardly motivation for her calling one is it?

I think she did, why is why that makes it almost certain she'll lead them into another election lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MattP said:

I think she did, why is why that makes it almost certain she'll lead them into another election lol

Theresa Mays life as a PM lol

giphy.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×