RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

She has consistently shown herself to be... Not very bright...

she worse than not very bright tbh. The cabinet and shadow cabinet are sh*t shows of the highest order. We've seen the worst of the back benches. Between the two there may be some talented MPs, but they are being well hidden.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

She has consistently shown herself to be... Not very bright...

she worse than not very bright tbh. The cabinet and shadow cabinet are sh*t shows of the highest order. We've seen the worst of the back benches. Between the two there may be some talented MPs, but they are being well hidden.

I wouldn’t say she’s not very bright, though I have plenty of other criticisms of her. As an avid Remainer, it’s obviously a policy she doesn’t agree with and she’s trying to defend it. It’s a policy born from compromise within the party but Brexit is so binary that compromise can lead to illogical conclusions such as this.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
She has consistently shown herself to be... Not very bright...

she worse than not very bright tbh. The cabinet and shadow cabinet are sh*t shows of the highest order. We've seen the worst of the back benches. Between the two there may be some talented MPs, but they are being well hidden.

I wouldn’t say she’s not very bright, though I have plenty of other criticisms of her. As an avid Remainer, it’s obviously a policy she doesn’t agree with and she’s trying to defend it. It’s a policy born from compromise within the party but Brexit is so binary that compromise can lead to illogical conclusions such as this.

well I would, but I have a lot worse to say about her in addition. Its also worse than an illogical conclusion, its a fundamental conflict in Labour ideology/policy between Corbyn/McDonnell (leave) and pretty much the rest of the party (remain)

Mikey Brown wrote:

as an aside there is a big growth in voters registering, esp u35's. Suspect Momentum, rightly, are mobilising strongly on the ground.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: she worse than not very bright tbh. The cabinet and shadow cabinet are sh*t shows of the highest order. We've seen the worst of the back benches. Between the two there may be some talented MPs, but they are being well hidden.

I wouldn’t say she’s not very bright, though I have plenty of other criticisms of her. As an avid Remainer, it’s obviously a policy she doesn’t agree with and she’s trying to defend it. It’s a policy born from compromise within the party but Brexit is so binary that compromise can lead to illogical conclusions such as this.

well I would, but I have a lot worse to say about her in addition. Its also worse than an illogical conclusion, its a fundamental conflict in Labour ideology/policy between Corbyn/McDonnell (leave) and pretty much the rest of the party (remain)

I don't think the policy is illogical, but yes, it's clearly the nuanced result of a compromise. And nuance doesn't play well in question time (nor I think, in the polls).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I wouldn’t say she’s not very bright, though I have plenty of other criticisms of her. As an avid Remainer, it’s obviously a policy she doesn’t agree with and she’s trying to defend it. It’s a policy born from compromise within the party but Brexit is so binary that compromise can lead to illogical conclusions such as this.

well I would, but I have a lot worse to say about her in addition. Its also worse than an illogical conclusion, its a fundamental conflict in Labour ideology/policy between Corbyn/McDonnell (leave) and pretty much the rest of the party (remain)

I don't think the policy is illogical, but yes, it's clearly the nuanced result of a compromise. And nuance doesn't play well in question time (nor I think, in the polls).

I didn't say it was an illogical conclusion. As a barrister and Shadow Foreign Secretary you'd think if it was a nuance rather than the somewhat nonsensical position of Labour on Brexit allied with her own desire to campaign for Remain she'd be able to cope. Is Labour's policy to Leave, still, or did i miss summat.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I wouldn’t say she’s not very bright, though I have plenty of other criticisms of her. As an avid Remainer, it’s obviously a policy she doesn’t agree with and she’s trying to defend it. It’s a policy born from compromise within the party but Brexit is so binary that compromise can lead to illogical conclusions such as this.

well I would, but I have a lot worse to say about her in addition. Its also worse than an illogical conclusion, its a fundamental conflict in Labour ideology/policy between Corbyn/McDonnell (leave) and pretty much the rest of the party (remain)

I don't think the policy is illogical, but yes, it's clearly the nuanced result of a compromise. And nuance doesn't play well in question time (nor I think, in the polls).

It does if you have wit...

"this is a democracy, the people should decide. We want them to have a fair, unbiased choice between the economic disaster of no deal, a Labour led deal and remain."

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: well I would, but I have a lot worse to say about her in addition. Its also worse than an illogical conclusion, its a fundamental conflict in Labour ideology/policy between Corbyn/McDonnell (leave) and pretty much the rest of the party (remain)

I don't think the policy is illogical, but yes, it's clearly the nuanced result of a compromise. And nuance doesn't play well in question time (nor I think, in the polls).

It does if you have wit...

"this is a democracy, the people should decide. We want them to have a fair, unbiased choice between the economic disaster of no deal, a Labour led deal and remain."

cashead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

I have questioned Corbyn's political instincts in the past, but I’ll happily admit he got this one spot-on.

As above, momentum are also doing a bang on job of mobilising the u35 vote. Delaying a GE is what Labour should be doing for their own political interests.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: well I would, but I have a lot worse to say about her in addition. Its also worse than an illogical conclusion, its a fundamental conflict in Labour ideology/policy between Corbyn/McDonnell (leave) and pretty much the rest of the party (remain)

I don't think the policy is illogical, but yes, it's clearly the nuanced result of a compromise. And nuance doesn't play well in question time (nor I think, in the polls).

It does if you have wit...

"this is a democracy, the people should decide. We want them to have a fair, unbiased choice between the economic disaster of no deal, a Labour led deal and remain."

That is some nuance!

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I don't think the policy is illogical, but yes, it's clearly the nuanced result of a compromise. And nuance doesn't play well in question time (nor I think, in the polls).

It does if you have wit...

"this is a democracy, the people should decide. We want them to have a fair, unbiased choice between the economic disaster of no deal, a Labour led deal and remain."

That is some nuance!

Fine, not nuance, but it's an answer that's not shit, keeps labour out of the way between traditional heartlands and metropolitan areas, and is actually a positive.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
It does if you have wit...

"this is a democracy, the people should decide. We want them to have a fair, unbiased choice between the economic disaster of no deal, a Labour led deal and remain."

That is some nuance!

Fine, not nuance, but it's an answer that's not shit, keeps labour out of the way between traditional heartlands and metropolitan areas, and is actually a positive.

But she said that and Bruce countered with something along of ‘you are going to campaign against your own deal, convince the public you did you best in negotiations despite not actually wanting to leave and subsequently rubbishing your own deal in the campaign and hope the EU will negotiate in good faith knowing you’re negotiating a deal you are actually going to campaign against’. Which is a bit of an argument ender. It’s fecking bonkers, illogical and nonsensical. Even Thornberry knows it’s ridiculous. You can see it in her face.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
It does if you have wit...

"this is a democracy, the people should decide. We want them to have a fair, unbiased choice between the economic disaster of no deal, a Labour led deal and remain."

That is some nuance!

Fine, not nuance, but it's an answer that's not shit, keeps labour out of the way between traditional heartlands and metropolitan areas, and is actually a positive.

I’d assumed it was irony

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: That is some nuance!

Fine, not nuance, but it's an answer that's not shit, keeps labour out of the way between traditional heartlands and metropolitan areas, and is actually a positive.

I’d assumed it was irony

Tbh, so did I.

cashead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

I have questioned Corbyn's political instincts in the past, but I’ll happily admit he got this one spot-on.

Agreed. I think his advisors have got it spot on, I think Corbyn would like to go for it but the logic has finally sunk in.

Now we just need to hear second referendum mentioned as a requirement and thus could start to look sensible.

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

I have questioned Corbyn's political instincts in the past, but I’ll happily admit he got this one spot-on.

Agreed. I think his advisors have got it spot on, I think Corbyn would like to go for it but the logic has finally sunk in.

Now we just need to hear second referendum mentioned as a requirement and thus could start to look sensible.

Labours policy is a second referendum. Well, I think so.

This week it might be, I can’t keep track.

To be fair, I really don’t trust Corbyn on Brexit (or much else) but I also don’t trust Johnson who is doing his best to make Corbyn look like a statesman. This isn’t how parliament should work but if it stops an action that doesn’t have legitimacy then so be it.

Sandydragon wrote:This week it might be, I can’t keep track.

To be fair, I really don’t trust Corbyn on Brexit (or much else) but I also don’t trust Johnson who is doing his best to make Corbyn look like a statesman. This isn’t how parliament should work but if it stops an action that doesn’t have legitimacy then so be it.

Corbyn and McDonnell, and likely Momentum want to leave, as did c 30% of Labour voters (but not in London) ; suspect the membership and definitely the PLP want to stay. Their official policy I believe is to Leave, under a deal negotiated by a Labour govt (and to reject ANY tory deal), but to have that 'ratified' or not, by public vote (not sure what questions though); what their campaign would be on the referendum would be is interesting, though Thornberry said her preference was to campaign to Remain- not sure if that is personal or policy.

Boris is an A-grade scumbag and I could never vote for him.

Just read that Keir Starmer was on the edge of de-selection. Jeez, that does make Labour even less attractive.

Breaking news - Scottish court of appeal has ruled prorogation unlawful - and that's before the release of communications around the decision to prorogue.

Safe to assume that this will bump up to the supreme court; but does that mean parliament is recalled pending that decision? or is it all too late to make a real difference beyond optics?


ETA: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

Only a headline at time of posting, will inevitably be editted over the next few hours (I've been buggered on that before).

Which Tyler wrote:Breaking news - Scottish court of appeal has ruled prorogation unlawful - and that's before the release of communications around the decision to prorogue.

Safe to assume that this will bump up to the supreme court; but does that mean parliament is recalled pending that decision? or is it all too late to make a real difference beyond optics?


ETA: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

Only a headline at time of posting, will inevitably be editted over the next few hours (I've been buggered on that before).

The Court of Session didn't issue an order that the prorogation should be suspended, therefore, no change until the case goes before the Supreme Court on Tuesday next week.

Boris could get in front of this by saying he's opening parliament and on his way to take questions ahead of the next court ruling. or he could dress JRM up as Judge Dredd and send him to let those nonces in Scotland know who is the law.

Digby wrote:Boris could get in front of this by saying he's opening parliament and on his way to take questions ahead of the next court ruling. or he could dress JRM up as Judge Dredd and send him to let those nonces in Scotland know who is the law.

I can picture it - Judge Dredd rocking up the M74 on his Lawmaster, complete with nanny on the pillion.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:Boris could get in front of this by saying he's opening parliament and on his way to take questions ahead of the next court ruling. or he could dress JRM up as Judge Dredd and send him to let those nonces in Scotland know who is the law.

I can picture it - Judge Dredd rocking up the M74 on his Lawmaster, complete with nanny on the pillion.

Don't be silly. Nanny will be driving and Dredd will be reclined across the pillion and a sidecar.

Puja

Summary of the Court's ruling which is utterly damning.
If the Supreme Court determines likewise, Johnson is surely toast.

"All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.

The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.

Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.

The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.

The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect"