Snap General Election called

[Which Tyler]

I didn't have you all down as being such sensitive souls.

Which bits?
Thinking that death threats may not be "humbug"? or that the best way to honour a murder victim may not be to do what the murderer wanted and the victim was campaigning against? Or just that we think incitement to violence is a bad thing for politicians to do?

[bruce]

I didn't have you all down as being such sensitive souls.

Which bits?
Thinking that death threats may not be "humbug"? or that the best way to honour a murder victim may not be to do what the murderer wanted and the victim was campaigning against? Or just that we think incitement to violence is a bad thing for politicians to do?

Or you could say that linking what was said to violence or incitement to violence as a massive stretch, and those showing faux outrage are only doing so for political purposes. You could also say that those raising the murder to score political points is distasteful to say the least.

[Stones of granite]

I didn't have you all down as being such sensitive souls.

Which bits?
Thinking that death threats may not be "humbug"? or that the best way to honour a murder victim may not be to do what the murderer wanted and the victim was campaigning against? Or just that we think incitement to violence is a bad thing for politicians to do?

Or you could say that linking what was said to violence or incitement to violence as a massive stretch, and those showing faux outrage are only doing so for political purposes. You could also say that those raising the murder to score political points is distasteful to say the least.

I'm not convinced that it is that big a stretch. Unless you think that those MPs who are receiving death threats to themselves and their children are telling lies, it seems to me that there is a strong correlation between the language used by our Charlatan-in-Chief and these threats. Of course, correlation is not causation, but it is certainly far from being a stretch.

[Puja]

Which bits?
Thinking that death threats may not be "humbug"? or that the best way to honour a murder victim may not be to do what the murderer wanted and the victim was campaigning against? Or just that we think incitement to violence is a bad thing for politicians to do?

Or you could say that linking what was said to violence or incitement to violence as a massive stretch, and those showing faux outrage are only doing so for political purposes. You could also say that those raising the murder to score political points is distasteful to say the least.

I'm not convinced that it is that big a stretch. Unless you think that those MPs who are receiving death threats to themselves and their children are telling lies, it seems to me that there is a strong correlation between the language used by our Charlatan-in-Chief and these threats. Of course, correlation is not causation, but it is certainly far from being a stretch.

Especially since the people offering the death threats likely look up to the "Brexit Champions" like Johnson and Mogg, and them showing respect and decorum to their opponents might do something to ameliorate their hatred. For them to be openly showing hatred and disdain is not helpful to reducing the feeling of us-vs-them, people-vs-parliament, patriots-vs-traitors that is being fomented in some of the online communities.

Of course Boris's words aren't a direct invocation to violence, however they're clearly adding to the vituperative atmosphere and he has a responsibility as Prime Minister to do better.

Puja

[Banquo]

Lol, Tories can't even go to their own conference

[Which Tyler]

Lol, Tories can't even go to their own conference

So BJ is 0 from 7 in parliament, and 1 from 3 in the courts, and that on a technicality

Parliament are, amazingly, not impressed with the idea that they close for a few days having just got back from bein illegally closed for several days

[Son of Mathonwy]

I saw his performance on Channel 4 news this evening and I didn't think I'd be shocked, not for the first time I was wrong

Which performance? There were a number which were frankly disgusting.

I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

Very true, I mentioned Cox because at that point he had yet to be eclipsed by BJ.

I was sort of shocked - even though I shouldn't have been, I fully expected them to brazen it out - but to see it, the performance (for that was what it was), the simulation of someone who had nothing whatever to be ashamed of - indeed, apparently, it was the opposition who should have apologised for bringing the case to court.

[Which Tyler]

Which performance? There were a number which were frankly disgusting.

I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

Very true, I mentioned Cox because at that point he had yet to be eclipsed by BJ.

I was sort of shocked - even though I shouldn't have been, I fully expected them to brazen it out - but to see it, the performance (for that was what it was), the simulation of someone who had nothing whatever to be ashamed of - indeed, apparently, it was the opposition who should have apologised for bringing the case to court.

I think it was proof positive that he's given up on any sort of a deal with the EU.
If you to find 20+ opponents to take your side in a vote; that was... not a sensible way of attracting them.

I think his plan had been that the prorogation meant a new session, so he could bring up May's deal (possibly with a cosmentic change) as a sop - but that's backfired a tad.
He knows he's not going to get enough out of the EU to otherwise count as "substantially different"; so that's a non-starter now (because he wasn't even trying to until the Benn Act passed - not to mention that it was always verging on the impossible even with good will).

He's in full-on election campaigning mode now; and only interested in motivating his base (as per the Banon playbook) - even if it leads to more death-threats, or even if it leads to more deaths; just so long as they're not deaths on his side.

[Digby]

I saw his performance on Channel 4 news this evening and I didn't think I'd be shocked, not for the first time I was wrong

Which performance? There were a number which were frankly disgusting.

I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

it was awful, Boris showed up badly being tired and stressed, but that just speaks to him being unsuited for a serious executive role.

Brendan Cox did a good job responding to the comments from Boris, he was very calm and did little more than ask both sides to work together, the line on the BBC that he had been shocked by the language used in the Commons on Wednesday is a little misleading, frankly it's lazy journalism from the Beeb to make it a more strident article, not that they're the only ones guilty in all this

[bruce]

Just so happens to have a camera crew in attendance...

[Digby]

Just so happens to have a camera crew in attendance...

Gibbon of course often having no camera crew in attendance

[Which Tyler]

Just so happens to have a camera crew in attendance...

Or "a member of staff with a mobile phone" as the BBC declare it (no way that footage comes from a camera crew)

[Son of Mathonwy]

I know you guys are talking about Geof Cox (and he was very bad - he's got a point on client confidentiality, and not resigning for losing a case - but his goading was undeserving of anyone who wants to be called "the right honourable"), but none more disgusting than BJ's replies to Paula Sheriff and Tracy Brabin.

I don't recall seeing anything as despicable as that in parliament

Very true, I mentioned Cox because at that point he had yet to be eclipsed by BJ.

I was sort of shocked - even though I shouldn't have been, I fully expected them to brazen it out - but to see it, the performance (for that was what it was), the simulation of someone who had nothing whatever to be ashamed of - indeed, apparently, it was the opposition who should have apologised for bringing the case to court.

I think it was proof positive that he's given up on any sort of a deal with the EU.
If you to find 20+ opponents to take your side in a vote; that was... not a sensible way of attracting them.

I think his plan had been that the prorogation meant a new session, so he could bring up May's deal (possibly with a cosmentic change) as a sop - but that's backfired a tad.
He knows he's not going to get enough out of the EU to otherwise count as "substantially different"; so that's a non-starter now (because he wasn't even trying to until the Benn Act passed - not to mention that it was always verging on the impossible even with good will).

He's in full-on election campaigning mode now; and only interested in motivating his base (as per the Banon playbook) - even if it leads to more death-threats, or even if it leads to more deaths; just so long as they're not deaths on his side.

There was an interesting question towards the end of the Cox session - no sign of interest in this in the media:

Dominic Grieve:
...I was struck by the fact that in the leaked document his opinion is referred to as believing [Prorogation] is constitutional, when I had understood from comments he made as far back, I think, as July, when Prorogation was first being mooted in order to achieve a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, that he considered that such an act would be unconstitutional. I wonder therefore whether this is not one issue that he ought to clarify.

Geoffrey Cox:
...It was being mooted some weeks ago that Parliament might be prorogued from the beginning of September or even earlier until 31 October. I say straightaway to him that if that had been the proposition, I could not have stayed in the Cabinet while it was done.

Of course, due to the format of these Parliamentary debates, Grieve was unable to probe this matter further.

But one must ask - if Cox considered a longer prorogation (say, all 8 of the remaining weeks to the end of October, rather than "just" 5 of them) to be unacceptable (he would rather have resigned), on what basis would he have done so?
That it was in fact unconstitutional? (in which case the matter is indeed justiciable)
That it was constitutional, but unethical? (how then can a shutdown of most of the time available be perfectly correct?)

[Which Tyler]

Never let it be said that my sense of humour is highly sophisticated

[Which Tyler]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jaco ... -whx2p28dr?

Jacob Rees-Mogg is set to ask the Queen to prorogue parliament as soon as this weekend under plans to help the prime minister deliver a Queen’s Speech on October 14.

Ministers are informally sounding out the Supreme Court before making another attempt to suspend parliament. Last week the court upended an earlier attempt to prorogue parliament, ruling that it was unlawful.

Boris Johnson wants the Commons to wind up on Tuesday so that he can press ahead with the planned Queen’s Speech. Ministers are insisting that it will take at least three working days to prepare the Palace of Westminster for the event marking a new session.

The installation of a throne in the House of Lords as well as security logistics mean that Tuesday is the latest day on which parliament can remain sitting, they claim.

However, Labour is insisting that the Commons sit until at least a week today. That would ensure that Mr Johnson would have to take what would be only his second prime minister’s questions. It would also give MPs an opportunity to force him to apologise for dismissing as “humbug” claims that his language was being cited by those making death threats.

The Supreme Court ruled that Mr Johnson’s initial prorogation was void because he had failed to explain why parliament needed to be suspended for five weeks. Giving the ruling, Baroness Hale of Richmond, president of the court, said: “This was not a normal prorogation.”

With ministers anxious to avoid provoking another row, suspending parliament for less than a week before the Queen’s Speech will be much less controversial as it is in line with precedent.

An initial proposal to suspend parliament tomorrow was quickly abandoned after informal soundings with the court and other key figures, according to one of those consulted.

Ministers will be particularly keen to avoid exposing the Queen to further political controversy.

Mr Johnson phoned the Queen shortly after last week’s ruling, which nullified the initial prorogation. He is said to have apologised.

Mr Johnson has so far limited his criticism to the ruling itself after being warned by Robert Buckland, the justice secretary, and Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, to avoid impugning the motives of the 11 judges.

However, the prime minister has made it clear that he believes the ruling must trigger a wider review of the constitutional settlement and the accountability of the judiciary. He used a weekend interview to suggest that Britain was on a course towards a US model, where appointees to the Supreme Court would have to be confirmed by politicians.

The Queen’s Speech is supposed to outline the legislative programme for the next session. Mr Johnson, who does not have a Commons majority, has no chance of delivering any of the bills that will be announced. He is keen to showcase his priorities before an election as well as to force opposition parties to vote against a series of measures, particularly on crime.

However, the debates will allow opposition parties to table a series of amendments, including on Brexit. None would have any substantive force.

Prior to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act the loss of a vote on a Queen’s Speech would have triggered a general election since it was obvious that the government no longer had a majority.

A defeat for Mr Johnson’s legislative programme later this month will not collapse his government, although it will strengthen his argument that the present parliament should end.

[Sandydragon]

FFS. Totally shameless.

[Digby]

FFS. Totally shameless.

JRM as Frank Gallagher is a hell of a remake

[Banquo]

Rory Stewart leaves Tory party and stands down at next election. Don't blame him. Sh*t show to the power of n, Tories and Parliament.

[Digby]

If only I'd thought to paint them all as monkeys on a giant canvas, and perhaps learnt to paint too

[Banquo]

Ouch
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49931937

[Digby]

Now that makes more sense

[Sandydragon]

Rory Stewart leaves Tory party and stands down at next election. Don't blame him. Sh*t show to the power of n, Tories and Parliament.

Now that is a real shame. The London Mayoral role is important but Id prefer parliament to have some decent MPs in it.

[Banquo]

Rory Stewart leaves Tory party and stands down at next election. Don't blame him. Sh*t show to the power of n, Tories and Parliament.

Now that is a real shame. The London Mayoral role is important but Id prefer parliament to have some decent MPs in it.

one would be a start

[Son of Mathonwy]

Rory Stewart leaves Tory party and stands down at next election. Don't blame him. Sh*t show to the power of n, Tories and Parliament.

Now that is a real shame. The London Mayoral role is important but Id prefer parliament to have some decent MPs in it.

one would be a start

I don't think it's quite that bad.

But the scum has certainly risen to the top.

[Banquo]

Now that is a real shame. The London Mayoral role is important but Id prefer parliament to have some decent MPs in it.

one would be a start

I don't think it's quite that bad.

But the scum has certainly risen to the top.

its a bit of a struggle to name one which is revealing. Mind, I do probably expect a bit much- real world experience, intellect, articulate, passionate, reasonable, compassion, willingness to both compromise and fight for what's right, understanding legislative role and so on.