A Political Thread

[ncurd]

Right, I let the first one go, but that's twice in about 3 posts...

You are not in the US, lets not descend to their butchery of the language!

Its one calculation rather than multiple calculations there is fair argument that maths can be used as both a plural noun and singular noun. However math is in the OED a singular noun.

 

[ncurd]

I do get annoyed when people say Corbyn could not bring the house together over Brexit when he is the only leader who is taking both sides of the vote into account.

The problem isn't a position on his policy or where he stands, its the fact the MPs won't vote for him on tribal grounds.

Unless actually forced to One Nation Tories won't vote for left of Labour PM. Its simply not going to happen and has bugger all to do with Brexit.

 

[Amiga500]

Its one calculation rather than multiple calculations there is fair argument that maths can be used as both a plural noun and singular noun. However math is in the OED a singular noun.

#FakeNews

 

[ncurd]

#FakeNews

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/math

 

[Amiga500]

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/math

#MoreFakeNews

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/maths

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/maths

 

[Which Tyler]

Never let it be said that my sense of humour is highly sophisticated
https://www.facebook.com/117504154972024/posts/2379494585439625/

 

[die_mole]

I'll accept arguments that -our and s instead of z are correct but math/maths doesn't make sense to me. Plural words don't have to end in s.

In political news: I've given up, trump is gonna win next year and I'm fairly confident about it. I just hope we don't hit a recession as I hit the job market next year.

 

[Gavin]

Mega lolz. Suggestions BoJo's EU deal with have a two borders in NI between ROI and GB. Hilarious. Is this a cunning plan or a method to a No Deal seeing as who would vote for it?

 

[Which Tyler]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ing-jeremy-corbyn-leading-government-national

It's not Jo Swinson keeping Jeremy Corbyn from leading a government of national unity
Former Labour and ex-Conservative MPs have the same concerns — and there is no force that will make them back a Corbyn government.

Article Continues

What's left is a row that is primarily about signalling more than anything else. Jo Swinson wants to reassure anti-Corbyn voters that the Liberal Democrats are a safe home for them that won't result in Corbyn entering office through the back door. Corbyn wants to paint Swinson as a closet Conservative. It's in both their interests to loudly talk up their respective positions — but the reality is that the people whose preferences will decide if a government of national unity is formed are the independents who sit for neither party; and no amount of cajoling will make them accept a government led by Corbyn.

I really hope that when push turns to shove, and it's time to actually place their votes, many would rather a few months of PM Corbyn than No Deal Brexit
However, I do think it has to be the anti-Corbyns who move. Corbyn himself is a leaver, and personally happy enough with no deal, even if he'd rather have a deal. He's also a man who has never knowingly changed his mind about a thing. The idea of him standing aside for anyone else just doesn't seem realistic. He'd rather see no deal, than a non-Corbyn PM.
Then it's a case of how many "others" will vote for him - Swinson would IMO, but the likes or Chukka, Smith, Hammond or Boles most definitely wouldn't - beyond that...

Even if everyone but the conservatives and ex-conservatives vote against Corbyn; he loses. His idealism (and lack of motivation to) won't let him stand aside for someone else.

 

[ncurd]

Mega lolz. Suggestions BoJo's EU deal with have a two borders in NI between ROI and GB. Hilarious. Is this a cunning plan or a method to a No Deal seeing as who would vote for it?

Actually I see more as a cunning plan to stop no deal but pin the blame on others. Which is what I think Johnson actually wants.

 

[Amiga500]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ing-jeremy-corbyn-leading-government-national

This is all misguided.

Corbyn doesn't need a majority of the full house to become PM.

He needs more votes than the Johnson faction (Tories/DUP) to avoid being brought down immediately.

Declared for Johnson
288 Tories
10 DUP
298

Declared for Corbyn
246 Lab
35 SNP
4 Plaid Cymru
285

59 Others between [excluding Sinners & Speaker]

Assuming that none of the others vote against Corbyn, then he needs to attract 14 of those other votes - just under a quarter of them. The rest can abstain.

That is enough for him to form a government that would survive an immediate counter vote of no confidence.

Beyond that, the policies can be voted for as the MPs within the "Others" group see fit. i.e. extension = Yes, GE = Yes, pretty much all others = No.


edit: And it means it is absolutely true that the LibDems could put Corbyn into Downing Street and then strictly control what goes through HoC, so Swinson is full of **** as I said yesterday.

 

[ncurd]

This is all misguided.

Corbyn doesn't need a majority of the full house to become PM.

Yes he does

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46890481

Unless you have a source that suggests otherwise.

 

[ncurd]

Wait just read you suggested abstaining.....yeah ******** is that going to happen same as voting for Corbyn they'll vote against.

 

[Which Tyler]

This is all misguided.

Corbyn doesn't need a majority of the full house to become PM.

He needs more votes than the Johnson faction (Tories/DUP) to avoid being brought down immediately.

First time I've seen this suggested - source please

 

[Gavin]

BoJo stirring up hatred during his speech at the conference. Listening to it is incredible.

 

[Which Tyler]

BoJo stirring up hatred during his speech at the conference. Listening to it is incredible.

Obviously didn't get his fill after yesterday's fist fight.

It's also been noticed a huge delivery of champagne, to accompany today's speaches on creating tackling poverty: mirror link

 

[ncurd]

First time I've seen this suggested - source please

Hate to say it but sounds like Momentum muck to fling **** the LD's/Swinson's way. So much misinformation out there....and people love their fantasy scenario's of abstentions (they won't and have indicated as such) or as yesterday suggest SF taking their seats (they won't and have indicated as such).

 

[Which Tyler]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...pension-of-parliament-this-weekend-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.

 

[Amiga500]

Yes he does

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46890481

Unless you have a source that suggests otherwise.

"It needs a simple majority to pass - so it only requires one more MP to vote in favour than the number voting against."

It cannot be any clearer than that.

If those that aren't in either faction abstain, then the numbers are exactly as I have outlined.

Furthermore - while many may disagree on putting Corbyn in power - there is a difference in voting down Johnson and voting for Corbyn.

 

[Amiga500]

Wait just read you suggested abstaining.....yeah ******** is that going to happen same as voting for Corbyn they'll vote against.

So now your saying, "oh it actually could work like that but won't... because just".

A few points which are absolutely true:
1. The LibDems hold the balance of power to bring down the Johnson government.
2. The LibDems hold the balance of power to bring down any Corbyn government.
3. If Corbyn can get 14 independent/Green voters on board, then none of the other independents or LibDems have to actively vote with him to allow for an extension and general election to pass through.
4. The LibDems could vote for Corbyn in a confidence vote to get him in, then immediately call for a no confidence vote to get him out. That gives Corbyn 14 days to (i)get extension and (ii)call General Election, both of which are scenarios that leave the LibDems having complete control over the balance of parliamentary power - and Corbyn could not pass any bills that do not get LibDem approval.
[on the very slight assumption no Tory member will ever vote with a Corbyn government]


The below is probably true:
5. 16th October is too late as even after a Vote of No Confidence, Johnson has 14 days before anything substantive happens. That brings you up to the 30th.


As I've said several times now, Swinson is full of ****. She's declaring herself and the party all against Brexit - but not taking any action to prevent the worst kind of Brexit. She could easily carry out points 1 & 4 above without any repercussion from the electorate who would be inclined to vote LibDem anyway.

But the groupies aren't likely to face up to that.