Tuesday 31st January 2017

Post by **refitman** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 7:11 am

Morning all.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 7:50 am

Polly on fire this morning

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... hip-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I find myself on the opposite side from Dan Hodges on this question of terminology

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three cheers for the UK Civil Service system this morning.

Post by **adam** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 8:16 am

Trump's sacking of Yates as AG isn't a surprise and I doubt it will change many people's thoughts on him. If you're a supporter, then it is very easy to rationalise - she was an Obama appointee, remaining in office in transition until Sessions is confirmed by the Senate, and she put her political loyalty to Obama ahead of her loyalty to the constitution, as now personified by President Trump. Don't get me wrong, I think that's ridiculous, but it's an easy rationalisation to make if that's what you want to think.

I wonder if this will ease Sessions' confirmation process - it was always going to be unlikely for him to be rejected with the votes in the Senate as they are, but any Republicans mindful to object would now be drawing a hard line between themselves and the White House.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 8:27 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Polly on fire this morning

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... hip-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I find myself on the opposite side from Dan Hodges on this question of terminology

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three cheers for the UK Civil Service system this morning.

A sentence I never expected to write, but:

"I'm with Dan Hodges."

The furthest I'd go in qualifying it is the prefix "proto-", and I might suggest not personifying it and changing the focus to the people he's surrounded himself with.

But I don't have the slightest doubt otherwise.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 8:29 am

Anyway, on a lighter note (and a vast improvement on my playpen reference):

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 8:34 am

Good-morning, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 8:38 am

@seeingclearly
Thank you for your beautiful and affecting post, the last addition to yesterday's politics thread. Your writing is a gift. I'm mindful of its worth.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 8:48 am

I don't write for beauty, I write to be real.

People are suffering, death rates are rising, children being held neglectful of parents, resources being squandered while rich become super-rich, people deemed fit to govern obfuscating with semi-truths and outright lies, prime ministers who would sell us for sixpence.

I am bloody angry about it and about the stupid statements that go along with such dreadfully bad governance.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:25 am

Morning all.

There's a special session of the Edu select committee on school funding.

31 January 2017 9:45 am
Oral Evidence Session
School funding reform
View details
Witness(es)

Luke Sibieta, Programme Director, Institute for Fiscal Studies
Natalie Perera, Executive Director, Education Policy Institute

Nick Gibb MP, Minister for School Standards, Department for Education
Tom Goldman, Director, Education Funding, Department for Education
Location

The Grimond Room, Portcullis House

which can be viewed here if interested in seeing Gibb getting a grilling.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Inde ... 84524778e2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Place your bets on when Suella Fernandes manages to turn up...I'm guessing just at the start of the second session so she can give Nick Gibb some nice easy questions.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:31 am

Don't Trump's actions shows that sometimes the Opposition should go against 'the will of the people'.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:32 am

Oh dear...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Saw this "but...but...Obama came here earlier" nonsense yesterday. G20 not a state visit.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:34 am

Letter from former Perm Sec at the FO about the ill-judged invitation.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And all because the lady loves a possible trade deal...

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:46 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Polly on fire this morning

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... hip-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I find myself on the opposite side from Dan Hodges on this question of terminology

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three cheers for the UK Civil Service system this morning.

No you're wrong and you're ignorant, it is not a case of being on the 'opposite side' of terminology, it is a case of you not having even the basic grasp of what fascism is, and resulted in you trying to doctor a dictionary entry to support your incorrect nonsensical claims yesterday. I see that you have absolutely no shame - much like trump - and are back today with your divisive ignorance and trolling. Happy days, I have little to do today, but puncture the pomposity of your poison.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:48 am

Morning all.

Let those that defend, deflect or deny Trump's actions be remembered.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:52 am

Oh, I'm wrong - Fernandes is not only there on time but sitting in Ian Mearn's chair as effective 2nd in command.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 9:57 am

Good morfternoon.

Owen Smith still very much in evidence (re Art. 50 and "Brexit").

Whatever happened to Angela Eagle? Once upon a time and far, far away I used to think quite highly of her.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:11 am

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

#BrexitmeansTrump

Nothing new here as such, but when you look at what people like JHB are already spouting, difficult to counter.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:22 am

I'd like to have been given this front page in historical document analysis.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:27 am

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Polly on fire this morning

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... hip-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I find myself on the opposite side from Dan Hodges on this question of terminology

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three cheers for the UK Civil Service system this morning.
No you're wrong and you're ignorant, it is not a case of being on the 'opposite side' of terminology, it is a case of you not having even the basic grasp of what fascism is, and resulted in you trying to doctor a dictionary entry to support your incorrect nonsensical claims yesterday. I see that you have absolutely no shame - much like trump - and are back today with your divisive ignorance and trolling. Happy days, I have little to do today, but puncture the pomposity of your poison.

Can't you just ignore him tem, as many of us do? Wasted breath.

Otherwise it's good to see you here, your historical perspective on events is welcome.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:33 am

gilsey wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Polly on fire this morning

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... hip-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I find myself on the opposite side from Dan Hodges on this question of terminology

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three cheers for the UK Civil Service system this morning.
No you're wrong and you're ignorant, it is not a case of being on the 'opposite side' of terminology, it is a case of you not having even the basic grasp of what fascism is, and resulted in you trying to doctor a dictionary entry to support your incorrect nonsensical claims yesterday. I see that you have absolutely no shame - much like trump - and are back today with your divisive ignorance and trolling. Happy days, I have little to do today, but puncture the pomposity of your poison.
Can't you just ignore him tem, as many of us do? Wasted breath.

Otherwise it's good to see you here, your historical perspective on events is welcome.

Nope, not ignoring him, thats what allows him to spread his poison. I am, however, determined to expose every lie, every deciet, every deliberate obfuscation, and expose him for the nasty little troll that he is.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:43 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Letter from former Perm Sec at the FO about the ill-judged invitation.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And all because the lady loves a possible trade deal...

How exceptional is Lord Ricketts' letter?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:50 am

NonOxCol wrote:

#BrexitmeansTrump

Nothing new here as such, but when you look at what people like JHB are already spouting, difficult to counter.

Exactly - lookit, this is absurd. US Presidential executive order banning all people born in seven different nations from entering the US isn't precedented. The US isn't at war with the nations. There's not even a veneer of reputable plausibility for doing this thing.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:52 am

Temulkar wrote:Nope, not ignoring him, thats what allows him to spread his poison. I am, however, determined to expose every lie, every deciet, every deliberate obfuscation, and expose him for the nasty little troll that he is.

(cJA edit)

SpinningHugo likes taking up your time.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:55 am

NonOxCol wrote:I'd like to have been given this front page in historical document analysis.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amazing what a picture conveys, isn't it? Or doesn't. I couldn't figure the story out at first.

Post by **adam** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:55 am

citizenJA wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:

#BrexitmeansTrump

Nothing new here as such, but when you look at what people like JHB are already spouting, difficult to counter.
Exactly - lookit, this is absurd. US Presidential executive order banning all people born in seven different nations from entering the US isn't precedented. The US isn't at war with the nations. There's not even a veneer of reputable plausibility for doing this thing.

It's fairly unprecedented (if you can be 'fairly unprecedented' - almost unique?) in foreign policy terms, but legally and constitutionally the government - both the executive and the legislature - have tended to be given a fairly free hand to make laws about immigration by the supreme court so long as those laws don't affect the rights of US citizens. You might expect the SC, if this reaches them (and it's likely to) to decide that there's a real problem in denying US citizens or those who have joint US and an.other citizenship the right to enter the country but that the president can do what he wants with anyone else - including ignoring or altering Green Card or other existing Visa rights. I suspect the various homeland security acts give the government carte blanche to do whatever they want to non-citizens.

So even thought saying 'muslims from these countries cannot come to America but christians from these countries are welcome' is clearly and obviously religious discrimination, the SC could easily decide that as non-US citizens are not entitled to protection under the constitution that simply doesn't matter.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:57 am

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:58 am

citizenJA wrote:
Temulkar wrote:Nope, not ignoring him, thats what allows him to spread his poison. I am, however, determined to expose every lie, every deciet, every deliberate obfuscation, and expose him for the nasty little troll that he is.
(cJA edit)

SpinningHugo likes taking up your time.

My manuscript is with my editor, no copy writing work to do or supply teaching, so it's a pleasure to spend my time exposing him for the duplicitous little shit that he is.

You would have thought that the shame of being caught doctoring a dictionary entry last night about the definition of fascism to support his warped view might induce some repentance, but he is utterly shameless in his deceitfulness, however, he seems less eager to play today... awww.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:58 am

Tem, always good to read the historical context posts. Agree with others regarding getting involved in a goat eating contest.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:04 am

From Andrew Sparrow's blog:

The Labour MP Matthew Pennycook, a shadow Brexit minister and MP for Greenwich and Woolwich (which voted strongly remain) has written an interesting blog explaining why (unlike Owen Smith) he will not be voting against the article 50 bill. Here’s an extract:

Even if the parliamentary arithmetic was such that defeating the bill was a realistic possibility, I am not convinced it would be the right course of action. To seek to nullify the referendum result by parliamentary means risks, in my view, creating further social division, fuelling the rise of the far-right, adding to the alienation already felt by a significant section of the electorate and perhaps even sparking civil unrest in some parts of the country. As such, I respectfully disagree with those who maintain that, whatever the potential negative social and political implications, MPs should seek to overturn the result.
It is also worth considering what would happen if the bill were voted down on Wednesday. Far from securing our place in the EU or chastening the hardline Brexiteers, it would almost certainly trigger a snap general election fought solely on the issue of Brexit that in all likelihood would return a Conservative government with an increased majority to enact any form of departure they wish – an outcome I think the present Commons makeup gives us a reasonable chance of avoiding.

(my emphasis)

Hang on - is he really saying we should vote for this bill because we're scared of losing an election ? Really ??

What happened to being on an election footing ?

Jeremy Corbyn will put Labour on a general election footing if he is re-elected leader, Newsnight has learned.
Mr Corbyn is planning to tell the party that Theresa May could call an election as early as next spring to secure a mandate for her Brexit negotiations.
The leader hopes the prospect of an early poll might instil some discipline among Labour MPs, and he would help bring it about.
Newsnight understands he would instruct his MPs to vote for an early election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37413848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing but cowardice to vote for what's likely to be catastrophic for the country purely to avoid losing an election - sheer cowardice !

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:05 am

https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... immigrants" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Could US local government curb Trump's worst excesses?

Post by **adam** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:11 am

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... immigrants

Could US local government curb Trump's worst excesses?

Evidence so far suggests that if they try to, he will do what he can to de-fund them.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:11 am

Remember that "grassroots" organisation, parents and teachers for Education?

Roger Scruton
‏@Roger_Scruton

I am now chairman of @PTE_Campaign Please follow @PTE_Campaign and give it your support. Education can be saved.

Given that Tories have been in control for over 6 years, I'm curious as to who education can be "saved" from...

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:14 am

Labour Party members:

If you want a say on the registered supporters scheme, Ann Black is inviting your comments

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:23 am

I was thinking it was time to revisit this cartoon.

The artist himself has already re-posted it.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:29 am

adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... immigrants

Could US local government curb Trump's worst excesses?
Evidence so far suggests that if they try to, he will do what he can to de-fund them.

...the US is a federal country, with a very different dynamic between national and local government. Not only do individual states have their own legislatures, but they also have the power to raise taxes. Not only does the federal government have little say over the day to day lives of US citizens, but state law also sometimes trumps (excuse the pun) federal law, if state law affords more rights to residents.

As a result, states handle the majority of issues most relevant to individuals within their jurisdiction. And although the constitution gives ultimate authority to federal laws, in practice, the federal government’s ability to enforce these kinds of laws is often limited, and it must rely heavily on local policies and law enforcement officials. Without state officials to enforce laws, federal law enforcement officials are in a difficult position.

Yes, US states' powers create countries within a country.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:31 am

You call it cowardice pk1, others call it realism.

I do ask people here to remember that REGARDLESS of what Labour MPs do, A50 is going to be passed because almost ALL Tories (and DUP) will vote for it.

What then?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:31 am

http://trumpdonald.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **adam** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:34 am

citizenJA wrote:
adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... immigrants

Could US local government curb Trump's worst excesses?
Evidence so far suggests that if they try to, he will do what he can to de-fund them.

...the US is a federal country, with a very different dynamic between national and local government. Not only do individual states have their own legislatures, but they also have the power to raise taxes. Not only does the federal government have little say over the day to day lives of US citizens, but state law also sometimes trumps (excuse the pun) federal law, if state law affords more rights to residents.

As a result, states handle the majority of issues most relevant to individuals within their jurisdiction. And although the constitution gives ultimate authority to federal laws, in practice, the federal government’s ability to enforce these kinds of laws is often limited, and it must rely heavily on local policies and law enforcement officials. Without state officials to enforce laws, federal law enforcement officials are in a difficult position.
Yes, US states' powers create countries within a country.

I agree that the states have a range of powers, including economic and financial powers, that the federal government can't do anything about, (as do cities and counties and so on) but they are also reliant on the federal government for various funding streams and, to date, Trump has responded to the state's desires to do this with an executive order, on 25th January, that says

The order issued on Wednesday claims these jurisdictions “willfully violate federal law” causing “immeasurable harm to the American people”, and instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to explore which cities could be in violation of federal law and ways of stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal grant money, which amounts to billions of dollars across many different federal departments.

The order also instructs the US attorney general to explore “appropriate enforcement action” against any local government agency it deems to be in violation of a broad federal law that encourages – but does not compel – communication between local authorities and the DHS.

(From this guardian article)

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:34 am

A US Presidents' jurisdiction over Federal law enforcement, even the military, is tempered. Trump's using his own security forces, is that correct?

Post by **adam** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:35 am

citizenJA wrote:A US Presidents' jurisdiction over Federal law enforcement, even the military, is tempered. Trump's using his own security forces, is that correct?

It's tempered by congress, which his party controls, and by the SC, which his party will control with his 9th seat appointment. And by the constitution, but that over the years says what parties in power decide it says.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:38 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:You call it cowardice pk1, others call it realism.

I do ask people here to remember that REGARDLESS of what Labour MPs do, A50 is going to be passed because almost ALL Tories (and DUP) will vote for it.

What then?

Did you have the same outlook when Harriet instructed Labour to vote for second reading of the Welfare Bill ?

Same situation - waved through 2nd reading but tabled amendments. The FURY exists to this day yet though it affected many, in reality it affected relatively fewer people than Brexit will.

If what's reported in the Graun about amendments not being supported yet Labour are still intent on voting for the bill, what was the point of any opposition - isn't it the job of Her Majesty's Official Opposition to oppose ?

When our democratically elected representatives who strongly advocated a Remain vote yet put their own political careers ahead of what they truly believe is the best thing for their constituents, we are fucked.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:40 am

Even by the shameful standards of Fox News, etc...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:43 am

Well, I never expected to read these words !

I can’t believe Corbyn is arguing for Labour MPs to vote with the most reactionary and xenophobic Tory government we’ve seen for a long time.

This shows a real lack of leadership on his part and does now make me have serious doubts about him.

I didn’t think I’d ever say that!

None other than Militant's own, Derek Hatton !

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/new ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When you've lost him Mr Corbyn, you're Brexit stance has put you in a very bad place indeed.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 11:49 am

pk1 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:You call it cowardice pk1, others call it realism.

I do ask people here to remember that REGARDLESS of what Labour MPs do, A50 is going to be passed because almost ALL Tories (and DUP) will vote for it.

What then?
Did you have the same outlook when Harriet instructed Labour to vote for second reading of the Welfare Bill ?

Same situation

No its not.

Repeat after me - A GENERAL ELECTION IS NOT THE SAME AS A REFERENDUM.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:02 pm

Temulkar wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Polly on fire this morning

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... hip-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I find myself on the opposite side from Dan Hodges on this question of terminology

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three cheers for the UK Civil Service system this morning.
No you're wrong and you're ignorant, it is not a case of being on the 'opposite side' of terminology, it is a case of you not having even the basic grasp of what fascism is, and resulted in you trying to doctor a dictionary entry to support your incorrect nonsensical claims yesterday. I see that you have absolutely no shame - much like trump - and are back today with your divisive ignorance and trolling. Happy days, I have little to do today, but puncture the pomposity of your poison.

You'll forgive me, i am sure, if I say I do not agree, and leave it there. I have a cold this morning, and I cannot be bothered wading through the torrent of abuse.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:05 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:You call it cowardice pk1, others call it realism.

I do ask people here to remember that REGARDLESS of what Labour MPs do, A50 is going to be passed because almost ALL Tories (and DUP) will vote for it.

What then?

That makes no difference to responsibility.

If you vote for something, can you say "it isn't my responsibility because it would have passed anyway without my vote."

Labour is responsible with the Tories (and the DUP) for the votes they cast.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:07 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
pk1 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:You call it cowardice pk1, others call it realism.

I do ask people here to remember that REGARDLESS of what Labour MPs do, A50 is going to be passed because almost ALL Tories (and DUP) will vote for it.

What then?
Did you have the same outlook when Harriet instructed Labour to vote for second reading of the Welfare Bill ?

Same situation
No its not.

Repeat after me - A GENERAL ELECTION IS NOT THE SAME AS A REFERENDUM.

Now, now, no need to shout at PK

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:07 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:You call it cowardice pk1, others call it realism.

I do ask people here to remember that REGARDLESS of what Labour MPs do, A50 is going to be passed because almost ALL Tories (and DUP) will vote for it.

What then?

Leave voters will reward the Tory government which took us out of the EU with promises of a hard Brexit with their votes at the next election while remain voters will flock to the Libdems and Greens because those parties have expressed throughout their commitment to keeping us in the single market and as close to the EU as possible?

Questioning May's timetable, seeking assurances and answers to vital questions about revocability and the single market before agreeing to when article 50 should be triggered, is not "blocking Brexit" it's responsible opposition.

I agree it's a bit late now. Caroline Lucas clocked Corbyn had stuffed up right from the start. By saying he would vote for triggering article 50 under any circumstances at any time of May's choosing, Corbyn threw away any leverage the opposition had to try to make it a good Brexit. Tories aren't going to rebel if the leader of the opposition has pledged to support the bill, there's no point.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:10 pm

pk1 wrote:Well, I never expected to read these words !

I can’t believe Corbyn is arguing for Labour MPs to vote with the most reactionary and xenophobic Tory government we’ve seen for a long time.

This shows a real lack of leadership on his part and does now make me have serious doubts about him.

I didn’t think I’d ever say that!
None other than Militant's own, Derek Hatton !

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/new ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When you've lost him Mr Corbyn, you're Brexit stance has put you in a very bad place indeed.

I'm sure that Jez is devastated to lose the support of lifelong worthless demagogue, shyster and gobs***e Hatton.

He may comfort himself, though, knowing that he has the backing of such unlikely people as John Woodcock. Not to mention Dan Jarvis, Michael Dugher, Chuka Umunna, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. In fact most of the PLP will vote with him on A50, whip or no whip. It is even possible that the LibDems could have a higher proportion of their MPs defying the party line than Labour's. If so, I await the "crisis for Farron" headlines in the media

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 12:11 pm

adam wrote:
adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/public-lead ... immigrants

Could US local government curb Trump's worst excesses?
Evidence so far suggests that if they try to, he will do what he can to de-fund them.
I agree that the states have a range of powers, including economic and financial powers, that the federal government can't do anything about, (as do cities and counties and so on) but they are also reliant on the federal government for various funding streams and, to date, Trump has responded to the state's desires to do this with an executive order, on 25th January, that says
The order issued on Wednesday claims these jurisdictions “willfully violate federal law” causing “immeasurable harm to the American people”, and instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to explore which cities could be in violation of federal law and ways of stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal grant money, which amounts to billions of dollars across many different federal departments.

The order also instructs the US attorney general to explore “appropriate enforcement action” against any local government agency it deems to be in violation of a broad federal law that encourages – but does not compel – communication between local authorities and the DHS.
(From this guardian article)

Of course.

I don't doubt the current US president is well-informed and has powerful allies within government.
In my opinion, his adversaries within the plethora of US political departments have more political experience and that's power capable of checking his game. He'll drop the ball.