Wednesday 27th March 2019

Post by **refitman** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 7:03 am

Morning all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 7:23 am

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/he ... orking-age" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 9:50 am

Donald Tusk
‏
Verified account

@eucopresident
Follow Follow @eucopresident
More
Appeal to EP: You should be open to a long extension, if the UK wishes to rethink its strategy. 6 million people signed the petition, 1 million marched. They may not feel sufficiently represented by UK Parliament but they must feel represented by you. Because they are Europeans.

8:20 AM - 27 Mar 2019

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:10 am

gilsey wrote:Donald Tusk
‏
Verified account

@eucopresident
Follow Follow @eucopresident
More
Appeal to EP: You should be open to a long extension, if the UK wishes to rethink its strategy. 6 million people signed the petition, 1 million marched. They may not feel sufficiently represented by UK Parliament but they must feel represented by you. Because they are Europeans.

8:20 AM - 27 Mar 2019

Yes - I saw that. It made me feel that we hadn't wasted our time. At least Europe is listening to the Remainers.

'EU cannot betray 'increasing majority' who want UK to remain, says Tusk '

In contrast - Barry Gardiner

'Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, has said that Labour could have difficulty backing a plan for a confirmatory public vote on any Brexit agreement. The amendment was originally drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, but is on today’s order paper with Dame Margaret Beckett as the lead signatory. In an interview on the Today programme, Gardiner said that if Labour voted for it, that could suggest it was a remain party, which was not the case. He said, under the terms of the motion, a referendum could be a choice between May’s deal or staying in the EU. He went on:

It would be saying we could accept what we have always said is a very bad deal. Therefore it looks as if the attempt to have a public vote on it is simply a way of trying to remain because nobody likes this deal.

To put that up as the only alternative in a public vote and say we will let it go through looks as though you believe that at the end of it remain would be the result.

It is not where our policy has been. Our policy is clearly that we would support a public vote to stop no-deal or to stop a bad deal, but not that we would allow a bad deal as long as the public had the opportunity to reject Brexit altogether.

That implies that you are a remain party. The Labour party is not a remain party now. We have accepted the result of the referendum.'

Really ? even now ? If that proves to be the case, then I am no longer Labour.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:21 am

@LostSoul

Although not strictly a recommendation, the Labour frontbench have been coming out with a variety of contradictory things over the last couple of days, so its very hard to judge how significant Barry Gardiner's opinion is.

What they say is soon to be made irrelevant by what they do, as they can't put off making a definitive choice for much longer.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:44 am

Margaret Beckett.

“Barry is always interesting. But I rest my understanding on what Jeremy Corbyn said at the despatch box which is we will apply the principle of going back to the people on ANY deal that Parliament may reach”

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:44 am

Hi Willow

I appreciate that - it is confusing. But I'd have hoped that It'd be clearer at this point - they all claim that theirs is the 'official' position...

I'm also concerned that the indicative votes might not be a free vote - 'Shadow minister suggests party will whip along policy lines ahead of indicative votes'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... oft-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:47 am

I'm slightly disturbed when Michael Heseltine makes more sense than the Shadow Cabinet should...

'I am opposed to all the compromises on offer, from Norway plus to common market 2.0 and the so-called Canada-style agreement. In one way or another, they would make us second-class citizens in a second-class country. MPs have rightly rejected the threat of no deal, which removes one disastrous option. All the other options, half-in half-out, satisfy no one. Only another referendum would give us a chance to stay in and pursue the course we have followed with such success over the past 50 years.'

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

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:48 am

I've just been looking at the order paper posted on the G liveblog and you can quickly see why May can't commit to implementing whatever parliament supports. It's pointless voting on things the EU has already rejected but that's where we still are, it seems. It will be down to Bercow to disappoint the unicorn chasers, probably to outraged accusations of bias (in favour of reality).

There are two revocation motions to prevent no deal, so Bercow's choice here will be interesting. Some kind of direction to revoke article 50 in order to avoid no deal will need to be passed if Parliament is truly serious about preventing it. It might push Tory Brexiters to support May's deal but frankly that's a Tory problem and May's deal is better than no deal, so I think it's important Labour support these. They don't, in themselves, prevent other options going ahead if a majority can be found for them in time.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:54 am

They need to stop arsing about - nail down the position they HAVE to adopt to delay Brexit ( because you'd have to be completely unhinged not to ) - then work back from there - on the things that ARE possible in the time available.

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 10:54 am

Willow904 wrote:I've just been looking at the order paper posted on the G liveblog and you can quickly see why May can't commit to implementing whatever parliament supports. It's pointless voting on things the EU has already rejected but that's where we still are, it seems. It will be down to Bercow to disappoint the unicorn chasers, probably to outraged accusations of bias (in favour of reality).

There are two revocation motions to prevent no deal, so Bercow's choice here will be interesting. Some kind of direction to revoke article 50 in order to avoid no deal will need to be passed if Parliament is truly serious about preventing it. It might push Tory Brexiters to support May's deal but frankly that's a Tory problem and May's deal is better than no deal, so I think it's important Labour support these. They don't, in themselves, prevent other options going ahead if a majority can be found for them in time.

To be fair, May has spent two years proposing things that the EU had already rejected, and had consistently failed to slap down her party when they kept pressing for even more.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 11:30 am

Lost Soul wrote:They need to stop arsing about - nail down the position they HAVE to adopt to delay Brexit ( because you'd have to be completely unhinged not to ) - then work back from there - on the things that ARE possible in the time available.

I'm not sure delaying Brexit should be the focus. Parliament need to make a choice - no deal, May's deal, some kind of single market deal or no immediate Brexit. If no immediate Brexit, you then need to decide whether to pursue a new mandate - through a referendum or GE - or just revoke.

And as neither leader of the main parties can claim full support for any particular option, I think you need a completely free vote on every motion to get a proper picture of what could command majority support or we'll just be going round in circles.

I still feel a SM approach has the best chance of taking most of the country with it, so will be particularly interested to see which MPs support those amendments.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 11:44 am

Lost Soul wrote: It is not where our policy has been. Our policy is clearly that we would support a public vote to stop no-deal or to stop a bad deal, but not that we would allow a bad deal as long as the public had the opportunity to reject Brexit altogether

I am having genuine trouble understanding this, and I suspect I am not alone in that.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 11:51 am

Dame Margaret Beckett, the Labour MP, has said she expects the party to back her confirmatory referendum amendment. She said:

I rest my understanding on what I heard Jeremy Corbyn, who is the leader of the Labour Party, say at the despatch box, which is that we will apply the principle on going back to the people for confirmation to any decision that we’ve reached. And that’s where we stand.

This morning party sources were saying the decision on how to whip on this amendment had not yet been taken. (Politics Live, Guardian)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 11:54 am

And John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said this morning that what Barry Gardiner said on the Today programme about the Beckett confirmatory referendum amendment being difficult for the party (see 9.33am) was in line with party policy. (Politics Live, Guardian)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:00 pm

The point is that party policy is - deliberately - fuzzy on this point. But the pressure is nearly all pushing one way now.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:00 pm

Robert Peston
✔
@Peston

Labour MPs are being whipped to support the Beckett/Kyle/Wilson indicative vote motion that promotes Brexit referendum
93
11:57 AM - Mar 27, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:01 pm

As I was saying.......

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:04 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is that party policy is - deliberately - fuzzy on this point. But the pressure is nearly all pushing one way now.

I think the time for fuzziness has passed. It might have served well for a while, but it's no longer sustainable or defensible. In fact, apart from anything else, it now makes Labour look stupid - and unprincipled.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:05 pm

Good-morning, everyone

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:06 pm

Good morfternoon (belatedly).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:23 pm

Lost Soul wrote:I'm slightly disturbed when Michael Heseltine makes more sense than the Shadow Cabinet should...

'I am opposed to all the compromises on offer, from Norway plus to common market 2.0 and the so-called Canada-style agreement. In one way or another, they would make us second-class citizens in a second-class country. MPs have rightly rejected the threat of no deal, which removes one disastrous option. All the other options, half-in half-out, satisfy no one. Only another referendum would give us a chance to stay in and pursue the course we have followed with such success over the past 50 years.'

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

(cJA bold)
Heseltine isn't in the game

I don't think of current affairs as a game but I can't phrase what I mean better at the moment.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:30 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Lost Soul wrote:I'm slightly disturbed when Michael Heseltine makes more sense than the Shadow Cabinet should...

'I am opposed to all the compromises on offer, from Norway plus to common market 2.0 and the so-called Canada-style agreement. In one way or another, they would make us second-class citizens in a second-class country. MPs have rightly rejected the threat of no deal, which removes one disastrous option. All the other options, half-in half-out, satisfy no one. Only another referendum would give us a chance to stay in and pursue the course we have followed with such success over the past 50 years.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(cJA bold)
Heseltine isn't in the game

I don't think of current affairs as a game but I can't phrase what I mean better at the moment.

He might not be on the pitch - but he is a shrewd observer.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:34 pm

PorFavor wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:The point is that party policy is - deliberately - fuzzy on this point. But the pressure is nearly all pushing one way now.
I think the time for fuzziness has passed. It might have served well for a while, but it's no longer sustainable or defensible. In fact, apart from anything else, it now makes Labour look stupid - and unprincipled.

I would have thought so too.
I'm frightened because I'm not wealthy. I rely on community. Tories break things. Tory Brexit is like a war.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:44 pm

Gardiner's point is that if there was a referendum with May's deal v remain, Labour would be forced to back remain? Pissing off Flint et al.
Which is of course exactly why many of us support it.

If he really said this though, that's exceptionally fuzzy even for him.

Our policy is clearly that we would support a public vote to stop no-deal or to stop a bad deal, but not that we would allow a bad deal as long as the public had the opportunity to reject Brexit altogether.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:45 pm

Lost Soul wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Lost Soul wrote:I'm slightly disturbed when Michael Heseltine makes more sense than the Shadow Cabinet should...

'I am opposed to all the compromises on offer, from Norway plus to common market 2.0 and the so-called Canada-style agreement. In one way or another, they would make us second-class citizens in a second-class country. MPs have rightly rejected the threat of no deal, which removes one disastrous option. All the other options, half-in half-out, satisfy no one. Only another referendum would give us a chance to stay in and pursue the course we have followed with such success over the past 50 years.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(cJA bold)
Heseltine isn't in the game

I don't think of current affairs as a game but I can't phrase what I mean better at the moment.
He might not be on the pitch - but he is a shrewd observer.

I agree with with you. Heseltine's coherence doesn't surprise me. I'm not a strategist but I can see when there's a game being played. Heseltine isn't currently in that game. I think he can say his mind without disturbing play.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:47 pm

Ian Dunt
@IanDunt
·
1h
Quick take on the Labour 'alternate plan'.

Ian Dunt
@IanDunt
·
1h
Pessimistic assessment: it is vague because they a) don't know what the fuck they're doing or b) won't accept state aid/free movement and don't want to say so. In either case, they won't be able to deliver.

Ian Dunt
@IanDunt
·
1h
Optimistic assessment. Both the other soft Brexit options entail staying in the EEA via Efta, one with custom union bolt-on and one just as it currently stands. Maybe Labour plan distinguished by proposing an EEA-style arrangement, but not membership of the existing structures.

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

My take? They don't deserve the optimistic assessment, if true, because they're too cowardly to spell it out. No one is going to wish we'd stayed in the single market like Labour proposed, after the Tories have ruined our economy by taking us out, if Labour never get around to proposing it.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 12:59 pm

citizenJA wrote:I agree with with you. Heseltine's coherence doesn't surprise me. I'm not a strategist but I can see when there's a game being played. Heseltine isn't currently in that game. I think he can say his mind without disturbing play.

Yes, exactly. So complaining that he has more "clarity" than a political party with a diverse range of views misses the point really.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 1:03 pm

Tory government's own words reveal they're working for themselves at the expense of country and people
It's tough clinging to leadership when so venal; decent people won't vote for that
Confusion creation, intentional emergency, people get to vote when Tory's say so using Tory rules

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 1:13 pm

Government to whip against the business motion for indicative votes - so having promised to hold this process, and having faced defeat on a vote when they tried to resist being told by the commons to hold this process, they are still going to try to avoid this process.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 1:26 pm

adam wrote:Government to whip against the business motion for indicative votes - so having promised to hold this process, and having faced defeat on a vote when they tried to resist being told by the commons to hold this process, they are still going to try to avoid this process.

Isn't that scary? Brazenly denying others' meaningful options.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 1:46 pm

Though not wishing to excuse the confusion, opposing May unfuzzily must be quite a challenge!

Made me think of Bela Lugosi wrestling the octopus in Bride of the Monster

[youtube]9khbafUb-mQ[/youtube]

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 1:50 pm

: Screen Shot 2019-03-27 at 13.48.38.png (55.76 KiB) Viewed 6727 times

SO - when push comes to shove, Labour support an awful lot of what people have been wanting them to support. I'm sure somebody on the front bench will be able to give some ammo to their critics before the day is done.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:01 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I agree with with you. Heseltine's coherence doesn't surprise me. I'm not a strategist but I can see when there's a game being played. Heseltine isn't currently in that game. I think he can say his mind without disturbing play.
Yes, exactly. So complaining that he has more "clarity" than a political party with a diverse range of views misses the point really.

...chuckle...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:16 pm

Voting now on whether or not to hold indicative votes.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:20 pm

Ayes: 331

Noes: 287

Government loses. Again.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:31 pm

John Bercow announces his selection of Motions: B (John Baron's No Deal) D H J K (Margaret Beckett) L M O. Sorry for sketchy detail. Jeremy Corbyn's and Joanna Cherry's Motions are in there somewhere.

I think John Bercow has tried to cover the full spectrum.

He's also warned Theresa May that she has to bring back her Meaningful Vote with changes - so it's probably not going to happen.

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:34 pm

PorFavor wrote:John Bercow announces his selection of Motions: B (John Baron's No Deal) D H J K (Margaret Beckett) L M O. Sorry for sketchy detail. Jeremy Corbyn's and Joanna Cherry's Motions are in there somewhere.

I think John Bercow has tried to cover the full spectrum.

He's also warned Theresa May that she has to bring back her Meaningful Vote with changes - so it's probably not going to happen.

As one commenter has said, BDHJKLMO - that's a tough scrabble hand. (Over to paul?)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:36 pm

Bercow restates his ruling that he will only allow a new vote on the Brexit deal if it has changed significantly.

He says he will block any attempt by the government to use a procedural rule change to get round his decision.

This is new, and unexpected. It has probably reduced the chances of the meaningful vote being brought back this week (MV3), and it makes the chance of MV3 never happening a distinct possibility. (Politics Live, Guardian - my emphasis)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:38 pm

@adam

As Theresa May might say, "BDHJKLMO spells . . . .".

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 3:55 pm

Six local council byelections last week:

Durham - LibDem hold with over 60% of the vote, confirming the 2017 results when they took both seats from Labour in this ward with a massive swing (and a further movement of about 7% this time) Independents had some strength in part of this ward in pre-unitary days, but could score just a modest 9% in their return to the electoral arena after sitting the last two elections out. Tories last with 7%, a drop of around 10 points on two years ago.

Kensington and Chelsea - Labour hold with 55% of the vote in one of their strongholds in the north of this very divided borough, a drop from the 70% they scored last year but only slightly down on their 2014 showing (the first election here since boundary changes) Tories with a small increase on the last two elections, as with the LibDems who increased by 3-4 points (depending on the calculation used) to 11%. UKIP and Greens took the last two spots with around 5% each, though UKIP just won the fourth place battle - well down on their 2014 third place showing though.

Newcastle-under-Lyme DC - A narrow Independent gain from Labour with 40% and a swing of 18% since last year's election which was the first since boundary changes and a move to all-out elections (so they are not due here again until 2022) Going further back, however, this was far from a safe Labour area - the predecessor ward elected both Independents and UKIP (the latter in 2006 - a notably early success for them at council local government level - and more conventionally at their 2014 high point, the winner then was also the victor in this byelection albeit with a change of label) This time an official UKIP candidate scored 12% - a fairly good score for them these days - beating the Tories who more than halved on last year. Last place went to a "continuity continuity" SDP candidate, their minor party has had a bit of publicity recently but could still only get 2%.

Basildon DC - Labour hold in a close fight with a sole Tory opponent, with a bit over 51%. Whilst this ward has usually voted Labour - a Tory win at their high point in 2008 the only exception since the 2002 all-outs returned two Labour councillors here - it has quite often been close and in recent years UKIP emerged as the main opposition to Labour, polling respectably in 2011 and 2012 ahead of their big upsurge before coming runners up in 2015 and pushing Labour even closer in the most recent 2016 poll. Their absence in this contest clearly benefited the Tories more as might be expected, but even Labour had a 10 point increase from 3 years ago and it was enough to get them over the line.

Thurrock - Tory gain from the localist Thurrock Independents with over 40% of the vote and a swing of 14% since last year. Going back further this is slightly misleading though - this ward safely returned three Tories in the 2004 all-out elections but strong BNP second places in 2006 and 2008 were a glimpse of what was to come. In 2010 the BNP came last and then disappeared, one of the parties beating them was UKIP in their first outing here - they came close in 2011 before winning the following year and going on to make this an actual UKIP stronghold by 2016 when they held all the seats. However the party then imploded locally as well as nationally with its councillors defecting en masse to form the Thurrock Independents, and in their new guise they won here last year whilst an official UKIP candidate came last with just 6%. They did not bother this time, whilst third placed Labour's 22% was a smidgen down on 2018's result. LibDems last with 3%, half of what they managed in their most recent showing here in 2014.

Southend-on-Sea - the last of a trio of Essex contests in this batch of vacancies saw a Labour hold with almost precisely half the vote, little changed on last year - as were the second placed Tories. The all-out elections in 2001 was a close contest between the Tories and Labour but the blue team won all three seats - from then on things were pretty safe for them until Labour came a close second in 2011 and then won a seat the following year. Tories managed to hold a seat on GE day in 2015, but Labour won strongly in the following two contests and this result bodes well for them taking the final seat this May. LibDems polled 13% this time, a relatively strong performance for them in this ward and doubtless helped by the only other candidate this time being from the far right For Britain outfit (yet another UKIP splinter) who scored a modest 5%.

Two contests this week to end the month.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 4:12 pm

Apparently, the DUP are poised to say something.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 4:17 pm

In non-Brexit news, Jackie Walker expelled from Labour for "repeated grossly prejudicial" conduct.

Absolutely the correct decision, and shows that there is indeed a place for mainstream Jews in the party.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 4:21 pm

Thanks for round up AK

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 4:46 pm

Busy day really appreciating the analysis on here

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 4:57 pm

mary beard
‏

@wmarybeard
Follow Follow @wmarybeard
More
OK one and all, let's have the future exam questions that might get set on Brexit... 20/50/100 years hence. Any level from GCSE to degree! Make them smart and challenging!

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

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 4:58 pm

Achy smurfs struggle to articulate proposal (6.4).

Hint: we've had this one before

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 6:08 pm

Aubrey Allegretti
✔
@breeallegretti

Tory Brexiteer on news Theresa May will quit once Brexit delivered.

"It sounds all great in here and the usuals are clapping. But there’s nothing substantive in it. No date. No timeline. No strategy. No clarity. This will look worse in the morning than it does right now."
42
5:36 PM - Mar 27, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 6:22 pm

"this will look worse in the morning than it does right now" - May's entire PMship arguably summed up there.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Mar, 2019 6:43 pm

May steadily winning around support for a vote she can't hold.