Tuesday 22nd October 2019

Post by **refitman** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:01 am

Morning all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 8:16 am

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... upils-rnib" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 8:19 am

"We spend X billions on the ungrateful cunts "

In essence the DoE stated.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 8:35 am

Angela Rayner is a challenging opponent for Johnson / Cummings, because she does plain language better than they do!

'Why are you delaying the bill when people just want to get Brexit done?'

'Because we can't trust Johnson'.

Yep.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 10:08 am

Good also from Andrew Adonis, who says he will table a rather cheeky amendment in the Lords to ensure that NI still has MEPs since it will basically still be in the EU.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 10:17 am

Wren-Lewis, haven't read it yet but always worthwhile.

Brexit is a denial of economics as knowledge

edit - or as newsthump puts it, 'Sajid Javid woos Leave voters by promising he will be as pig-ignorant of economic reality as they are'

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 10:27 am

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

Lyes Tagziria
@Lee_Tagziria
Replying to
@Raphael_Hogarth
and
@jdportes
Does this mean that when government ministers and other Tory MPs say ‘any discussions on the future relationship are for after we leave’, that’s not actually entirely true?

In other words, the political declaration appears to be a lot more binding than they are letting on?

Steve Peers
@StevePeers

Yes.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 11:22 am

Canada's election is like ours in 2005, only more so. Gutted that Ruth Ellen Brosseau lost - could have been the NDP's next leader if she had held on.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 11:56 am

Morning all. From AS.

The chancellor has suffered a squeeze on public spending in the run-up to next month’s budget after an increase in borrowing to £9.4bn in September.

A spending upturn across Whitehall departments and the rising costs of the winter fuel allowance for pensioners pushed borrowing beyond last September’s £8.8bn, knocking Sajid Javid’s plans to inject billions of pounds into public services and infrastructure projects in his first budget on 6 November.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics showed borrowing for the first half of the financial year was up by more than a fifth, confirming that a decade-long trend of deficit reduction has come to an end even before the costs of Brexit have taken their toll.

Oops!

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:15 pm

Lisa Nandy says

Politics is nothing if not the hard graft of negotiating through difficult choices in the interests of the many.

The rest is protest. It’s time all MPs from every party stopped holding out for our perfect outcome and found the route to compromise.

Where's the compromise?
This is letting Johnson get everything he wants.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:18 pm

She (like other Labour pro-dealers) is still claiming no deal is a viable option, so that's her "compromise".

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:18 pm

Some people thought Nandy would be a good leader of the Labour party?

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:19 pm

No deal is still an all-too-viable option with this deal, end of next year.

And I wouldn't be able to see Johnson's compromise with a microscope.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:22 pm

gilsey wrote:Some people thought Nandy would be a good leader of the Labour party?

She once looked that way to quite a few people, another casualty of Brexit I fear.

(one by-product of which is her bizarre tendency to ramble at length about "people who live in towns")

Post by **adam** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:31 pm

: Screen Shot 2019-10-22 at 12.28.59.png (39.75 KiB) Viewed 9573 times

I'm sure their votes will be recorded separately from the other 'yes' votes and won't have the effect of passing the actual bill they will be voting for.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:34 pm

"As many as 30" very likely actually means considerably less, especially since this is LK speaking.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 12:41 pm

Good afternoon, everyone.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 1:49 pm

adam wrote:
Screen Shot 2019-10-22 at 12.28.59.png
I'm sure their votes will be recorded separately from the other 'yes' votes and won't have the effect of passing the actual bill they will be voting for.

Interesting choice of wording, unless 'poses' is a typo.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 2:05 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:She (like other Labour pro-dealers) is still claiming no deal is a viable option, so that's her "compromise".

The compromise was May's deal.

Labour helping it through would have been forgivable as the backstop guaranteed a minimum level of alignment with the EU and was pretty close to their preferred customs union only Brexit.

Anyone rejecting that deal but accepting Johnson's ultra hard Brexit, however, is allied with the interests of the ERG. There may be some compromise principles in voting for both, but there are only far right principles in rejecting May's deal in favour of Johnson's.

Post by **adam** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 2:10 pm

Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:She (like other Labour pro-dealers) is still claiming no deal is a viable option, so that's her "compromise".
The compromise was May's deal.

Labour helping it through would have been forgivable as the backstop guaranteed a minimum level of alignment with the EU and was pretty close to their preferred customs union only Brexit.

Anyone rejecting that deal but accepting Johnson's ultra hard Brexit, however, is allied with the interests of the ERG. There may be some compromise principles in voting for both, but there are only far right principles in rejecting May's deal in favour of Johnson's.

The issue with May's WA is that it was still a prelude to the kind of future agreement that Johnson is anticipating - for all of the talk about the need for a close and cooperative relationship it envisaged all of our and the EU's red lines holding. I understand entirely the idea that voting for this when you wouldn't vote for May's is bizarre, but I'm not convinced Labour made a mistake by not voting for May's.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 2:45 pm

adam wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:She (like other Labour pro-dealers) is still claiming no deal is a viable option, so that's her "compromise".
The compromise was May's deal.

Labour helping it through would have been forgivable as the backstop guaranteed a minimum level of alignment with the EU and was pretty close to their preferred customs union only Brexit.

Anyone rejecting that deal but accepting Johnson's ultra hard Brexit, however, is allied with the interests of the ERG. There may be some compromise principles in voting for both, but there are only far right principles in rejecting May's deal in favour of Johnson's.
The issue with May's WA is that it was still a prelude to the kind of future agreement that Johnson is anticipating - for all of the talk about the need for a close and cooperative relationship it envisaged all of our and the EU's red lines holding. I understand entirely the idea that voting for this when you wouldn't vote for May's is bizarre, but I'm not convinced Labour made a mistake by not voting for May's.

I have to take issue with this. For May to achieve that kind of future agreement, she would have to successfully negotiate it, otherwise the backstop would kick in. With May's deal, a "no deal" crash out was therefore no longer possible, so voting for it as a compromise to ensure the worst case scenario of "no deal" wouldn't happen makes sense. With Johnson's deal, as gilsey says, no deal is still very much on the table. Therefore, if you were unwilling to make the compromise on May's deal, you should be even less willing to make the compromise now. Labour's official position of voting against this deal makes sense. Having previously rejected May's deal as not good enough, there is no way they can accept this one. And the leadership should be doing everything in its power to keep the party together on this. If Labour votes give Brexit victory to Johnson, after the appalling and undemocratic way he has behaved in his attempts to rush and bully this deal through without appropriate scrutiny, there will be, quite rightly, a lot of questions about the wisdom of rejecting that original deal without the necessary party discipline to follow through on the gamble of attempting to win something better. Corbyn is about to face his biggest test of leadership yet and it's never been more important that he passes.

Post by **adam** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 2:55 pm

Willow904 wrote:I have to take issue with this. For May to achieve that kind of future agreement, she would have to successfully negotiate it, otherwise the backstop would kick in. With May's deal, a "no deal" crash out was therefore no longer possible, so voting for it as a compromise to ensure the worst case scenario of "no deal" wouldn't happen makes sense. With Johnson's deal, as gilsey says, no deal is still very much on the table. Therefore, if you were unwilling to make the compromise on May's deal, you should be even less willing to make the compromise now. Labour's official position of voting against this deal makes sense. Having previously rejected May's deal as not good enough, there is no way they can accept this one. And the leadership should be doing everything in its power to keep the party together on this. If Labour votes give Brexit victory to Johnson, after the appalling and undemocratic way he has behaved in his attempts to rush and bully this deal through without appropriate scrutiny, there will be, quite rightly, a lot of questions about the wisdom of rejecting that original deal without the necessary party discipline to follow through on the gamble of attempting to win something better. Corbyn is about to face his biggest test of leadership yet and it's never been more important that he passes.

I think the answer to that is that the backstop would have kicked in. I know the PD is a long document that has lots of plans but it starts by saying 'forget all of that - UK says no free movement of labour, no ECJ, no custom's union, everything follows from that.' But obviously I don't know how much May was bluffing red lines in order to keep her party together and what in practice she would have done later. I agree entirely with you about Labour now - although the issue about achieving something better now isn't about party discipline, it's about cross-party discipline which can only be found second star to the right and straight on till morning.

I would recommend Ian Dunt's twitter live-thread going on now on the debate in parliament.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 2:57 pm

So the programme vote this evening is everything because Number 10 have said they will pull the bill if they lose.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:01 pm

Although he's probably lying.

Post by **adam** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:02 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So the programme vote this evening is everything because Number 10 have said they will pull the bill if they lose.

And seek a December election, and take the extension that the EU are very likely to agree, and have to fight an election against the BP who both disagree with this WA and disagree with the extension. I'm not sure that there is a better scenario than this that could be hoped for.

Post by **adam** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:03 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Although he's probably lying.

I know when to be a straight man.... (take that as you will)

How can you tell?

Post by **adam** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:06 pm

There are some very interesting differences between Dunt's thread and the live blog coverage in the guardian - time after time Dunt intervenes - as the graud do when they live blog about Trump - to say 'this is a lie'. The UK politics live blog doesn't.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:19 pm

adam wrote:There are some very interesting differences between Dunt's thread and the live blog coverage in the guardian - time after time Dunt intervenes - as the graud do when they live blog about Trump - to say 'this is a lie'. The UK politics live blog doesn't.

That is interesting

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:21 pm

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Although he's probably lying.

I know when to be a straight man.... (take that as you will)

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:40 pm

citizenJA wrote:
adam wrote:There are some very interesting differences between Dunt's thread and the live blog coverage in the guardian - time after time Dunt intervenes - as the graud do when they live blog about Trump - to say 'this is a lie'. The UK politics live blog doesn't.
That is interesting

See this excellent piece from Peter Oborne
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opende ... s-machine/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Another one of those you don't always agree with, but....

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 3:46 pm

Do read the Oborne article. At its heart is this

This compliance is part of a pattern. Political editors are so pleased to be given ‘insider’ or ‘exclusive’ information that they report it without challenge or question.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 4:30 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Do read the Oborne article. At its heart is this
This compliance is part of a pattern. Political editors are so pleased to be given ‘insider’ or ‘exclusive’ information that they report it without challenge or question.

Good read

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:19 pm

Withdawal agreement bill passes in Commons
MPs have voted to allow the government’s withdrawal agreement bill to pass to the next stage of the parliamentary process.

They voted by 329 votes to 299; a majority of 30 on the second reading.

I guess the next crucial bit is about the timetable.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:22 pm

Commentary on BBC suggesting the majority of 30 was big. Personally, given the people willing to pass in order to try to amend, I had been thinking 30 sounded quite low!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:25 pm

Beth Rigby
(@BethRigby)
BREAK: DUP will vote against the programme motion

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:30 pm

I just got my sausage and leek pasta bake out of the oven and on to a plate before the fun started...

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:33 pm

Lost the timetable

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:33 pm

Ayes 308
Nos 322

Wow.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:35 pm

adam wrote:---
I would recommend Ian Dunt's twitter live-thread going on now on the debate in parliament.

(cJA edit)
Thanks for Dunt's link. I've been following it today.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:38 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Ayes 308
Nos 322

Wow.

thank you jesus

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:39 pm

Not so close as some predicted in the end. The DUP crucial.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:40 pm

When I saw even that pro-Government bloke on the FT (Sebastian thingy) was predicting a government loss by 3, was pretty confident about that one.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:46 pm

Anne Main making a pretty insignificant point in asking for a clarification as to whether the Bill passed.

Well yes...but there's a long way to go yet!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:50 pm

It has to be said that whatever one's opinions on Bercow as a Speaker, it's a pretty damn difficult job. Not sure I could recall 600+ names and get them right every time.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 7:56 pm

(((Dan Hodges)))
‏
Verified account

@DPJHodges
Follow Follow @DPJHodges
More
Those numbers will give Boris sufficient confidence he can get (just) get the WAB through.

7:34 PM - 22 Oct 2019

Ask the DUP whether they would leave the Bill as it stands now...I very much doubt it based on what Nigel Dodds said i.e. voted for the Bill but disagreed with the detail.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 8:07 pm

Phillip Davies in "I didn't understand what was going on with that last vote" non-shocker...

Imbecile.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 8:30 pm

Programme: European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

308 Ayes
322 Noes

https://commonsvotes.digiminster.com/Di ... etails/723" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 8:40 pm

Not sure I understand Kate Hoey abstaining on the Bill but voted for the timetable.

Voting for the Bill but against the timetable I can understand since here's far less chance to amend the Bill in the 3 days allowed before it was voted down. But why abstain?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 8:58 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Not sure I understand Kate Hoey.

There fixed it for you

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 22 Oct, 2019 9:50 pm

Donald Tusk
(@eucopresident)
Following PM @BorisJohnson’s decision to pause the process of ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, and in order to avoid a no-deal #Brexit, I will recommend the EU27 accept the UK request for an extension. For this I will propose a written procedure.