FlyTheNest

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Although he's probably lying.

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.

adam wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Although he's probably lying.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

RogerOThornhill wrote:Ayes 308
Nos 322

Wow.

(((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

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 wrote:Not sure I understand Kate Hoey.

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.