sdanseo wrote: » Poor Attorney General is being scapegoated mercilessly by the govt and Sky News et al lapping it up like pets who've just been fed. Meanwhile, Bercow hasn't looked this happy since he pulled out the Silver Spoon. Watching the commons tomorrow should be entertaining. Wonder will Boris even bother to turn up. His reaction (and Trumps) to the whole this have been about midway between delusional and despotic, and I'm not using those words casually.
Enzokk wrote: » Its her style and what got her the job. She cultivates sources from both sides and then plays them against each other without taking a view. Now this can work if she stays 100% impartial, but I have my doubts about her being impartial. You can guess as well her sources within Labour will not be as good as the Tories so from a work point of view she would prefer a Tory government as well.https://twitter.com/dimasciov/status/1174394692693299200?s=20
Bambi wrote: » Apparently leaking the AG's advice has serious consequences if you're a minister, resignation
GM228 wrote: » Sky News just saying Johnson has spoken with the Queen, wonder how that one went? Perhaps he has asked for a new prorogation.
serfboard wrote: » My money's on Cummings.
Tell me how wrote: » It's part of a much broader topic. We have PV in Ireland but also claims of voter apathy, disinterest and non-participation. In the US, the electoral college is said to be undemocratic too but there are also valid reasons for it being used. The FPTP does seem particularly weak over the last number of years though, that much is true.
briany wrote: » I have noticed a staggering correlation - parties who'd stand to win seats through PR are in favour of PR. Parties who stand to lose seats are against.
Enzokk wrote: » Its her style and what got her the job. She cultivates sources from both sides and then plays them against each other without taking a view. Now this can work if she stays 100% impartial, but I have my doubts about her being impartial. You can guess as well her sources within Labour will not be as good as the Tories so from a work point of view she would prefer a Tory government as well
Spanish Eyes wrote: » The FPTP system has to be the most undemocratic voting system ever. Leaving aside the fact that PR was rejected some years ago it is unreal, especially in a SAFE seat, where as long as the rosette is the right colour, in you go. Why would you bother engaging in politics at all? No reason, no reward. I am of the opinion, rightly or wrongly that the voting system and safe seats has led to an hiatus in political engagement now. Why bother engaging if the local MP will romp home anyway even if you dislike him/her intensely and vote for someone else?. What is the point? Sooner or later this issue will have to be tackled. But it would be like the ubiquitous turkeys and Christmas epithet. Lib Dems on PR would gain a lot of seats I think. But that is just a dream anyway, so scratch that. The will of the people my eye.
Water John wrote: » Amazing that Corbyn is the main discussion topic here. It's the PM is knee deep in sh1te.
J Mysterio wrote: » Exactly this:https://twitter.com/stevenjbarnett/status/1176513335958880256 Kuenssburg put out three tweets with full quotes (no soundbites/ paraphrasing) from another 'no. 10 source'. She is still just regurgitating the stuff and with no analysis of it. Why is she doing that? Should she not put their name to it? I know that from time to time there are 'off the record' type things (fair enough), but with Kuenssburg, it's a daily occurence. Surely that is not legitimate journalism - she has to pressure people and oust this stuff on the record.
BarryD2 wrote: » +1. In truth, Corbyn plays much the same game as May did - trying to be all things to all people, thus falling on their arses between the stools. Not a fan of Boris but at least in his favour is that he offers one definite objective. Not in favour of that objective but it's hard to see how it can be derailed when the main opposition party vacillates so much.
BarryD2 wrote: » J Mysterio wrote: » People have many legitimate criticisms of Corbyn and they are right to air them. He has failed as an opposition leader during the worst UK crisis since WWII, letting the Tories away with absolute murder. He failed in the referendum to provide clarity. His party is still split and he is doing his best to avoid stating a clear opinion. I hold him in contempt. +1. In truth, Corbyn plays much the same game as May did - trying to be all things to all people, thus falling on their arses between the stools. Not a fan of Boris but at least in his favour is that he offers one definite objective. Not in favour of that objective but it's hard to see how it can be derailed when the main opposition party vacillates so much.
J Mysterio wrote: » People have many legitimate criticisms of Corbyn and they are right to air them. He has failed as an opposition leader during the worst UK crisis since WWII, letting the Tories away with absolute murder. He failed in the referendum to provide clarity. His party is still split and he is doing his best to avoid stating a clear opinion. I hold him in contempt.
We are very keen that there be a deal, that the UK should be able to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion. That’s in Ireland’s interest, it’s in Britain’s interest too. But there are certain guarantees that we expect to be honoured; that there won’t be a hard border between North and South.... that North-South cooperation will continue as envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement, that what was given to us by the British government back in December 2017.
The prime minister met with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at the UN General Assembly today. They discussed the Brexit talks and the ideas that the UK has been putting forward, including on the issue of consent. The prime minister was clear that the UK would be leaving on 31 October and said that he was cautiously optimistic that we would be able to do so through negotiating a deal which is acceptable to both sides. The prime minister underlined his steadfast commitment to the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and said that we will never place infrastructure, checks or controls at the border. They agreed on the vital importance of ensuring the peace, prosperity and security of Northern Ireland. The leaders agreed to stay in close contact in coming days.
briany wrote: » I see a few heads saying that the UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule on matters of politics. This can't be true if they have successfully done so, though?
