Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The failure of the Tories to do a deal on MP pairing will make

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The failure of the Tories to do a deal on MP pairing will make life miserable for ministers and CON MPs alike

For me the biggest UK political news this week has been the FT’s report that the Tories have failed to reach agreement with Labour at Westminster on MP pairing. This is the long standing practice that allows government MPs to miss a Parliamentary votes because an opposition one agrees not to take part as well.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    First! Without Pairing
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,339
    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 2,624
    Should "stage" read "strange" in the last para?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,375

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    Ultimately it just hurts the constituency work of MPs, and adds to expenses as trains, planes and automobiles are added to the bill.
    A real shame.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    What the header chooses to ignore is the bigger picture - because it is deliberately framed in narrow clickbait terms of 'problems for the government'.

    Our current system now requires (say) the Foreign Secretary to need to reschedule or postpone trips abroad to hand around in case the Schools-n-Hospitals Extra Paperclips (2017) Bill is looking like it's on a bit of a knife-edge.

    I personally believe we should move towards the US system of ministers and the Cabinet are drawn from outside of MPs and approved by a committee of elected representatives.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited August 5
    Pulpstar said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    Ultimately it just hurts the constituency work of MPs, and adds to expenses as trains, planes and automobiles are added to the bill.
    A real shame.
    I agree with the general thrust of your comment but I'd flip that as I've said below.

    Sitting around Parliament actually gives constituency MPs more time to do the rubbish that gets thrown their way in terms of broken paving stones and complaints about planning permission for the corner shop.

    They should be doing bigger tasks with bigger horizons. If we want MPs to micromanage things then we need a new breed of Minister to do that (very different) job.

    Edit: SA 131-1 :)

    Edit: SA 132-5 :) :)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,383
    The pracical issue of ambushing the government is secrecy when several parties are involved, and not necessarily of one mind.

    In practice, I think it would only happen on measures where there is significant unrest already on the government backbenches.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,656
    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,943

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    I'm not sure the Express counts as "information" - it certainly has "perspective":

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/836746/Jeremy-Corbyn-Theresa-May-parliament-vote-pairing-Brexit
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,036
    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    Agreed, although it may not be as deep as all that.

    The FT said 3 days ago very simply that:

    The failure to reach an agreement reflects the determination of some MPs on the Labour side to make life as difficult as possible for the Tory government after the party lost its parliamentary majority in June’s general election.

    So there may not be a deal not done. It looks simply like opportunism.

    https://www.ft.com/content/f3ef754e-7775-11e7-90c0-90a9d1bc9691
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    "and the visiting fans surged towards the home end in the Cricket Field Stand"

    That clearly makes it a Despite Brexit story.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,383
    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Both had the gumption to actively campaign, in both Brexit and 2017 GE, but more importantly, both actually listen to their audience rather than merely lecture them.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,656
    Corbyn probably admires this brave move, done in the name of the people:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40838378
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 1,981

    Corbyn probably admires this brave move, done in the name of the people:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-40838378

    "as well as inflation in excess of 700%"

    I wonder if they had to endure any of the sharp 0.1% increases we suffered
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Having Rudd as Leader with her tiny majority would be political madness at the GE. A Leader needs to be able to get out and campaign across the country and not worry about retaining her seat.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,667
    Allan said:

    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Having Rudd as Leader with her tiny majority would be political madness at the GE. A Leader needs to be able to get out and campaign across the country and not worry about retaining her seat.
    There would be nothing to stop her doing a chicken run as leader. She could sell it as wanting to give the people of Hastings a free choice for their MP without feeling they could be risking political chaos for the country, although naturally she hopes they would pick her Conservative successor.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,091
    edited August 5
    Allan said:

    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Having Rudd as Leader with her tiny majority would be political madness at the GE. A Leader needs to be able to get out and campaign across the country and not worry about retaining her seat.
    Being leader & PM is probably the best guarantee that she'd hold her seat.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,383
    Allan said:

    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Having Rudd as Leader with her tiny majority would be political madness at the GE. A Leader needs to be able to get out and campaign across the country and not worry about retaining her seat.
    To gain seats and secure her own requires the same skills. She has to gain a swing in her direction.

    The location of her seat maybe an issue though, being one big lorry park post Brexit.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 4,760
    edited August 5

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    Labour have a real chance of winning votes if there is no pairing. So it's reasonable from their point of view to refuse pairing. If it doesn't make any difference to the outcome because of a comfortable government majority, Labour can afford to be reasonable.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,339
    Incidentally, it's the last day my books Kingdom Asunder and Traitor's Prize (first and second books in a trilogy) are cut-price: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B073XTMTP9/
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    FF43 said:

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    Labour have a real chance of winning votes if there is no pairing. So it's reasonable from their point of view to refuse pairing. If it doesn't make any difference to the outcome because of a comfortable government majority, Labour can afford to be reasonable.
    The notion that Peebies will findLabour reasonable is utterly absurd.

  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294

    FF43 said:

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    Labour have a real chance of winning votes if there is no pairing. So it's reasonable from their point of view to refuse pairing. If it doesn't make any difference to the outcome because of a comfortable government majority, Labour can afford to be reasonable.
    The notion that Peebies will find Labour reasonable is utterly absurd.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,094
    GeoffM said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    What the header chooses to ignore is the bigger picture - because it is deliberately framed in narrow clickbait terms of 'problems for the government'.

    Our current system now requires (say) the Foreign Secretary to need to reschedule or postpone trips abroad to hand around in case the Schools-n-Hospitals Extra Paperclips (2017) Bill is looking like it's on a bit of a knife-edge.

    I personally believe we should move towards the US system of ministers and the Cabinet are drawn from outside of MPs and approved by a committee of elected representatives.
    There is actually a really obvious solution to this:

    Lord Howard - ForSec
    Lord Lamont - Chancellor

    Etc
    Etc
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,336
    edited August 5
    Allan said:

    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Having Rudd as Leader with her tiny majority would be political madness at the GE. A Leader needs to be able to get out and campaign across the country and not worry about retaining her seat.
    Leaders tend to get a boost in their own seats (though Tim Farron did not). But, as Dr. Fox points out, she'll be safe if she wins an overall majority, and if she loses seats, it doesn't make much difference if Hastings goes.

    Holding Hastings at all, given how run down it now is, is a considerable achievement.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 1,981

    FF43 said:

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    Labour have a real chance of winning votes if there is no pairing. So it's reasonable from their point of view to refuse pairing. If it doesn't make any difference to the outcome because of a comfortable government majority, Labour can afford to be reasonable.
    The notion that Peebies will findLabour reasonable is utterly absurd.

    When are we going to make you illegal? You've been promising it for years..
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,656

    FF43 said:

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    Labour have a real chance of winning votes if there is no pairing. So it's reasonable from their point of view to refuse pairing. If it doesn't make any difference to the outcome because of a comfortable government majority, Labour can afford to be reasonable.
    The notion that Peebies will findLabour reasonable is utterly absurd.
    You really need to improve your trolling skills ...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,242



    Being leader & PM is probably the best guarantee that she'd hold her seat.

    The last sitting Prime Minister to lose their seat in a GE was Balfour so there's something in that but Hastings was a Labour seat in 1997 and a 97-style landslide would undoubtedly see Rudd in trouble (and some other Cabinet members as well).

    The Conservative position is nowhere near as precarious as the Callaghan or even Major situations. Technically with the DUP they still have 328 and the others (minus the Sinn Fein MPs 314) so that's a technical majority of 14.

    If the DUP abstain on an issue, the Conservatives are still 4 ahead so it needs all the opposition parties (including the DUP) to be in the other lobby for the Government to be down by 6 (318 to 324).

    The issue then is whether the opposition (which isn't in itself united) can manage transitory ambushes of Government legislation or be able to capitalise on divisions in Conservative ranks - as an example, if 15 Conservative MPs abstained on a vote, even DUP support might not get them over the line and if 25-30 threaten to abstain, the Government will be staring at a defeat so it gives power to backbench Conservative MPs to "persuade" the Government to add amendments to legislation.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,018
    GeoffM said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    Ultimately it just hurts the constituency work of MPs, and adds to expenses as trains, planes and automobiles are added to the bill.
    A real shame.
    I agree with the general thrust of your comment but I'd flip that as I've said below.

    Sitting around Parliament actually gives constituency MPs more time to do the rubbish that gets thrown their way in terms of broken paving stones and complaints about planning permission for the corner shop.

    They should be doing bigger tasks with bigger horizons. If we want MPs to micromanage things then we need a new breed of Minister to do that (very different) job.

    Edit: SA 131-1 :)

    Edit: SA 132-5 :) :)
    LOL, they have local paid staff at our expense to do all the local work, they spend majority of their time in the subsidised bars and restaurants hogging.
  • felixfelix Posts: 6,667

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    I think the use of the word 'failure of the Tories' makes it clear where the author wishes the blame to lie. Quel surprise!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,018
    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Hideous is to nice a word for them
  • felixfelix Posts: 6,667
    Allan said:

    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Having Rudd as Leader with her tiny majority would be political madness at the GE. A Leader needs to be able to get out and campaign across the country and not worry about retaining her seat.
    Nonsense - if she wins not an issue - if she loses.. also not an issue. However, the party needs new blood at the top and Rudd is not it.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,011
    edited August 5
    FPT (For Ydoethr)

    He [Daniel Lawrence] is an outstanding 20 yo batsmen who has been having a brilliant season for Essex. Don't worry though if you have never heard of him. Neither have the England selectors.

    Edit: Jamie Porter is a useful bowler too who likewise has escaped the attention of the England selectors. Personally I don't think he's quite good enough yet, but he is unquestionably better than Roland-Jones, who was smashed all over Chelmsford recently when he had the cheek to chuck down his pies in a County game there a month ago.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    FF43 said:

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    Labour have a real chance of winning votes if there is no pairing. So it's reasonable from their point of view to refuse pairing. If it doesn't make any difference to the outcome because of a comfortable government majority, Labour can afford to be reasonable.
    The notion that Peebies will findLabour reasonable is utterly absurd.

    When are we going to make you illegal? You've been promising it for years..
    We're definitely going to do that but just not yet. Soon though, and when he's least expecting it.

    The beauty will be the look of shock on his face when he actually does finally get bundled into the back of a government black van. And then face down into the lime pit. Babbling and screaming that it was all some sort of silly "internet joke" he'd been playing.

    Mwhahahahaha
  • felixfelix Posts: 6,667
    malcolmg said:

    GeoffM said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    Ultimately it just hurts the constituency work of MPs, and adds to expenses as trains, planes and automobiles are added to the bill.
    A real shame.
    I agree with the general thrust of your comment but I'd flip that as I've said below.

    Sitting around Parliament actually gives constituency MPs more time to do the rubbish that gets thrown their way in terms of broken paving stones and complaints about planning permission for the corner shop.

    They should be doing bigger tasks with bigger horizons. If we want MPs to micromanage things then we need a new breed of Minister to do that (very different) job.

    Edit: SA 131-1 :)

    Edit: SA 132-5 :) :)
    LOL, they have local paid staff at our expense to do all the local work, they spend majority of their time in the subsidised bars and restaurants hogging.
    Your local knowledge of the habits of SNP MPs does you credit sir.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 251
    Is this the Tories failure to make a deal or Labour's refusal to offer one?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    stevef said:

    Is this the Tories failure to make a deal or Labour's refusal to offer one?

    It seems simpler than that.

    Normally they would just do this thing as normal. Labour (according to a Labour supporting paper quoted below) have said that they want to make life more difficult by not doing pairing.

    So it's not a 'deal' in the traditional meaning of offering, bartering and exchanging.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,006
    Noteworthy that Labour evidently think they have sufficient party discipline to be able to disrupt government business in this way effectively.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,085
    GeoffM said:

    stevef said:

    Is this the Tories failure to make a deal or Labour's refusal to offer one?

    It seems simpler than that.

    Normally they would just do this thing as normal. Labour (according to a Labour supporting paper quoted below) have said that they want to make life more difficult by not doing pairing.

    So it's not a 'deal' in the traditional meaning of offering, bartering and exchanging.
    I know Dennis Skinner has never agreed to do pairing, much to the annoyance of his own whips. I guess his view on pairing is now the mainstream view of the PLP.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,817
    felix said:

    This seems a slightly odd framing of the story. An agreement involves both sides being reasonable, and the threader doesn't indicate why an agreement was not reached.

    If the failure of talks was down to the government, then the threader seems reasonable. If Labour wanted something unreasonable, then it's a slightly different matter. True, the effect on government would be the same, but the idea that a deal should have been done whatever Labour wanted is an odd one.

    More information required.

    I think the use of the word 'failure of the Tories' makes it clear where the author wishes the blame to lie. Quel surprise!
    Not blame but consequences. Both sides can lose in PR terms but if the government loses divisions, legislation can fall, whereas if Labour loses, it is business as usual. Nothing to do with fault -- and it has previously been suggested Labour wanted to drop the arrangement. On Labour's side, I wonder if the leadership is slightly cavalier about this because they are mainly London-based.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,336

    Noteworthy that Labour evidently think they have sufficient party discipline to be able to disrupt government business in this way effectively.

    Their problem surely is that they have to rely on MP's from four other parties (plus Lady Hermon) turning up.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,656
    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    edited August 5
    Posted without comment....One for the radiohead fans.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,018
    felix said:

    malcolmg said:

    GeoffM said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    Ultimately it just hurts the constituency work of MPs, and adds to expenses as trains, planes and automobiles are added to the bill.
    A real shame.
    I agree with the general thrust of your comment but I'd flip that as I've said below.

    Sitting around Parliament actually gives constituency MPs more time to do the rubbish that gets thrown their way in terms of broken paving stones and complaints about planning permission for the corner shop.

    They should be doing bigger tasks with bigger horizons. If we want MPs to micromanage things then we need a new breed of Minister to do that (very different) job.

    Edit: SA 131-1 :)

    Edit: SA 132-5 :) :)
    LOL, they have local paid staff at our expense to do all the local work, they spend majority of their time in the subsidised bars and restaurants hogging.
    Your local knowledge of the habits of SNP MPs does you credit sir.
    LOL
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    edited August 5

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    It's like saying a victim of a crime must be on the jury....There have been a lot of people who should know better that appear to want to undermine the judge, when despite all the digging and mud throwing all they can find in long career that he once ruled that according to the law as he saw it that meant a council could relocated to the next town.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,048
    Huge difference between now and the 1970s is end of the late night (sometimes all night and into the following day!) sittings. That's when the various ambushes used to take place. Now the Commons clocks off at 10.30pm or soon after, the Govt should be reasonably safe from such surprise attacks.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,091
    edited August 5
    JohnO said:

    Huge difference between now and the 1970s is end of the late night (sometimes all night and into the following day!) sittings. That's when the various ambushes used to take place. Now the Commons clocks off at 10.30pm or soon after, the Govt should be reasonably safe from such surprise attacks.

    Agree that that ameliorates things to a certain extent - but modern ways of the Whips communicating with MPs, Whats App for instance, will make things easier and faster to implement.

    The just not knowing will take its toll on CON MPs

  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,456

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    Residents' group Justice 4 Grenfell also made several submissions to the consultation process, including calling for investigation of the local council and a number of government departments.

    What do Justice 1, 2, and 3 Grenfell have to say about it though?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,187
    edited August 5
    Was Nick Jones reporting in the 1970s? Michael White may also have been doing so.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,060
    stodge said:



    Being leader & PM is probably the best guarantee that she'd hold her seat.

    The last sitting Prime Minister to lose their seat in a GE was Balfour so there's something in that but Hastings was a Labour seat in 1997 and a 97-style landslide would undoubtedly see Rudd in trouble (and some other Cabinet members as well).
    Balfour wasn't PM, he had resigned six weeks before. No British PM that I can think of has ever lost their seat in a general election. Balfour, Asquith come close.
    Mortimer said:

    GeoffM said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    What the header chooses to ignore is the bigger picture - because it is deliberately framed in narrow clickbait terms of 'problems for the government'.

    Our current system now requires (say) the Foreign Secretary to need to reschedule or postpone trips abroad to hand around in case the Schools-n-Hospitals Extra Paperclips (2017) Bill is looking like it's on a bit of a knife-edge.

    I personally believe we should move towards the US system of ministers and the Cabinet are drawn from outside of MPs and approved by a committee of elected representatives.
    There is actually a really obvious solution to this:

    Lord Howard - ForSec
    Lord Lamont - Chancellor

    Etc
    Etc
    Chancellor has to be in the Commons.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,060

    FPT (For Ydoethr)

    He [Daniel Lawrence] is an outstanding 20 yo batsmen who has been having a brilliant season for Essex. Don't worry though if you have never heard of him. Neither have the England selectors.

    Edit: Jamie Porter is a useful bowler too who likewise has escaped the attention of the England selectors. Personally I don't think he's quite good enough yet, but he is unquestionably better than Roland-Jones, who was smashed all over Chelmsford recently when he had the cheek to chuck down his pies in a County game there a month ago.

    Thanks. It is rather startling to see Porter and Harmer are the only Essex bowlers in double figures this season.

    If Lawrence is 20, perhaps it would be worth seeing if he does well next season too. But if he keeps scoring like this he'll surely be playing for England soon.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,116
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.

    If the NEC pass his amendment he might well resign in favour of Macdonnell. Whether Macdonnell would win is a different question.

    But I think it very unlikely that he would stay as leader if this parliament goes for five years. No Prime Minister has taken office for the first time aged 73. Palmerston holds the record and he was 70 (and the circumstances were very unusual).

    Moreover I think it is a bold claim to say the Conservatives are inevitably 'not' going to be in government after the next election. It was that sort of silly complacency that did for May. Ultimately, he's still a not very intelligent, highly incompetent and controversial figure with the unenthusiastic backing of his parliamentary party whose policy is directionless and whose management of his colleagues is dire. That he unexpectedly made a net gain of seats rather than a net loss doesn't alter those simple facts.
    FPT.

    Why should Corbyn resign ? He is in good health.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 657
    Sean_F said:

    Allan said:

    GeoffM said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Amber Rudd being tipped as the front runner to replace Theresa May

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/why-amber-rudd-is-the-favourite-to-get-ruth-davidsons-endorsement-in-the-next-tory-leadership-race/

    Guess we can write her off then... ;)

    Davidson and Rudd are equally hideous options.
    Having Rudd as Leader with her tiny majority would be political madness at the GE. A Leader needs to be able to get out and campaign across the country and not worry about retaining her seat.
    Leaders tend to get a boost in their own seats (though Tim Farron did not). But, as Dr. Fox points out, she'll be safe if she wins an overall majority, and if she loses seats, it doesn't make much difference if Hastings goes.

    Holding Hastings at all, given how run down it now is, is a considerable achievement.
    For anyone interested in the minutae of this, the labour party in Hastings are about to have a vote on whether to have an all woman shortlist for the next GE.
    Not clear who the candidate is going to be. Last time it was the leader of the Council, Peter Chowney, he has just written article saying he is happy going back to being leader of the Council (I think in fact he wants to stand down in 2018).
    Shame. He was a great candidate. He wrote his own manifesto. Very intelligent guy with decades of experience in local politics, he also had a long career as local government officer at senior level. Credible. He also supported Corbyn both times around so got the support from Momentum etc. But he isn't a nutter, far from it. Labour need to find a credible candidate who can appeal to both the WWC council estates, and the bohemian incomers. Not easy.

    I think the overall likelihood is that Rudd will be defeated. With every year that passes X amount of old conservative voters die. And Young people get the vote and vote labour.
    It has historically been a swing seat, Rudd had to work very hard 2010 - 2015 to get the 5k majority in 2015. IE by keeping the HS1 extension to Hastings on the agenda.
    2017 the non voters turned out to vote.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,349
    GeoffM said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    What the header chooses to ignore is the bigger picture - because it is deliberately framed in narrow clickbait terms of 'problems for the government'.

    Our current system now requires (say) the Foreign Secretary to need to reschedule or postpone trips abroad to hand around in case the Schools-n-Hospitals Extra Paperclips (2017) Bill is looking like it's on a bit of a knife-edge.

    I personally believe we should move towards the US system of ministers and the Cabinet are drawn from outside of MPs and approved by a committee of elected representatives.
    I take your point, but the effect is that Ministers become relatively weak, little-known figures with limited influence in the legislature. It works in the US because power is centred on the President and the leaders of the two houses, but it's not obvious that we want to move to a system where the PM and the party leadership domiante. I'm often critical of British politics, but I think Cabinets work quite well - they argue, they let differences be known, theylobby and are lobbied by backbenchers, but in the end they generally work their way to agreement.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,349
    surbiton said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.

    If the NEC pass his amendment he might well resign in favour of Macdonnell. Whether Macdonnell would win is a different question.

    But I think it very unlikely that he would stay as leader if this parliament goes for five years. No Prime Minister has taken office for the first time aged 73. Palmerston holds the record and he was 70 (and the circumstances were very unusual).

    Moreover I think it is a bold claim to say the Conservatives are inevitably 'not' going to be in government after the next election. It was that sort of silly complacency that did for May. Ultimately, he's still a not very intelligent, highly incompetent and controversial figure with the unenthusiastic backing of his parliamentary party whose policy is directionless and whose management of his colleagues is dire. That he unexpectedly made a net gain of seats rather than a net loss doesn't alter those simple facts.
    FPT.

    Why should Corbyn resign ? He is in good health.
    Well, quite. And McDonnell has repeatedly ruled out standing for the job. A post-Corbyn leader will be from the next generation.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    Streaker at the athletics.....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002

    surbiton said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.

    If the NEC pass his amendment he might well resign in favour of Macdonnell. Whether Macdonnell would win is a different question.

    But I think it very unlikely that he would stay as leader if this parliament goes for five years. No Prime Minister has taken office for the first time aged 73. Palmerston holds the record and he was 70 (and the circumstances were very unusual).

    Moreover I think it is a bold claim to say the Conservatives are inevitably 'not' going to be in government after the next election. It was that sort of silly complacency that did for May. Ultimately, he's still a not very intelligent, highly incompetent and controversial figure with the unenthusiastic backing of his parliamentary party whose policy is directionless and whose management of his colleagues is dire. That he unexpectedly made a net gain of seats rather than a net loss doesn't alter those simple facts.
    FPT.

    Why should Corbyn resign ? He is in good health.
    Well, quite. And McDonnell has repeatedly ruled out standing for the job. A post-Corbyn leader will be from the next generation.
    And McDonnell has repeatedly lied...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    Mail on Sunday going for the government over police station closures.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,085
    LOL! What a reaction to Gatlin winning the 100m final.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    tlg86 said:

    LOL! What a reaction to Gatlin winning the 100m final.

    Still got to pass the piss test.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,085

    tlg86 said:

    LOL! What a reaction to Gatlin winning the 100m final.

    Still got to pass the piss test.....
    Bolt should have done the 200m. I think he'd have had a better chance of winning that. And I'm going on Thursday. :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,375
    tlg86 said:

    LOL! What a reaction to Gatlin winning the 100m final.

    And quite right thing o. I hope the crowd boos him on the podium too
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,094
    ydoethur said:

    stodge said:



    Being leader & PM is probably the best guarantee that she'd hold her seat.

    The last sitting Prime Minister to lose their seat in a GE was Balfour so there's something in that but Hastings was a Labour seat in 1997 and a 97-style landslide would undoubtedly see Rudd in trouble (and some other Cabinet members as well).
    Balfour wasn't PM, he had resigned six weeks before. No British PM that I can think of has ever lost their seat in a general election. Balfour, Asquith come close.
    Mortimer said:

    GeoffM said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    What the header chooses to ignore is the bigger picture - because it is deliberately framed in narrow clickbait terms of 'problems for the government'.

    Our current system now requires (say) the Foreign Secretary to need to reschedule or postpone trips abroad to hand around in case the Schools-n-Hospitals Extra Paperclips (2017) Bill is looking like it's on a bit of a knife-edge.

    I personally believe we should move towards the US system of ministers and the Cabinet are drawn from outside of MPs and approved by a committee of elected representatives.
    There is actually a really obvious solution to this:

    Lord Howard - ForSec
    Lord Lamont - Chancellor

    Etc
    Etc
    Chancellor has to be in the Commons.
    Has to be? Weren't there a couple of Law Lords who served as chancellor?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 582
    GeoffM said:

    Surprised there was a talk about it, if it's a longstanding practice.

    What the header chooses to ignore is the bigger picture - because it is deliberately framed in narrow clickbait terms of 'problems for the government'.

    Our current system now requires (say) the Foreign Secretary to need to reschedule or postpone trips abroad to hand around in case the Schools-n-Hospitals Extra Paperclips (2017) Bill is looking like it's on a bit of a knife-edge.

    I personally believe we should move towards the US system of ministers and the Cabinet are drawn from outside of MPs and approved by a committee of elected representatives.
    This overlooks that the foreign secretary would be rather more in his element swapping bon mots about school paperclips than conducting serious affairs of state.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    It's like saying a victim of a crime must be on the jury....There have been a lot of people who should know better that appear to want to undermine the judge, when despite all the digging and mud throwing all they can find in long career that he once ruled that according to the law as he saw it that meant a council could relocated to the next town.
    It's also surely the precise opposite of an independent inquiry.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,040
    UK = responsible hard-working husband.

    EU = profligate gold-digger.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,349
    MikeL said:

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    It's like saying a victim of a crime must be on the jury....There have been a lot of people who should know better that appear to want to undermine the judge, when despite all the digging and mud throwing all they can find in long career that he once ruled that according to the law as he saw it that meant a council could relocated to the next town.
    It's also surely the precise opposite of an independent inquiry.
    There was a proposal (can't remember from whom) to have an advisory panel that the judge could consult (but would not be compelled to follow), on which various experts and also representatives of the residents could sit. That seemed a reasonable compromise to me - people who lived there might well have relevant questions to suggest, without thereby dictating the course of the inquiry.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262

    UK = responsible hard-working husband.

    EU = profligate gold-digger.
    He He He
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    MikeL said:

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    It's like saying a victim of a crime must be on the jury....There have been a lot of people who should know better that appear to want to undermine the judge, when despite all the digging and mud throwing all they can find in long career that he once ruled that according to the law as he saw it that meant a council could relocated to the next town.
    It's also surely the precise opposite of an independent inquiry.
    We are dealing with a leftie view of how things should be.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,667
    edited August 5
    Vince in the Mail on Sunday:

    'Brexit jihadis embrace pain of suffering as badge of honour'

    'The martyrdom of the elderly comes cheap since few have jobs to lose.'

    'The old have comprehensively shafted the young.'


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764278/Lib-Dem-leader-Vince-Cable-blasts-hardliners.html

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267

    MikeL said:

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    It's like saying a victim of a crime must be on the jury....There have been a lot of people who should know better that appear to want to undermine the judge, when despite all the digging and mud throwing all they can find in long career that he once ruled that according to the law as he saw it that meant a council could relocated to the next town.
    It's also surely the precise opposite of an independent inquiry.
    There was a proposal (can't remember from whom) to have an advisory panel that the judge could consult (but would not be compelled to follow), on which various experts and also representatives of the residents could sit. That seemed a reasonable compromise to me - people who lived there might well have relevant questions to suggest, without thereby dictating the course of the inquiry.
    Yes Nick - that would seem totally reasonable to me.

    In particular, residents would be aware of the history - eg meetings, correspondence etc - and quite right that they should have full opportunity to bring that to the inquiry's attention so that the inquiry can pursue all relevant avenues.

    But if people with a personal interest have an actual part in conducting the inquiry it cannot be independent.

    Such people may well also have a self-interest in possible recommendations.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,667

    UK = responsible hard-working husband.

    EU = profligate gold-digger.

    Are you saying May should have hired Fiona Shackleton instead of David Davis?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,040

    UK = responsible hard-working husband.

    EU = profligate gold-digger.

    Are you saying May should have hired Fiona Shackleton instead of David Davis?
    If divorce is the analogy,

    UK = responsible hard-working husband.

    EU = profligate gold-digger.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,349
    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    It's like saying a victim of a crime must be on the jury....There have been a lot of people who should know better that appear to want to undermine the judge, when despite all the digging and mud throwing all they can find in long career that he once ruled that according to the law as he saw it that meant a council could relocated to the next town.
    It's also surely the precise opposite of an independent inquiry.
    There was a proposal (can't remember from whom) to have an advisory panel that the judge could consult (but would not be compelled to follow), on which various experts and also representatives of the residents could sit. That seemed a reasonable compromise to me - people who lived there might well have relevant questions to suggest, without thereby dictating the course of the inquiry.
    Yes Nick - that would seem totally reasonable to me.

    In particular, residents would be aware of the history - eg meetings, correspondence etc - and quite right that they should have full opportunity to bring that to the inquiry's attention so that the inquiry can pursue all relevant avenues.

    But if people with a personal interest have an actual part in conducting the inquiry it cannot be independent.

    Such people may well also have a self-interest in possible recommendations.
    Yes, that's right.

    Gosh, a PB argument which ends in agreement! Perhaps we should be advising the Brexit team...
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,233
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chancellor has to be in the Commons.

    Has to be? Weren't there a couple of Law Lords who served as chancellor?
    Which Chancellor are you talking about, Mr Mortimer? Until the Blair reforms, one was always in the Lords, the other in the Commons.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,232
    Then suddenly, just minutes before the vote, scores of them would flock back, by which time it was too late for the whips to round up the votes to match it and the government faced a defeat.
    There's quite a bit more tech around now for tracking people, you'd think you could build a reasonably good system to know where any given opposition MP is most of the time.
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 208
    Seems very quiet on here this evening. I am in Colombia stay with family. Usually they tell me that things are not really as bad in nearby Venezuela as made out by the press. But not this time.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Seems very quiet on here this evening. I am in Colombia stay with family. Usually they tell me that things are not really as bad in nearby Venezuela as made out by the press. But not this time.

    I hope it stays quiet.

    Some of us are lurking just to snipe a First.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,581
    edited August 6
    Life imitating art? It was a great play about the trials and tribulations of minority government.
    http://thishouseplay.com/about
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,581

    Vince in the Mail on Sunday:

    'Brexit jihadis embrace pain of suffering as badge of honour'

    'The martyrdom of the elderly comes cheap since few have jobs to lose.'

    'The old have comprehensively shafted the young.'


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764278/Lib-Dem-leader-Vince-Cable-blasts-hardliners.html

    Unlike Uncle Vince and the tripling of student fees in England.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Life imitating art? It was a great play about the trials and tribulations of minority government.
    http://thishouseplay.com/about

    But that in turn was art imitating life.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,656

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    Calls for the Grenfell Inquiry to become utterly politicised and amateur:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40839719

    It's like saying a victim of a crime must be on the jury....There have been a lot of people who should know better that appear to want to undermine the judge, when despite all the digging and mud throwing all they can find in long career that he once ruled that according to the law as he saw it that meant a council could relocated to the next town.
    It's also surely the precise opposite of an independent inquiry.
    There was a proposal (can't remember from whom) to have an advisory panel that the judge could consult (but would not be compelled to follow), on which various experts and also representatives of the residents could sit. That seemed a reasonable compromise to me - people who lived there might well have relevant questions to suggest, without thereby dictating the course of the inquiry.
    Yes Nick - that would seem totally reasonable to me.

    In particular, residents would be aware of the history - eg meetings, correspondence etc - and quite right that they should have full opportunity to bring that to the inquiry's attention so that the inquiry can pursue all relevant avenues.

    But if people with a personal interest have an actual part in conducting the inquiry it cannot be independent.

    Such people may well also have a self-interest in possible recommendations.
    Yes, that's right.

    Gosh, a PB argument which ends in agreement! Perhaps we should be advising the Brexit team...
    Sorry to break up the agreement, but I doubt that proposal would work. We've already seen the inquiry suffer damage before it begins by some residents and their hangers-on throwing muck. If these people get on such an advisory panel - and as they're loudmouths they will - then the story will become: "Inquiry judge ignores official residents panel!"

    The much-needed inquiry into child abuse has already been whittled down into nonsense, not by officialdom, but by victims throwing muck before it even begins.

    Besides, there really needs to be at least two inquiries into Grenfell: an urgent independent investigation into the technical what and why, and a longer, more personal inquiry into the why and who.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,157

    Vince in the Mail on Sunday:

    'Brexit jihadis embrace pain of suffering as badge of honour'

    'The martyrdom of the elderly comes cheap since few have jobs to lose.'

    'The old have comprehensively shafted the young.'


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764278/Lib-Dem-leader-Vince-Cable-blasts-hardliners.html

    Vinice has a good turn of phrase. Getting heard.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,060
    surbiton said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anyone come up with a plausible series of events that lead to him not becoming PM? He's not going to kicked out of the Labour leadership and the Conservatives are not going to be in government after the next election. The only way he doesn't get to be PM is if he drops dead.

    If the NEC pass his amendment he might well resign in favour of Macdonnell. Whether Macdonnell would win is a different question.

    But I think it very unlikely that he would stay as leader if this parliament goes for five years. No Prime Minister has taken office for the first time aged 73. Palmerston holds the record and he was 70 (and the circumstances were very unusual).

    Moreover I think it is a bold claim to say the Conservatives are inevitably 'not' going to be in government after the next election. It was that sort of silly complacency that did for May. Ultimately, he's still a not very intelligent, highly incompetent and controversial figure with the unenthusiastic backing of his parliamentary party whose policy is directionless and whose management of his colleagues is dire. That he unexpectedly made a net gain of seats rather than a net loss doesn't alter those simple facts.
    FPT.

    Why should Corbyn resign ? He is in good health.
    Well, if you had read my second paragraph, you would have seen my reasoning.

    Good health or not, do you really think Corbyn will be seen as a credible candidate to serve five years as PM of a coalition aged 73?

    The record age for winning a majority is Churchill in 1951, but he had been PM before (Gladstone didn't win a majority in 1892 or 1885). It will be an issue despite his admirable fitness.
This discussion has been closed.