Darth Walrus posted:

More importantly, when she realises he doesn't have solid enough control of the government to send MI5 after her.

Gasmask posted:

she was in the year below me and my friend nearly cast her in a play that's my gossip

Junior G-man posted:

FT with the view from the EU (note: it's an opinion piece so grain of salt etc, but I think it's not far removed from where we are):

Tijuana Bibliophile posted:

uk politics is... good??

Gonzo McFee posted:

lmao he can't even got MI6 weirdo Rory Stewart on side, MI5 are probably confused as gently caress about everything going on.

Jose posted:

It's truly incredible how disconnected Westminster's journalists are from everyone else

quote:

Jeremy Corbyn could have given Boris Johnson a hard time at his first Prime Minister’s Questions. He asked tough questions about the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, and the prime minister conspicuously failed to answer.

But it was Johnson who actually won the exchanges easily because he challenged Corbyn on whether he wanted an election on 15 October – “or is he frit?” Johnson knows that the Labour leader wants an election but is being held back by his MPs, who are urging him to make life hard for the prime minister by refusing to vote for it.

Johnson returned to the theme repeatedly, calling Corbyn a “chlorinated chicken”, and was unexpectedly supported by Ian Blackford of the Scottish National Party, who quoted the opinion polls in Scotland and said: “If he wants an election, enable the bill and bring it on.”

sean10mm posted:

Unlike in the USA, its conservatives will relentlessly ratfuck each other, which is at least entertaining.

Vlex posted:

I'll keep you all updated on the Carrie Symonds situation as it propagates through the Warwick uni alumni whisper network.

CoolCab posted:

we have sat through a LOT of the tories bending over backwards to prevent so called blue on blue (blue as in the tory color) - pigfucker refused negative campaigning during the brexit referendum for that reason.

this public ratfucking started super late in may's tenure and has only gotten worse, it's great.

kanonvandekempen posted:

Goddamn every time that university is mentioned here I regret doing my postgrad at Warwick more and more.
At least we in life sciences were the red-headed ignored stepchildren of that university.

Vlex posted:

Why? It's a good uni!

Nuclear Spoon posted:

i hope he turns up absolutely pissed and just spills the beans on everything once it looks like he's hosed https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1169566207676178433

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Can we all take a moment to appreciate Corbyn's official portrait, especially in stories like these. He looks so goddamn smug and he deserves to be that smug

Jose posted:

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Surprised I didn't see this on the Sun Front cover today.

coffeetable posted:

who's the particle physicist with the shiny new grant again

https://twitter.com/ResFortnight/status/1169210391961985024

coffeetable posted:

who's the particle physicist with the shiny new grant again

https://twitter.com/ResFortnight/status/1169210391961985024

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1169523004180705281

Vlex posted:

Why? It's a good uni!

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1169523004180705281

Steven Bush posted:

Good morning. After ten hours and sixteen votes, an agreement has been reached between supporters and opponents of  House of Lords to pass Hilary Benn's bill to seek an extension to the Article 50 by 5pm on Friday, which means that it is certain to become a law and an election in on the way. 

But when? The various opponents of a no deal Brexit agree on the answer - as soon as their move to seek an extension has been legally confirmed. But they disagree about what that means: does it mean after the bill has become a law? That's the opinion of the leaders of both the Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders - at least, that's what they both argued in the House. 

The reason why passing the bill into law is important is that it guarantees that if the next parliament is hung, Boris Johnson cannot simply let the United Kingdom tumble out of the European Union before the new parliament meets.  That, at least, is clear.

But some within their parties think that it means waiting until after Johnson has triggered the Article 50 extension, the better to humiliate him and deepen his problem with the Brexit party. 

In practice, the debate is one over electoral strategy: what maximises the chances of producing a parliament that can prevent a no deal Brexit again? I think both sides are at risk of being too clever by half.

The Conservative line that Jeremy Corbyn is scared of an election gives Johnson something to talk about other than his flawless record of four defeats in four in the House of Commons and seventeen defeats in seventeen in the House of Lords. The problem is that attacking someone for being too chicken to hold an election ceases to be a viable attack line once the election is underway. There's the risk, too, that the time simply gives Johnson longer to disintegrate on the campaign trail.

But the 'let Johnson stew in his own juices' crowd are at risk of being too clever for their own good too. Holding off the start of the formal election campaign until after the extension has been triggered means effectively, a two month election campaign on top of the 25 working day statutory campaign - but crucially, a two month campaign in which the tighter broadcast rules around elections do not apply and there are no restrictions on what political parties and outside groups can spend. 

That does mean that various pro-Remain and anti no-deal groups can organise and campaign to the heart's content: but more importantly it means that the full might of the government's advertising budget can also be deployed, while the government will continue to enjoy a disproportionate level of coverage for its announcements up until the contest proper starts.  It also means two months of prominent headlines about Labour MPs and their trigger ballots. 


Delaying also facilitates Nicola Sturgeon's attack line against Scottish Labour, that they are weak and indecisive and only a vote for her party is guaranteed to produce a Scottish parliamentary contingent capable of standing up to the Conservative government. (Though Labour may reason that they are going to get shellacked in Scotland come what may.) 

Of course, an election runs the risk of a Johnson majority - but that's the risk of any election at any time. Neither big party looks certain to do best with an imminent election or by pushing it out to November: but to my eyes the risk of waiting is heavier for Labour.

Nothingtoseehere posted:

On election timing - I'm just going to quote Steven Bush on this.


I think I agree, but it's certainly up for debate - I'd say strike while the Iron is hot but don't know how prepared Labour is at the moment.

Tesseraction posted:

Yeah even the Graun handed him a win on that, albeit somewhat by default because 80% of the snap verdict was calling Johnson a lying dishonest oval office.

Which was also fun to read.

Gasmask posted:

look all i'm saying is that if we burn david cameron in a wicker man on college green we can undo the last 3+ years of hell world

coffeetable posted:

who's the particle physicist with the shiny new grant again

https://twitter.com/ResFortnight/status/1169210391961985024

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1169523004180705281