|
https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1178805608331526145 Secret UK proposals last about ten minutes in the cold light of day.
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1179035026953949191 Nice. e: https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1179034696484700166 Extra nice. jabby fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yeah it's pretty dumb, though i've heard some people say it's actually good because for actual pathological alcoholics (who genuinely want to stop) removing the temptation is a big thing psychologically. Once it hits ten they know they can't get any so they're not agonising over whether to go pick up another bottle of whisky and can kind of relax for a few hours. I'm not in any way an addiction expert though so take it with a pinch of salt but it seems plausible. Stuff like minimum unit pricing and restricting sale seems like it wouldn't work because alcoholics gonna alcohol, but the evidence shows otherwise. At least to a small extent. Kinda like jacking up the price of cigarettes I guess, at some point either people's other priorities take over or they sink into destitution and crime I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
If that were inked/coloured it'd be a pretty awesome campaign poster/twitter meme.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tom_usher_/status/1179128276352196608
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:If a suit like this goes to a judgement rather than the plaintiffs settling with the MoS One of the few advantages of the royals is that when they sue someone it seems unlikely they'll settle for some cash.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
For a minute I was actually concerned they'd bring back something close to May's deal only this time the ERG and enough Labour MP's would support it. Thank God their proposal will instantly be rejected by the EU.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Cumming's approach is powerfully dumb, especially if he doesn't realise that the 'differing opinions' of lawyers won't mean poo poo when it's the supreme court that decides. Of course the government can find lawyers that agree with them, they're paying them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:To hit the companies where it hurts what you really need is a mass bypass of gas meters. If it gets to the point where everyone knows someone who has done a bypass, and where the cost is handed down to people who are still complying with the meters, that'll set off a tidal wave. At least if you bypass your electric meter you'll probably only risk killing yourself, not blowing up an entire row of houses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1181936763671138307 This is good for Labour I think. If Boris goes into the election still promising to get a deal, it means his pledge to "get Brexit done" will essentially consist of "let me go and negotiate some more, despite the fact that the EU have already totally rejected the deal I want. Then if I fail I'll totally leave with No Deal. I know I already promised to do that and didn't but this time I mean it!" I can see Labour having decent cut-through with the message that the Tories have already had three years to 'get Brexit done', and Boris is actually just repeating the exact same promise he's already broken: to negotiate a deal and then leave if he can't get it. jabby fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:One thing to consider is that the Tories have spent most of that three years without a majority and thus either beholden to the DUP or incapable of functioning. It is possible that Boris could get in with a majority and pivot to Norway+ just so he could say he's done it. I mean, I wouldn't bet money on it, but he's a jellyfish on all counts so it's not implausible. Anything's possible. But in terms of electoral calculus, Labour will be able to point to the deal they want and have credible evidence the EU will accept it. And they'll be promising a near immediate referendum to settle things 'once and for all'. Meanwhile Boris will be promising to go back to the negotiating table and demand... what? The deal he has currently? May's deal? He'll be promising to negotiate a deal when he's already proven he can't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Genuine question, what would be the best way for the West to tackle the Kurds/Turkey thing? Obviously abandoning them like Trump did is going to lead to a massacre/humanitarian crisis, but staying in the region as a permanent peacekeeping force is hardly going to work. Threaten Turkey with something unless they find a political solution? What's the best answer?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1183874013476610048 Oh look, the Section 14 powers we were promised would only be used to limit the number of people in a certain place at a certain time are being misused to ban all protest. Who would've thought. Seriously though, this is a troubling step. Once this is the new normal then it'll pretty rapidly become 'no anti-government protest anywhere in London' on the grounds of it being 'too disruptive'.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Bundy posted:I've done the "use a McCoy or Walkers Crisp as a spoon" with cream cheese. I think it's just the pro-keto stuff you get poo poo for. Being anti-sugar is fine, refined carbs are pretty well proven to be bad for us. But cutting out carbs entirely (or to very low levels) does weird stuff to our metabolism that isn't well understood. Certainly replacing all the carbohydrate in your diet with fat will do things to your cholesterol that we conventionally consider bad. Overall nutrition is a really poorly understood science at the moment and I'll happily agree to that, but you won't win anyone over with appeals to evolution or how we were 'designed' (we weren't designed). Right now on our carb-heavy calorie-loaded modern diets we can expect to live to maybe triple the age our hunter-gatherer Keto/Paleo/whatever ancestors did. We might have evolved to eat lots of fat but we also bred and typically died way before things like cardiovascular disease could develop. So everything we criticise about our modern diet has to be viewed through a much more long-term lens than diets we might have historically eaten. Just because a diet gives you the energy to chase a buffalo across the plains till it dies from exhaustion doesn't mean much if it also clogs your arteries so you drop dead at 55. jabby fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2019 05:04
|
|
comrade
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1184492035883126788 For gently caress's sake. Is even being shadow home secretary a cursed position now?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Eh, it’s not like she’s saying Labour would do it either. Seems reasonable to slam the Tories for failing to deliver a campaign promise, even if it was a very stupid one. She's saying that if they had gone ahead then 'very young children' would no longer have access to 'hardcore porn'. She's painting the scrapped law as a good thing. She's also saying that not wanting to heavily regulate the internet means you aren't interested in 'law and order'. Being able to watch porn online isn't a matter of loving law and order, that's some authoritarian bullshit. She also has form on this, she's said before nobody should have the right to be anonymous online which is even more draconian than any measures proposed by the Tories. I'm genuinely beginning to think she might not be a very good home secretary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1184707469337071616 Loooollll
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1184905532009832449 If Corbyn doesn't make clear that voting for this deal means losing the whip, it'll be a massive, massive mistake. No incentive to court leave voters if you're not going to be running as a Labour MP.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Bardeh posted:If they pass his deal, they hand him a huge majority in the GE. Absolutely loving ridiculous any of them are even considering it For a lot of Labour MPs this is the ideal outcome, provided they keep their seat. Corbyn quits, they have their evidence that the Left can't win elections, and they can try and take over the party again. Funniest timeline is still the vote going to a tie, and Bercow's last act as speaker being to vote it down.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RaynerSkyNews/status/1184933943906312192 If this is true, it's an absolutely catastrophic mistake. If Johnson gets his deal though and the Lib Dems are able to blame Brexit on Labour MPs who escape any form of sanction, the election will be a bloodbath.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:He wants to kill this thing altogether in the weekend votes so that Johnson can't wriggle out of the Benn Act. Further down that thread, it mentions he wants to bring in a ref2 amendment next week. The only way Johnson can avoid the Benn act is if his deal passes. Promising Labour MPs that they won't face sanction for voting for it, so they can swan around their constituencies at election time bragging that they delivered Brexit, in no way helps 'kill this thing'. The only way its killed is if Labour MPs vote it down on Saturday.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
ronya posted:LAB would need to first whip against for the deal to be guaranteed to fail, there are too many MPs who are either in Leave areas or would back a referendum toy in their happy deal Absolutely nobody thinks Labour won't be running a three line whip against this deal, regardless of any amendments that might be passed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
ronya posted:whipping is a poor way to corral naughty backbenchers if you pledge upfront that defying the whip will have no consequences, and Johnson only needs a few LAB backbenchers even for an unamended deal That's literally my entire point, I think it's a huge mistake to promise no consequences on a vote of this monumental importance. I have no idea what your original post about it 'working both ways' was meant to mean.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
Doccykins posted:Could be the dam breaking for Labour MPs in Leave constituencies Almost like promising no consequences for doing this is going to gently caress everything up. If we end up Brexiting on Boris' terms, on the back of Labour votes, after Labour turned down an election, this will be remembered as one of the most catastrophic tactical mistakes in political history. Not gonna lie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:So voting for the Letwin amendment still helps Johnson? Ten Labour MPs have apparently said they'll back Johnson's deal, which gives him a majority barring any huge surprises. That makes Letwin irrelevant, even if it passes Johnson can send the extension letter to the EU and then immediately call MV4 and win it, removing the need for an extension. Expect to hear Labour being blamed for Brexit by the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens, and everybody else until roughly the end of time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:wait why are we criticising Labour for not threatening to expel MPs again? Because a hard Tory Brexit is going to go through on Labour votes. So at the next election we'll have Labour MPs crowing to their constituents about how they delivered Brexit. Johnson will be a hero for the Brexiteers, and Labour will be villified by remainers. It's absolutely the worst case scenario and if Corbyn doesn't have the balls to remove the whip over that, he shouldn't be in the job. EDIT: Obviously this could all be jouranlist lies. But 'rising star' MPs like Melanie Onn who were originally predicted to vote against are now voting for, and nobody has suggested or leaked that threats have been made. So while it could all change, signs are not good.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Love too base all my political theorizing on what sky news man "understands" on twitter. Ten Labour MPs have publicly declared for the deal. None of them have said anything about losing the whip or expecting any sanction for it. https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1185241744625098752
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which does not imply a tacit endorsement from the leadership, they're probably going to get phone calls between now and tomorrow. Labour is probably quite busy trying to get everyone they can to vote down the deal and their more idiotic MPs are probably not the easiest targets of that, to be quite honest, especially as several of them have probably declared they aren't going to stand next election anyway. Enough of them are not standing down that it could make the difference in this vote. I'll take all of this back if Corbyn actually does remove the whip from rebels, but if he allows them to stay in the party and brag about pushing Brexit through... Labour are not going to recover easily. Especially as they turned down an election to get us here. And make no mistake Johnson's Brexit deal is worse than May's. There's going to be a bonfire of worker's rights, environmental standards and consumer protections if this goes through. It'll change Britain for generations.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you haven't figured out by now that corbyn isn't going to lead with threats then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps I'm tired of hearing that we can't threaten MPs, and we can't kick them out of the party, and we can't introduce mandatory reselection, and we can't get rid of Tom Watson, and we can't punish them for voting with the Tories, or briefing against the party, or calling the leader a loving antisemite, etc. etc. The Left has had control over virtually all the levers of power for a while now. Why exactly do we have to keep putting up with this poo poo? If we can't threaten our MPs over something that could both destroy the party and change the shape of the entire country, what the gently caress are we even doing? jabby fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Oct 18, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:what’s the logic of giving the tories a win by voting for their deal for any labor mp 1. Might help them keep their seat in a leave area. 2. Will help ensure Labour goes down in flames at the next election, and Corbyn quits.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also I don't really buy the idea that getting the deal through solves boris's problems. Because it doesn't actually mean we brexit immediately, it means we're in a transitional arrangement with the end result still to be determined. Voters absolutely vote to reward or punish parties.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Johnson is obliged to ask for an extension until January, but the EU isn't obliged to accept. They could grant an extension for say, a week, in order to force a second vote on Johnson's deal immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
The main hope from the amendment is that it allows extra time for the DUP, the Brexit party, Labour and the Remain alliance to really lay into how poo poo this deal is. Boris best chance of getting it through was before anyone had much chance to read or react to it. Once he starts getting properly quizzed on why he's allowing a border down the Irish sea it may still all fall apart.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Bear in mind that if there's a majority for Boris' deal, there may not be a majority for a VONC any more.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:It also seems to have halted jabby's sprint towards the cliff edge, so that's nice. All the amendment does is delay the actual meaningful vote by a few days. My concern is that former allies like Ronnie Campbell and Melanie Onn have said they'll vote for the deal out of some ridiculous lexiter plan/desire to keep their seats, and that might be why Corbyn is refusing to kick out any rebels. When the future of the whole country hangs on one vote I can't help wishing we had a slightly more ruthless leader. Hard to imagine Big John taking the same position.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not necessarily, once johnson goes for the extension it's quite possible the opposition will go straight for a VONC. Well the new meaningful vote is Tuesday so they'd have to get a shift on. Plus even if they VONC Johnson on Tuesday after laying a motion Monday, he still remains as PM until someone else gets support of the house. So unless I'm mistaken his deal will still be voted on and potentially passed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 10:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JohnJCrace/status/1185482099219947520 Guess we're dropping all pretence now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
This vote changes nothing. Boris will send the letter, but he'll hold another meaningful vote on Monday. The EU won't respond to the letter before that vote. So it still comes down to whether his deal will pass, before we start talking about him going to court or anything like that. We still need to defeat the deal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
xtothez posted:And if Monday's vote is amended in the same way as today? Amended to say what? The Letwin amendment existed to make Boris send the letter, just in case the deal passed but then somehow got scuppered on the way through parliament. There's no need for a similar amendment once an extension has already been requested. We need there to be fewer than 9 switchers from today's vote. Letwin has already said he'll vote for a deal. So has Onn, and she abstained today. The deal vote is going to be closer than this. OwlFancier posted:This, if it can't pass today then there is little reason to believe it will pass on monday. That's if Bercow even allows it. This makes no sense. Several people who have explicitly said they will vote for the deal also voted for this amendment as a safeguard. Including Letwin himself!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They never actually passed it, as soon as the amendment went through boris pulled the entire vote. It passed without division because the government abstained, the government can't pull a motion already put to the house. It also wouldn't matter, because the whole purpose of the amendment was to delay the meaningful vote until after today, so that Boris is forced to send the letter. Bercow is now going to rule if they can have another MV on Monday, as the government wants, or if the de facto new meaningful vote will be the second reading of the withdrawal act on Tuesday. Either way we are tee'd up for another meaningful vote BEFORE the EU responds to the extension letter, and it will be closer than this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 15:38
|
|