RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Lizard wrote:So what the fuck is happening in the Lords? I’m lost...

Yeah, I was just listening to that - I've never heard of a fillibuster being possible in the UK system before (quite possibly because I've never paid much attention to the Lords).

It SOUNDS LIKE... a fillibuster can only really happen when there's a proroguement about to happen; as that's the only time debate is actually closed down, rather tan staying live to be picked up again later.
Which means that if the tory lords can just keep it being debated for a week, they can simply run down the clock.
Cummings has gotten 86 (and counting?) ammendments to be added when today's bill reaches the lords - with each (apparently) taking a minium of about 45 minutes.
The Lords can keep themselves open all night, and over the weekend if they wish - but they have to close down and vacate when proroguement kicks in.

Was this part of the equation when proroguement was floated?

One can always filibuster, but it gets harder on government backed bills as they have more time set aside for them.

Yes it was part of the equation when the decision to close parliament was made, those seeking to ensure no deal is taken off the table think they have plans to prevent the bill being talked out, but they haven't gone public on what their thinking is as they felt it would give the government time counteract those plans, whether they have any plans, whether the Lords will try to so over rule the elected chamber, whether the government has already considered what options there might be and have to act against them I guess we'll see

Which Tyler wrote:I guess that's a "no" to Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi's question.
That's going to be all over the place, and terrible, terrible optics for BJ

ETA: well played Swinson for calling him on it as well

Digby wrote: it's possible I misread WT's comment actually.

the filibuster is more a thing int he Commons as the Lords doesn't really do deadlines (beyond they all know they're going to die soon) but with Parliament being closed that does introduce more of an opportunity to try and talk out the bill, that did happen last time in the lords (was that because they needed to get it sorted before an EU meeting?)

it's an interesting question as to whether the Lords will have to vacate if parliament is prorogued as it's quite possible if the Lords is in session it will remain so and proroguement can only kick in after the session ends. again we don't normally need to consider such things

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote: it's possible I misread WT's comment actually.

the filibuster is more a thing int he Commons as the Lords doesn't really do deadlines (beyond they all know they're going to die soon) but with Parliament being closed that does introduce more of an opportunity to try and talk out the bill, that did happen last time in the lords (was that because they needed to get it sorted before an EU meeting?)

it's an interesting question as to whether the Lords will have to vacate if parliament is prorogued as it's quite possible if the Lords is in session it will remain so and proroguement can only kick in after the session ends. again we don't normally need to consider such things

I was going to say that my understanding was that prorogation is the only deadline the Lords has, but it was more in terms of "and now I do, thank you" than an objection, but it didn't seem worth a post.

My understanding is that probation closes all parliamentary business, commons, lords, committees, everything; and that any business needs to be started again anew after, rather than halted and picked up again later - which is why it's so much more than a slightly extended recess.

But again, that's my understanding, and I'm no procedures wonk.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I guess that's a "no" to Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi's question.
That's going to be all over the place, and terrible, terrible optics for BJ

ETA: well played Swinson for calling him on it as well

It's only terrible optics for people who already would never vote for BJ and who don't read...

The Times
The Telegraph
The Sun
The Daily Mail
The Express

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I guess that's a "no" to Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi's question.
That's going to be all over the place, and terrible, terrible optics for BJ

ETA: well played Swinson for calling him on it as well

It's only terrible optics for people who already would never vote for BJ and who don't read...

The Times
The Telegraph
The Sun
The Daily Mail
The Express

The Times isn't giving positive coverage to Boris in the main, in the overwhelming main tbh. Though lots of Times readers are traditionally nailed on Conservative voters

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
It's only terrible optics for people who already would never vote for BJ and who don't read...

The Times
The Telegraph
The Sun
The Daily Mail
The Express

The Times isn't giving positive coverage to Boris in the main, in the overwhelming main tbh. Though lots of Times readers are traditionally nailed on Conservative voters

All I know is my father gets his news from 2 sources, the Beeb and The Times, and he is an insufferable modern Tory. Luckily when I'll be in the UK in a couple of weeks, he'll be in Japan. So I'll just drink gin with my mother.

Stom wrote: It's only terrible optics for people who already would never vote for BJ and who don't read...

The Times
The Telegraph
The Sun
The Daily Mail
The Express

Digby wrote:prorogation does close everything, but that normally happens when the chambers are closed. it's dividing opinion as to whether you can close a chamber in session

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote: It's only terrible optics for people who already would never vote for BJ and who don't read...

The Times
The Telegraph
The Sun
The Daily Mail
The Express

Just... don't read the comments "cheap shot" "nothing to apologise for" "no excuse for bringing this up" "Boris was right and most people agree with him"

Digby wrote:prorogation does close everything, but that normally happens when the chambers are closed. it's dividing opinion as to whether you can close a chamber in session

Thank you, I didn't realise that was in question.
Pics coming in of some peers arriving with sleeping bags and tooth rushes etc.

Digby wrote:"Mr Speaker, I believe the honourable member from Uxbridge is shouting at me, last time he was shouting at someone they had to call the police"

Fair play John McDonnell, he doesn't often make me laugh but that's a good line with Boris trying to shout over him.

Stom wrote: I read the twitter feed about JRM and wow. He is the epitome of the person they detest yet they love him because he annoys us.

It's pretty incredible.

Mikey Brown wrote: I still find the whole pantomime nature of it all so surreal.

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote: I read the twitter feed about JRM and wow. He is the epitome of the person they detest yet they love him because he annoys us.

It's pretty incredible.

Haven't seen that one (that i remember), but thatnsort of attitude seems to have crossed the Atlantic. The most important thing for trump to do is keep annoying the liberals. Nothing else matters

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:"Mr Speaker, I believe the honourable member from Uxbridge is shouting at me, last time he was shouting at someone they had to call the police"

Fair play John McDonnell, he doesn't often make me laugh but that's a good line with Boris trying to shout over him.

I still find the whole pantomime nature of it all so surreal.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Puzzled how a 2nd Ref would heal?

A Supermajority either way.
So not exactly likely, but it's the only thing that has any chance at all.
IMO

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Puzzled how a 2nd Ref would heal?

A Supermajority either way.
So not exactly likely, but it's the only thing that has any chance at all.
IMO

Not sure the risk is worth the outside chance of a reward. Mind, whilst parliament is so dead set against leaving I can't see a happy outcome ever tbh. No idea what any way forward could be.

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:We could have the interesting spectacle of Tories voting against their government in a motion of no confidence and Labour voting to support a Tory government

I don't think it would be a confidence vote, it would be a vote for an early election. Which I'm glad to say Corbyn isn't stupid enough to go for.

Cameron's revenge from beyond the political grave.

Looks like the SNP have walked back on their desire to vote in favour of a GE as well - which probably screws that option, even as a simple bill (for which, surely the FTPA foresaw and accounted for - if not, then that act is as useful as a chocolate fire guard)

For now, we need to prioritise. A GE won't solve anything, and will probably lead to a 3-way coalition or confidence and supply. Which is why it's BJ's preferred backup.

IMO We need to get an extension, and get a 2nd referendum, before heading for a GE. The chances are that a second ref will come back with a small majority, but it's the only thing that is capable of healing divisions.
Potential flies in the ointment are if May's deal is ressurected - which I think means prorogation needs to happen first, or BJ wins a vote on his strategy.


It's going to be fascinating to see what the whipless Tories do.
Greeningnis quitting anyway. Clarke wasn't intending to stand down at the next GE anyway, but may be pissed off enough to change his mind. Hammond looks like he's going to fight potential deselection.
Which leaves 18 (and a few others who must be getting annoyed by Cummings' bully-boy tactics).
I can't see m/any of the grandees joining LibDem. Do they join CHUKb? Do they stand their ground and go quietly at the GE? Do they stand as independents? Do they start their own Moderate Conservative party (and try to win back some CHUKb ex-tories).


Question.
Given the (significantly) minority government, could we see a standing article 24 force a second referendum? Or would only a GNU be able to do that?

Which Tyler wrote:I've been out for a few hours (walking rugby).

WTF has happened with the Kinnock amendment, and what are the repercussions?

Puja wrote: ETA. Also, how the hell does walking rugby work? I'd find it impossible not to speed up if I saw a gap and I'm a forward!