ml1dch

I'm guessing that by "this mess" he means the specific vignette of today's court case and what it is trying to rule upon, rather than multi-episode box-set mess of the last three years of national humiliation.

Surely contempt is the default position for anyone with any sense when it comes to Johnson?

What would I do if the Lib Dems decided to support the antithesis of their current raison d'être, in direct contradiction of what their current leader, MPs, members and (presumably) voters want to happen? Dunno. Be quite surprised? How would a Labour voter feel if Corbyn decided he wanted to slash corporation tax and ban trades union? It's probably not high up the list of their concerns.

But the promise is in the event of a Lib Dem majority. So when I cast my vote for my (excellent) Lib Dem MP, I'm hoping for a Lib Dem majority and that policy to be enacted. Now, I'm not going to get that (the majority or the policy). But if they end up in a loose Parliamentary arrangement with Labour and the SNP and backing the Labour solution, I'm not going to be crying about betrayal and broken promises because they told me they would be revoking it.

I also a find the narrative of "lolz, they'll try and renegotiate and then might campaign for or against it, what a bunch of muppets" is a bit churlish given that's precisely what a large number of the Conservative Party did in the 2016 referendum.

But it's extremely unlikely that they will be able to stop him without Parliamentary support from at least one, and probably two other parties.

Talk is that the only way out now for Johnson is for Parliament to pass something and that in October we might see the DWA come back with a font change or something. Were that the plan (something I'd be sceptical on), surely it goes like this: * a cross-party amendment is added saying it needs to be subject to a referendum *as that is (the first time) the official policy of all parties apart from the Tories and DUP, the amendment carries with support from some of the former Tories *with the amendment carried, Johnson now whips against his own bill, but the same majority for the amendment sees the bill passed Have I missed something that means the above isn't how it would play our? And if not, surely the current talk is nonsense as he would never risk the above so won't bring a vote on 'a deal' to the current Parliament?

Solid message.

It's relevant to one thing - her imminent re-election campaign. If a quick throwaway line that she can and will never have to follow through on convinces a few more NF / Labour undecideds to stay loyal then it was worth it.

I wonder if there are laws about amending documents after they are required to be released...

I linked the redacted bit yesterday.

Why would you assume any illegality then?

The redacted bit apparently:

Yellowhammer, Government, August 2019. While I don't want to say that this was all rather predictable...