ml1dch

The one that I remember getting a fair bit of traction was the one where the erstwhile Foreign Secretary was laughing about dead Libyans. I'd argue that is slightly more newsworthy given the content and the speaker.

I suppose that for all the shambolic, incoherent, contradictory silliness of the Labour conference, it's got absolutely nothing on the complete burning-down-circus that next week in Birmingham is going to be.

"If you think you understand what Labour's Brexit position is, that means you haven't paid enough attention".

Oh dear, "open and honest". If I remember my Yes, Minister correctly I can't imagine that went well for anybody then.

Pretty easy to see why they decided to l release the good ones quietly on a Monday afternoon. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exporting-animals-and-animal-products-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/exporting-animals-and-animal-products-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/uk-eu-flights-would-cease-immediately-in-event-of-no-deal-brexit Well I for one, am astonished.

Optics. Apparently people hate the idea of having the same thing repeated, but stick "people's" in front of it to make them feel like they have agency and apparently it's a great idea. It's the sort of bollocks that the leave campaign used to con people. "Take back control", "our money, our borders, our laws" etc. Depressing that that's the way the world is. But apparently it is.

This could be concerning: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/09/23/this-is-how-the-labour-leadership-could-kill-the-people-s-vo Second half of the article:

Also, if the mistake that your enemy is making is driving a bus containing you and your family off a cliff, interrupting him is probably still the best course of action.

So, war-gaming from there. Let's say Labour conference adopts the second referendum (as appears likely) as policy. Somehow the above happens, and Corbyn forms a minority Government backed up by the Lib Dems, SNP and the handful of second referendum Tories on the proviso that they stick with their second referendum pledge (bollocks to the People's Vote nomenclature) Quickly negotiate the obviously terrible deal, hold a referendum on that deal vs withdrawing Article 50 and "reforming the EU from the inside". That passes, withdrawal act is repealed. Labour hold a new general election having "sorted Brexit when the Tories couldn't", Labour are united(ish) again and swoop to a hundred seat majority. Fanciful perhaps, but eventually there will be a way found through this quagmire.

Not really. It still requires at least a hundred Conservative MPs (not a section of society known for acting outside their own self-interest) to say "I want to open myself up to the strong possibility of unnecessary unemployment" Edit - actually I'm wrong. A vote of no-confidence just needs a simple majority to pass and isn't trumped by the FTPA. So that makes the maths a bit easier, although I'd argue still not likely.

"Comrades! Can it be agreed that the party should never again be beholden to the neoliberal, Blairite yoke of Rymans, and that all Labour party stationery shall henceforth be ethically sourced via solidarity with our brothers at the Gaza City branch of Staples? Hush up Wes. We'll chat Brexit at conference 2021"

And this is key. With the two-third majority needed, it's easy for a Conservative MP to vote for a snap election when their party is twenty points ahead in the polls, but amidst the shambles of the current administration and the expectation that they might lose their seat, why would they vote for that when they can just sit tight until 2022?

And even if they do, does a narrow Labour majority trying to implement the unimplementable with an illiterate policy work much better than a propped-up Tory Government trying to implement the unimplementable with an illiterate policy?

Oh sure, sensible administration and well-filed paperwork is essential to make sure you have an functioning party. But maybe chat about that as well as, rather than instead of the biggest political crisis the country has faced in half a century?

Although there was never going to be anything other than a shit Government negotiating "the deal", as anything better than a shit Government wouldn't have put themselves in a place where "a deal" needed to be negotiated in the first place.

Anybody fancy a game of "pin the tail on what time Theresa May started talking"?

Very harsh. It was 7, not 6.5

"Throughout this process, I have treated the EU with nothing but respect. The UK expects the same, a good relationship at the end of this process depends on it. "At this late stage in the negotiations, it is not acceptable to simply reject the other side's proposals without a detailed explanation and counter proposals."

I must have missed the reshuffle when Chris Grayling was made Energy Secretary.

I don't mean in the street or editorials in Le Monde. I have family there, and my experience is that it's barely even talked about (apart from the occasional enquiry about why we are being so silly) amongst the public. I mean at the higher diplomatic level with overtures to businesses wanting to leave the UK to move to France, suggesting that Paris should be where the EU's financial hub should be, and France being the most hard-line of the 27 in sticking to the negotiating guidelines.

It probably does, but it's not really his problem is it? If there is any one country in the 27 that is quite chipper about seeing us have our face rubbed in the dirt over this, it's France. They're pretty much the only ones openly talking about how the UK's humiliation can benefit them.