The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

There was some tory on R4 this morning at about 7:30am, didn't catch the name and didn't recognise the voice. But they were describing Corbyn as lacking any morals, hating Britain and a marxist etc.. 

Can you imagine the scenes if he has a 45 minute meeting with Maybot and emerges with a concession that could lead to a deal.

They would need to set up an emergency ward on the Westminster river terrace.

My fear, is he'll have some nebulous promise from May on behalf of the next tory leader that gives him enough leeway to agree, but yet again he forgets the people's vote bit that keeps slipping his mind so annoyingly.

Presumably apart from whipping his parliamentary party to support it in the Commons twice in the last week?

I doubt he'll 'forget' it anyway. More likely is for him to propose a Customs Union, confirmed by a referendum, which would split the party he wants to split more than the party he leads.  

[a m ole]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Of course, this type of reaction is totally and utterly unrelated to soldiers using pictures of Corbyn's face as target practice, or assaulting him outside a mosque, or plotting to murder him or other Labour MPs, or whatever else. 

real damage like Universal Credit?

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Presumably apart from whipping his parliamentary party to support it in the Commons twice in the last week?

I doubt he'll 'forget' it anyway. More likely is for him to propose a Customs Union, confirmed by a referendum, which would split the party he wants to split more than the party he leads.  

When it was indicative, you mean?

Time will tell I guess. This morning, on the radio, Rebecca Long Bailey was doing that trick of speaking lots n lots of words to repeatedly talk over the journalist that was trying to ask if JC would be asking for a confirmatory referendum as part of any deal.

Speaking very fast and very loud about anything except the question asked, kind of said all it needed to.

We'll see.

 

[ml1dch]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

When it was indicative, you mean?

Time will tell I guess. This morning, on the radio, Rebecca Long Bailey was doing that trick of speaking lots n lots of words to repeatedly talk over the journalist that was trying to ask if JC would be asking for a confirmatory referendum as part of any deal.

Speaking very fast and very loud about anything except the question asked, kind of said all it needed to.

We'll see.

 

Speaking as a massive sceptic of Labour's policy on all this, they're probably the party that have been the most flexible and compromisey in all of Westminster over the last couple of weeks. They've shifted positions to find a compromise more than any other party has.

Still not as much as I'd have ideally liked (Cherry motion etc), but they do seem to be* trying harder than anyone else (some individual MPs notwithstanding) to turn a catastrophe into just a crisis.

*although I'm not completely discounting that "seeming" to move to a position  they're never going to need to act upon could just be political manoeuvring. 

[peterms]

23 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

This morning, on the radio, Rebecca Long Bailey was doing that trick of speaking lots n lots of words to repeatedly talk over the journalist that was trying to ask if JC would be asking for a confirmatory referendum as part of any deal.

Speaking very fast and very loud about anything except the question asked, kind of said all it needed to.

That wasn't my recollection, so I've just listened again.  That bit starts around 1.52.20, here.

The presenter asks if a CR will be a requirement.  She says it's part of agreed policy as one of the things that should be on the table, but it's not a precondition.  She wasn't speaking particularly fast nor loud, and she answered the question directly.  It wasn't the answer the presenter wanted, apparently, as she tried to get RLB to agree that Labour should not have such an open position but should set preconditions in the way that Owen Smith had earlier suggested (which would be tactically foolish, in my view).  So the presenter pressed it again, suggesting that this was the chance to get what they wanted; in fact it would be exactly what the tories want, an excuse for presenting Labour as setting unacceptable preconditions.

Where there was talking over, it was the presenter talking over her, not the other way round. 

[chrisp65]

20 minutes ago, peterms said:

That wasn't my recollection, so I've just listened again.  That bit starts around 1.52.20, here.

The presenter asks if a CR will be a requirement.  She says it's part of agreed policy as one of the things that should be on the table, but it's not a precondition.  She wasn't speaking particularly fast nor loud, and she answered the question directly.  It wasn't the answer the presenter wanted, apparently, as she tried to get RLB to agree that Labour should not have such an open position but should set preconditions in the way that Owen Smith had earlier suggested (which would be tactically foolish, in my view).  So the presenter pressed it again, suggesting that this was the chance to get what they wanted; in fact it would be exactly what the tories want, an excuse for presenting Labour as setting unacceptable preconditions.

Where there was talking over, it was the presenter talking over her, not the other way round. 

That's fair enough, I've just listened again and there isn't the talking over it's also a lot less shrill than I remembered. So hands up on that one.

But it's still, for me, lots n lots of talk without content, nothing definitive on a referendum and certainly not answered directly. I heard a question about a vote, she refers to policy and then gives a big fat 'but' Jeremy is right to approach this with an open mind. 

I'm clearly picking up a different message from that than you did. But yes, time will tell. My hunch, is that if he could either force a GE or strike a leave deal without a new referendum, he'd see both of those as far better outcomes.

I'd be happy to be wrong.

 

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But it's still, for me, lots n lots of talk without content, nothing definitive on a referendum and certainly not answered directly. I heard a question about a vote, she refers to policy and then gives a big fat 'but' Jeremy is right to approach this with an open mind. 

For me, this comes into the category of journalists playing daft tricks, like "gotcha" questions, or asking ministers to reveal something they know is not going to be announced until later.

It's reasonable to ask if another referendum will be a precondition, especially following a previous leadership contender claiming that it should be.  It's also reasonable for her to respond that it's a possibility that's on the table, but it's not going to be a precondition.

Beyond that, if the presneter tries to push her into a position of agreeing something that she has just said doesn't agree, she's left with restating what she has already said, finding different words to state the position again, or trying to talk about something else.  If the presenter even tried a slightly different tack, like saying "I know that you have said there will be no preconditions, but why is that the best approach in your view?  Others think this is a good time to get concessions by setting preconditions, talk me through why you have a different view", then that might be more illuminating for listeners.  Instead of that, we get the presenter trying to engineer a speaker into a position the presenter wants them to hold.  This is not journalism as I understand it.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

There was some tory on R4 this morning at about 7:30am, didn't catch the name and didn't recognise the voice. But they were describing Corbyn as lacking any morals, hating Britain and a marxist etc.. 

Can you imagine the scenes if he has a 45 minute meeting with Maybot and emerges with a concession that could lead to a deal.

They would need to set up an emergency ward on the Westminster river terrace.

My fear, is he'll have some nebulous promise from May on behalf of the next tory leader that gives him enough leeway to agree, but yet again he forgets the people's vote bit that keeps slipping his mind so annoyingly.

 

Before the 7:30 news it was Andrea Jenkins  ..who gets a free pass for defeating Ed balls  and doing the UK a favour  , but even then , she  didn't say any of the above only that she didn't want Corbyn to get in at number 10 ( when asked if she would vote against May in VoNC )and that she felt Corbyn just wants chaos so he can get into number 10

 after the news  Oliver Letwin was on   .. he didn't say any of the above  and  was reasonably  positive about Corbyn in the main .

then , there was a segment where they read from newspaper headlines and quoted the Sun which referred to Corbyns lack of moral fibre

 

are you sure you had radio 4 on ?

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by tonyh29

[StefanAVFC]

I can't stand Rebecca Long-Bailey. Zero substance.

Also:

We deserve everything we get for being such a large country of idiots.

[peterms]

21 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

she  didn't say any of the above only that she didn't want Corbyn to get in at number 10 ( when asked if she would vote against May in VoNC )and that she felt Corbyn just wants chaos so he can get into number 10

Here's something I don't often say.  I agree with Tony.

I think I must be running a temperature.  I'm going for a little lie down.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Time will tell I guess.

You're right, it will. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong. 

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Before the 7:30 news it was Andrea Jenkins  ..

are you sure you had radio 4 on ?

 

 

Yeah, it was closer to 8:00am as it turns out, PM's got me bang to rights.

I'm still putting 7:30 on my timesheet though.

I really did take against her, it must have been the voice that did it. It's an odd thing, just deciding you don't like someone based on their voice. Barry Gardiner is another one, took against him before I knew anything about him.

It's not a perfect system though. Just going on voice, you'd think Oliver Letwin was a perfectly reasonable sort of a chap.

 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're right, it will. It's certainly possible that I'm wrong. 

i think there's a good chance you could be right, all things being equal.

[Xann]

28 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

We deserve everything we get for being such a large country of idiots.

F*** YouGov.

[peterms]

 

[ml1dch]

Rumour from cabinet is that if / when the talks with Corbyn go nowhere, Parliament votes using Alternative Vote on May deal / Corbyn deal / revoke / no-deal.

Presumably that sees one of the middle two squeaking through? 

[tonyh29]

30 minutes ago, peterms said:

Here's something I don't often say.  I agree with Tony.

[chrisp65]

30 minutes ago, peterms said:

Here's something I don't often say.  I agree with Tony.

Is this going to be another 'I agree with Nick' moment?

Where we all think there's a new mood, a new hope, a spirit of co-operation and the future is gonna be juuuust fine.

Then a few short weeks later it turns out he was just another sharp suited shit bag?

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Is this going to be another 'I agree with Nick' moment?

Where we all think there's a new mood, a new hope, a spirit of co-operation and the future is gonna be juuuust fine.

Then a few short weeks later it turns out he was just another sharp suited shit bag?

 

as if I'd wear a suit

[bickster]

Quote

Facebook Brexit ads secretly run by staff of Lynton Crosby firm
Exclusive: ‘grassroots’ groups that spent up to £1m on targeted Facebook ads share administrator who works for lobbying firm

A series of hugely influential Facebook advertising campaigns that appear to be separate grassroots movements for a no-deal Brexit are secretly overseen by employees of Sir Lynton Crosby’s lobbying company and a former adviser to Boris Johnson, documents seen by the Guardian reveal.

The mysterious groups, which have names such as Mainstream Network and Britain’s Future, appear to be run independently by members of the public and give no hint that they are connected. But in reality they share an administrator who works for Crosby’s CTF Partners and have spent as much as £1m promoting sophisticated targeted adverts aimed at heaping pressure on individual MPs to vote for a hard Brexit.

Repeated questions have been raised about who is backing at least a dozen high-spending groups that have flooded MPs’ inboxes with calls to reject Theresa May’s deal, but until now they were thought to be independent entities.

But according to the documents, almost all the major pro-Brexit Facebook “grassroots” advertising campaigns in the UK share the same page admins or advertisers. These individuals include employees of CTF Partners and the political director of Boris Johnson’s campaigns to be mayor of London, who has worked closely with Crosby in the past.

Their collective Facebook expenditure swamps the amount spent in the last six months by all the UK’s major political parties and the UK government combined. They have paid for thousands of different targeted Facebook ads encouraging members of the public to write to their local MPs and call for the toughest possible exit from the EU, creating the impression of organic public opposition to Theresa May’s deal.

Moron grauniaD