Westminstenders: Stuck in the twilightzone

[RedToothBrush]

Just want to remind everyone if what really matters and what the priority if Theresa May is.

May isn't interested in a new referendum. There is barely time to hold one, and anyone remotely interested in one, isn't named Theresa May. Forget it. Its not happening.

Nor are Brexit talks the most important thing. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn seems finally to be playing with some sort if EEA type solution he's not the one named Theresa May. If she doesn't want one, then it won't happen.

May does seem to favour something along these lines but she has to sell it to her party. If she ends up relying on the support of Labour to push it through against what her party want, then that doesn't end well for her or her party. So Corbyn seeming to squeeze her here isn't necessarily a good thing. It could push her to no deal.

Why?

Cos petty party politics.

THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING, and don't forget this, is the EU withdrawal Bill. As it stands, May has to concentrate her efforts on this. If it doesn't pass by the art 50 deadline then we have legal chaos. May isn't big on the courts, but I'm not sure she would want that situation either. It would be even more unthinkable than queues at Dover coupled with food shortages.

If it doesn't pass, and the Lords will do all they can to delay and obstruct as long as they can, May's only option is to beg for an art 50 extension. Which the EU might not be inclined to give. Which might leave us in a situation where our only option is to revoke a50.

The only predictable thing, is this will be last minute brinkmanship.

All the talk of a second ref is a distraction. Talk of Labour's position at this point, is all about positioning for the next election and not about Brexit at all.

So try to keep your eyes on what really matters and what battles are May's big ones and which are merely side shows.

I wonder who Side Show Bob will turn out to be.

We're setting up a local European Movement branch in my village and somebody has offered to make a guide to remain and leave arguments/counter arguments. I know it's very unimaginative of me but can anyone point to any links/documents that might provide a good starting basis for this?

I know a precis of these threads would provide more than enough content but it might be a bit overwhelming

Boris Johnson promises liberal Brexit vision after mauling at cabinet

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dbe3190c-008b-11e8-9de1-e6776d524215

Has rather put me off reading dd any of David Walliams books though.

A complete aside but DD ( not the exit Secretary) just read Mr Stink by Williams.I thought the portrait of the Mother figure (admittedly an aspirational Tory MP) was very one dimensional and misogynistic, especially compared to the more sympathetic layered portrayal of the adult men.

Walliams not Williams. Sorry.

Thread about Johnson, which isn't really about Johnson but about Brexit

Sam Coates Times‏ @SamCoatesTimes
Why did Boris do what he did yesterday? Why now? Why are some people thinking about the Tory succession? And they most definitely are. WHAT IS GOING ON? My analysis today attempts some answers:
1. Theresa May is digging in. She is the “Japanese knotweed” (TM) prime minister. It seems she’s no intention of going now, she’s not going after Brexit, she’s not going before the election. Consequence: succession might not be orderly.
2. She faces hellish challenges in the next few months. This includes the declaration of war by Brexiteers. I’m told the appointment of Jacob Rees Mogg is a deliberate hostile act to Theresa May, the ERG Brexiteers are starting to split from gvt
3. What could Brexiteers do? They intend to look very carefully at Lords EU Withdrawal defeats and then see if they can team up with Labour - who might cynically endorse any chance to give Theresa a bloody nose - and oppose her in the Commons
4. Then there are remain-supporting Tory MPs. They are plotting too. They want some kind of vote in the Commons which might demonstrate the chamber opposes a hard brexit. But - inevitably - they are split over when, and whether to let Brexiteers cause trouble first
5. Then there’s the DUP and the fate of the political fudge signed by Theresa May in December to get “sufficient progress” to move onto trade talks. That is being turned into a legal treaty. If the fudge element disappears will the DUP continue to be as helpful? Seems unlikely
6. Then there’s the 2018 local elections - London councils and some others in thirds. Could the Tories even lose control of all 10 councils they still control in the capital
7. Maybe Theresa May can cling on through all of this, by fudging, deflecting blame and ensuring no alternatives emerge
8. But maybe Theresa May can’t cling on. Which is why it would be silly for potential successors not to prepare the ground a little bit.
9. There is no need to worry 2018 will be boring in Westminster
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dea7fcb8-008e-11e8-9de1-e6776d524215

Faisal Islam‏ @faisalislam
On transition, David Davis says: “We’re happy to accept ECJ oversight for that period”
Timms asks the question I put one minute after the Florence speech - will the Withdrawal Agreement simply reapply ECJ jurisdiction for transition, unrepealing the repeal in the Withdrawal Bill?
DD: :” It must have that effect”

Just when you think it can't get any more ridiculous we are taking back control of our laws and courts.

So we can give back control to the eu courts and comply with their laws.

I was just thinking about what obligation charities have to ensure their donations are raised in an acceptable way and then saw this.

The National Body For English Charities Says They Shouldn't Accept Donations From The Presidents Club
www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/the-national-body-for-english-charities-says-they-shouldnt?utm_term=.xkd33oX1Nb#.gwN1183nEe

Faisal Islam‏Verified account
@faisalislam
Rees Mogg: if on 30 March 2019 we are paying in, under ECJ jurisdiction, are we not a vassal state?
DD: if that was the case in perpetuity my answer would be yes, but for a short time, No

Rees Mogg wants DD to clarify that ECJ jurisdiction during transition will have “automatic effect” ie in UK law.
DD: exactly that
JRM: in what way are we not a vassal state?
DD: we are transiting

JRM then basically does a “gotcha” - its no longer an implementation phase, its a transition from in the EU to out the EU “that’s a big shift in policy” (ie from Lancaster House)

Sam Coates Times
‏*@SamCoatesTimes*
I strongly suspect Boris Johnson agrees with Jacob Rees Mogg on this point.

Faisal Islam‏Verified account
@faisalislam
Rees-Mogg on new laws applying: “Isn’t that a really rather a weak answer?” He says to DD relying on slow EU legislation

Rees Mogg asks if FT quoting No 10 spokesman that leaving ECJ jurisdiction never formally a red line is correct...
DD: “I never used the phrase red line at all”

DD says that it’ll be a mixed agreement “it will take some time to conclude, as the Canadian one did (errr 7 years), it will get there I’m quite sure but it will take some time - thats the implementation period”

** Rees -Mogg says to DD “Why arent we just extending Article 50? Be honest about it” - courts, money, new laws, are same as EU, he says

DD says that negotiating trade deals is the big advantage of leaving his way, not just extending Article 50... ie not abiding by “sincere cooperation”
“Insincerity is not Government policy” says DD

DD: after December I think its highly likely, extraordinarily likely that we will achieve the outcome we are seeking a free trade deal, good or better, not going to be a bad deal i dont think”

I'm not saying you are wrong or that there isn't an issue but it is not as simple as just finding two sides to an arguement and presenting them equally.

Being equally critical of two sides is not the same as giving both sides equal exposure.

Take the climate change denial business. It's reasonable to report that deniers exist, and present the counterargument. But it should also be challenged so that people can decide for themselves which one they find more substantial. Otherwise you get the 'false balance' that you describe.

So the big problem here is that journalists are often unwilling to scrutinise different sides of an argument.

BBC News

1. seems to invite any Tom Dick Or Harry on with no caveat as to their position (which is effectively "bloke says")

2. When T,D or H use a figure, it goes unchallenged

3. Despite "Leave" being a meaningless word without supporting definition, anyone representing Leave is never challenged on the point that *the whole country" didn't specify what Leave meant.

4. Meanwhile anyone who even thought about remain in secret whilst having their pre-Today dump gets grilled to within an inch of their lives over the will of the people, and the people have spoken.

For evidence, listen (and it would serve the BBC right if you torrented it) to Tony Blair being interrogated interviewed on "Today" R4, 4/1/2018. Then find any BBC radio interview with JRM, BoJo, DD, Liam Fox, or Farage.

I'm willing to bet a quid to charity that there is no-one on this thread who supports remain whose sole source of news is the BBC.

Being equally critical of two sides is not the same as giving both sides equal exposure.

By the same token, being able to understand an argument is not the same as supporting it. But the overall effect of years of paedosteria in the UK (and possibly the US) has had the chilling effect of shutting down debate by mob rule. Follow any mixed-ability online debate about (say) the death penalty, and it's not too long before expressing a view attracts the accusation that "only a paedo would say that". (Memory may play tricks, but I'm pretty certain that happened in a Question Time a long time ago, and DD had to pull the audience member up pretty quickly).

In the main, I can understand why some Leavers feel the way they do, and have heard some pretty good arguments for Leave that aren't predicated on bent bananas, "taking back control" or some other gobshite Farage bullshit. It's just at the end of the day, none of them stack up enough to justify the upheaval of leaving. And indeed, some of those arguments would actually be Very Good Points to take to the EU and see about building a democratic consensus for change.

Not sure why, but reading JRMs forensic cross-examination of DD gave me a warm glow. By the pricking of my thumbs, something this way comes.

I'm willing to bet a quid to charity that there is no-one on this thread who supports remain whose sole source of news is the BBC.

Hmm... considering the people on this thread are a pretty small sample of unusually informed people I don't think that's saying all that much. I would doubt there are many leavers whose sole source of news is the BBC either. I imagine most read the daily mail or at least click on the off bit of random on Facebook or whatever.

I would doubt there are many leavers whose sole source of news is the BBC either.

If this was Family Fortunes, I'd say Express first ... or even the Sun.

JRM's use of the term "vassal state" is deliberate and provocative.
We do not pay tribute to the EU. We pay contributions to be in the EU. We are not obliged to supply military assistance to the EU; we cooperate with other EU countries in the military sphere. We have been part of the decision making process of the EU throughout our membership.

I have yet to hear JRM taken to task for his use of the term and don't expect to.

Take the climate change denial business. It's reasonable to report that deniers exist, and present the counterargument. But it should also be challenged so that people can decide for themselves which one they find more substantial. Otherwise you get the 'false balance' that you describe.

The argument I was trying to make was that merely giving equal exposure is in fact misleading. So if everytime I mention climate change I have to say 'of course there are some people who believe it does not exist and here are all the reasons these people are mistaken' I am still giving climate deniers a weight that their position does not deserve. So actually in a lot of cases I don't think it is reasonable to report that deniers exist as even a critical mention gives class legitimacy.

Though really, saying that, what I am really trying to get to is that, yes there is a problem in the BBC and the way it reports news, but so far the rules put in place to try and make them neutral in fact end up causing a lot more issues due to false balance. We have to be careful about what is put in place because it is just not simple or objective. What you may see as an idea lacking in any merit seems like the most important thing in the world to another person. Who decides and how do they do that?

We knew about Lloyd's but more detail here..
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/we-cant-live-with-this-uncertainty-over-brexit-lloyds-ceo.html?__source=Facebook

Well this is a refreshing change in politics!

We need to focus on details that can be fixed in a practical way rather than ideological and bureaucratic bollocks.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/24/need-run-clean-decent-jails-prisons-minister-rory-stewart?CMP=twt_gu
We need to run clean, safe jails, says new prisons minister
Rory Stewart tells MPs focus needs to move from grand issues to practicalities

We need to focus on details that can be fixed in a practical way rather than ideological and bureaucratic bollocks.

I think that thudding you just heard was the sound of politicians across the country fainting in shock at the mere idea.

But, to retreat from my general snarkiness for a moment. There are really two fundamental options when it comes to improving jail's. Either you put in more money to fund better prisons and more staff or you reduce the number of people you put in jail.

The problem is the right really like putting people in jail, so any move to reduce the offences leading to jail time gets big bad headlines in the daily mail. The Tories also do not like spending money on state services so putting real money in prisons is probably not going to happen. Of course there is also the privatisation route, which is causing issues such as high rates of strip searches and restraint in a women's prison in Peterborough. So not working out so well.

So if he really wants genuine improvement in prisons he is going on have to address the fundamental ways in which the Tories and the right view them and the things that need to be done to improve them. Call me Captain Sceptical, but I'll believe it when I see it.

But, to retreat from my general snarkiness for a moment. There are really two fundamental options when it comes to improving jail's. Either you put in more money to fund better prisons and more staff or you reduce the number of people you put in jail.

Which leads on to the entire concept of "criminal justice" ... at which point most people go "eek !" and scuttle back to trotting out "short sharp shock" etc etc.

Like most countries, the UK doesn't really do criminal justice. Instead we have a hotch potch of some vague notion of civil order and stability layered with various levels of moral and religious drivers. If we started by admitting that, we'd be light years towards making it better.

I was about to post much the same as Bigly. I don't doubt that Rory Stewart believes what he says, he is, I believe, one of the more sensible Tories.

But again it's the Tory attitude that they think know they are of a finer clay than the rest of the population. And yes, this does include the PM who is so happy to go on about being a vicar's daughter but doesn't seem to know what Jesus said about rich and poor.

At this point, I'll take any improvement on ideological nonsense...

...that's how bad it is.

At this point, I'll take any improvement on ideological nonsense...

Lets start with the (frankly racist) "War on Drugs". Which has cost uncounted billions (seriously uncounted. No government can ever tell you how much has been spent). And that's before the cost of criminalising people (which ensures a proportion end up perma-prisoners, as the cycle of criminal record-no job-criminal behaviour spins on) ?

We could also dump some of the snowflake "internet offence" laws ?

Never gonna happen. People in power need these laws so they can deal with the riff-raff. Bearing in mind the people who make laws are very rarely inconvenienced by them.

My scepticism from reading article is because I envision it going something like this:

Minister walks into prison with broken windows and asks why they haven't fixed the windows. Prison manager type person says, "because we have no more money". I simply don't believe prisons are in this state simply because nobody has pointed out they should fix the windows. So where does the money come from? We are back to the question of either reducing service or increasing budget, which means dealing with the fundamental questions of sentencing, how much we spend or what we spend the money on (windows or rehabilitation? For example).

And thus fixing windows turns into ideological nonsense...

Sorry, I have a cold and am probably overly negative today due to excessive snot.