Westminstenders: Compromise is a difficult word

[RedToothBrush]

Today the HoC had a water leak. It closed the house for the day. This isn't without consequence; any hope for the opportunity of Indicative Votes on Monday had cold water poured on it.

Meanwhile talks between talks between May and Corbyn were about as productive as you'd imagine. But apparently they had nice tea and biscuits.

The Cooper Bill, the last minute lock on May getting a extension to prevent no deal, has been in the Lords today. I say it's been in the Lords but Tories have filibuster Ed on procedure for over 6 hours to prevent the chance of it passing the house. Tory whips are timetabled until 6am but the opposition benches have vowed to go to 7.30am. So far the votes to ruin the procedure have failed comfortably so the opposition have the number. Its just a question of time.

The trouble is with the Lords not sitting tomorrow that means the bill won't get passed until Monday and there are fears it won't get royal assent until Tuesday.

The bill doesn't prevent accidental no deal but it would be a barrier to May.

It therefore looks like May's gambit with the EU to get an extension is to say her plan is ongoing talks with Labour for a cross party solution. It won't wash.

No deal looks more and more likely.

A couple of years ago I did a survey and turned out to have the same ideas on energy as UKIP, on further investigation this was because I believed in a mixture of green energy and nuclear power.

dreich there was something I agreed with UKIP on too. Could have been grammar schools. Or maybe something like you - green and nuclear power to avoid fossil fuels. I was a bit

having I must admit my first reaction was that cannot be true!

To be fair to UKIP , i have heard of some other policies they have apart from the obvious

Being even fairer (!) a while before 2016, I read an interview (possibly a discussion) with Farage where he was bemoaning immigration. He was countered with a rather dismissive "but without immigration the economy won't grow" answer ... which had the same trying-to-end-a-debate-ring to it that "taking back control" came to later on.

However, brave Nige instantly retorted with "But why do people think economic growth is more important than social cohesion and ..." (at this point he drifted of into the usual UKIP bollocks and the signal was lost). However one thing I did notice was he never got a reply. Not really. And it's bothered me ever since because (stopped clocks etc) it really should be the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE WORLD TODAY. Unless my understanding is way off beam, if you are relying on year-on-year growth, then you are effectively drawing a line to infinity. Except we haven't got infinite resources on planet Earth. Which, in case anyone missed it, seems to be taking a bit of a battering of late.

Maybe you can have positive growth forever ? But until it's been explained to me how, I remain a little bit sceptical that any government in any country in the world can actually provide economic growth indefinitely. Which is a worry, because currently everyone is acting as if they can.

I'm not at all defending Niges nasty way of putting it. And the fact he forgot possibly the only time he's made sense suggests it was an accident. But it's stuck ever since. And since we're talking maths ....

And if I say something and he then says something different, and I then try to defend my original statement, I am the one contradicting him and "always disagreeing with him for the sake of it"

Sounds familiar!

We have two (female) friends who openly say they don't get into an argument with DH because they know he's right, or if he's not right he'll still win the argument.

One of them is average and simply recognises her weakness in general knowledge, the other is smart but daft.

It irks me that they don't even feel they can have a debate with him though. They have valid arguments which aren't always wrong, they just can't articulate it as well as him.

This is why I'm mindful to a certain extent of dismissing people as 'stupid' in political debate. I do try and listen to what they say, deconstruct it and then rephrase it back to them to see if I've understood their underlying point. And then I go back to DH and argue the toss over it to make sure he knows that actually he's missing something. I'm one of the (very few) who will go straight toe to toe with him. (which is one of the reasons he acknowledges as being why he's married to me).

In a sense this is what I think listening is about in political terms. It's not assuming and taking things at face value but getting behind what people are saying to explore what's actually driving them.

I think perhaps is a quality missing from many politicians who only hear what falls in line with their beliefs and why other politicians are finding Brexit so utterly stressful and outright distressing at times.

It's about the level of empathy you have for other pov as well as what they literally say.

Arg, lonelyplanetmum, don't ask difficult questions on a Friday afternoon! I wouldn't extend the courtesy to KKK members, but I can't adequately explain why.

OYBBK ahem, Aleph (told you I knew nothing!) thanks.x

Thanks dreich too. He can't be daft - he built his first PC aged 9 (just built his own server) and can use the wave patterns in sand to explain infinite numbers to me (and I really AM dense at Maths) But 'School Maths' has 'proved' he is sadly, in his mind at least. Grr.

Ed Milliband lost in 2015, principally because he wouldn't rule out a coalition government with the SNP in the even of Labour failing to win a majority on its own.

I definitely think and have said on here before that people need to be less polarised and take account of other peoples' views.

I read a tweet the other day that I wanted to reply to but didn't want to say anything controversial on Twitter as people get very abusive (which is, I suppose my point).

They said that there was no such thing as concern about immigration, you were just racist.

I completely disagree. I think it is entirely possible to have concern about immigration (and indeed migration from other parts of the UK) if your green fields are being concreted over for housing and you are experiencing shortages of health and education services. I completely accept that those shortages are largely caused by underinvestment. But I think it far too simple to dismiss those concerns as racism. And I've said on here before, that because those concerns were dismissed, they voted for Brexit. Had there been a sensible debate about population growth and movement in general and the need for infrastructure to keep pace, the result might have been different.

Ed Milliband lost in 2015, principally because he wouldn't rule out a coalition government with the SNP in the even of Labour failing to win a majority on its own

Do you think? I thought it was because people couldn't see him as PM. If it had been David, we might have had a very different history since 2015!

I can respect Howabout's desire for Scotland to continue to exert influence in WM (indeed, I sued to share that view ).

But for those that think that the removal of the Scottish MPs would cause the WM Government of the day to fall, remember that it is extremely rare for the colour of the Scottish MPs to make a difference to who the government is - and when they do, it is even rarer that it is a stable government . The current Government is a case in point: the 12 extra Scottish Conservative MPs (and not just the DUP) are what made the difference in May being able to form a Government at all. (and on behalf of Scots )

I do think that a grouping of Labour, LibDem and SNP (I'm not going to say coalition) in another hung parliament would be highly volatile.

If Scotland had, say 50 SNP MPs, 2 Tories (I'll be generous ), 6 Labour and 1 LibDem, then losing those following a successful Independence campaign would still leave Labour as the party with the most seats - but only just - and would have to think about courting the Plaid Cymru and Green vote.

But there again, if one of other of the two conditions for the grouping had been proper PR, legislation for which to be in place before the Indyref2, then even once the Scottish MPs bugger off leave, and if the government then falls, the political landscape would/could change dramatically in the subsequent GE.

Confused - you will be

Realised after posting that I should probably have had an "in my opinion" or similar in there somewhere.

That qualification made, I genuinely do think that! I think you are right about the EM as PM question too by the way but I do really think that, particularly for "swing" voters in England, the potential for the SNP to have ministers in the government was a major disincentive to backing Labour in 2015.

What K G-M is suggesting is a second referendum where the result will overturn the first, that's explicit in his scenario.

But ultimately every vote overturns the previous. That's how time works. Even our justice system - which at one barbaric time in our past could kill a person - has an inbuilt acknowledgement of future correction. (Not that you'd know it given the removal of automatic compensation for wrongfully convicted).

I wonder if all the people who want the 2016 result to be treated as tablets handed down to Moses would be quite as sanguine if they got a parking ticket by mistake and discovered it was set in stone ? A more appropriate analogy since it's been confirmed that there was unlawful if not criminal spending by Leave during the campaign.

Hopefully it's becoming clear that the shelf life of the referendum is starting to approach - it's certain whiffing to high heaven. Leavers have had nearly three years to get their shit together and have singularly failed. Arguably firstly by failing to commit to a Tory Brexit, or a Labour one. In fact, in hindsight, the total failure of Labour and Tory Brexiteers to get together and enact "the will of the people" does rather cast an unflattering eye as to what was more important. Brexit, or a Tory/Labour government ?

Also, to give the SNP their due, they continue to support proper PR, even though they would win fewer seats with it.

Stripy DS was very mathematical (he's at university now).

I used nrich.maths.org when he was younger. I'm not sure what it's like now, though.

having
EXCEPT all the leave voting areas have the least immigration.
My own county is 98.8% white and voted leave 61%
Look at lincoln/boston/skegness/Cornwall/Wales....very low or no immigration.
So I would say that these leave voting areas haven't experienced the economic growth and local boosts to businesses immigration can bring.
I remember one VERY angry red faced man being interviewed pre ref
"WEVE GOT TO KEEP THESE MUSLIMS OUT"
erm...except muslims don't come from EU countries.
And the BBC reporter didnt call him out on it!!
I think many had concerns about refugees which is the same

Not necessarily IMO.

A future referendum could be held between different variations of "leave", for example.

Hypothetical: Say TM and JC can't agree on a plan. I wonder if they could agree to put rival plans to the electorate? If that happened then a future ref would held (3rd) which wouldn't be explicitly overturning the previous (2nd) one

I really don't like this idea of winning referendums.

In my opinion everybody has lost.

Scotland is struggling to maintain its population and English seaside towns are being deserted wholesale. The issue is one of population and investment distribution NOT overpopulation.

However if the SE had not built its 2 tier immigrant fuelled society (including super rich immigration in this) then perhaps some of its growth would not exist to spread.

I watched the Real Housewives of Cheshire last night. (Always loved Towie but struggled with Made in Chelsea) They all had successful hobby businesses. If you try to open an upmarket lingerie / boutique / therapist / jewellery business where I live you run out of wealthy friends to swap cash with fairly quickly.

The thing about ever increasing GDP is interesting. Part of the UK productivity puzzle must be attributable to monetising previously non-monetised parts of the economy. I have been a SAHM for 2 decades. When I do childcare it is not work. When I tutor mine or friends' DC it is not work. When I clean my house it is not work. When I visit my frail neighbour it is not work. When everyone else is paid to do it suddenly UK GDP grows.

I've just been back to a thread from March 2016. Someone somewhere (maybe Germany from their username) was thinking about Ireland:

Fears on leaving:

1. The 'irish problem' as it was so quaintly referred to at school will explode again.
2. Scotland will have another referendum and leave.
3. Spain will go back to preventing the supply of goods and services to Gibraltar and there'll be no real way to stop them.

And someone else said

They will make an anglo irish agreement regards to the Irish border.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2582416-In-out-shake-it-all-about-the-EU-whats-best-to-vote

I also love this:

I am almost tempted to vote for Brexit so we can have the fun of watching as it slowly dawns on Boris Johnson that he backed the wrong horse and he now has the world's worst job as the prime minister who actually has to deal with the consequences of Brexit

With the benefit of hindsight, brilliant.

I completely disagree. I think it is entirely possible to have concern about immigration

Given the incredible breath of the English language, it's a bit shit that we haven't bottomed out the nuances of the matter. Because "immigration" has all sorts of meanings ...

• refugees from countries that the UK has shat on from a great height
• individuals seeking asylum or sanctuary from inhuman regimes (Saudi Arabia and Brunei spring to mind)
• students and exchange workers who are not planning on a permanent stay
• spouses and families of UK citizens who are foreign citizens
• individuals who have applied for citizenship for personal reasons

with an explicit acknowledgement that "as above, so below" there will be a goodly number of UK citizens elsewhere in the world who might fall into the last 3 categories. It's not a one-way process.

But, no. "Immigration" it is ....

isn't the same thing

True. I would probably just say "population growth" as we have a high birth rate too. But it's also, in my area, about people selling their rabbit hutches in London for lots of money to buy expensive houses here. Good luck to them, but bad news for locals who can't afford houses. And those people moving from London can be British, EU or from anywhere else.

So I will redefine "immigration" as Population growth and people moving around.