Westminstenders: Don't and Keep Living

[RedToothBrush]

Status Recall as of approx 1

Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement (The WA) :
Currently parliamentary session blocked in its current form due to being nodded through (government accept defeat without vote). It can not be represented to the house without changes (which the EU will not allow - unless perhaps it reverts back to May's WA) or a 'substantive change of circumstances' (eg another party says they will support it and there is reason to believe Johnson now has a clear majority).

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill (The WAB):
The withdrawal agreement bill is purely about how the WA will be carried out in UK law. It passed its 2nd reading which is merely a indication of interest of support for the bill. The next stage is where amendments can be made and this is most relevant to the political declaration which accompanies the WA settlement.

This however has hit a road block due to the government recklessly and foolishly trying to push such an important and far reaching bill through in a ridiculous time frame, which no one could possibly give proper scrutiny to.

If Johnson wants a deal in the best int3of the country its an essential part of the process regardless of which side of the fence you sit. Failure to spot problems could leave us shafted by other countries later down the line.

The timetable is now under review and negotiation with Corbyn.

The extension with the EU:
The EU president has signaled he would support an extension. This is in part because issues in London mean it is highly unlikely the EU will be able to ratify a deal by next Thursday even if they have an emergency meeting. It's in their interests to extend in some way.

Going along with the Benn Act is the politically least risky option, though France are making growling noises about it.

Two issues spring up with this. The first is the issue of the UK having no EU Commissioner after 1st Nov and the second is the EU budget runs until 31st Dec 2019.

The Queens Speech:
The government as it stands might struggle to pass the QS especially with the DUP off side. It failing to pass is, in some ways, a good thing for Johnson. The speech was essentially a manifesto and blocking it is a good electioneering strategy. It also puts pressure on the opposition for a Vote of No Confidence.

There are already rumblings following the passing of the 2nd reading of the WAB and the EU signally they are open to an extension that some in Labour (including crucially Corbyn) do think they must agree to a GE in the autumn.

A Vonc is still unlikely to happen until the EU formalise the extension and the EU are unlikely to do this until its clear what Johnson's next move with the WAB is. Johnson meanwhile doesn't want to agree to a longer timetable as that ruins his do or die speech and facilitates an extension. So expect some brinkmanship over timings here. We might not get a formal extension approved until the wire.

The GE:
All Brexit is currently about is manoeuvring to win the next GE. It must be seen in this context.

Polling suggests that an extension without the WA is bad for Johnson and he is likely to lose support to the Brexit Party. There is an ever shrinking likelihood of the WA going through before 31st Oct, if its not impossible already. Thus Johnson needs to see if he can get the WA through very quickly after an extension but before a GE.

This reasonably lines up with Labour's problems. Before the WA goes through a GE looks bad for them with them haemorrhaging support to the LDs and the the Brexit Party.

If they are seen to facilitate the WA passing before an election then there may also be a sense of betrayal amongst their majority remain supporters but it might let them off with the Brexit Party threat particularly in the Midlands.

Meanwhile the SNP have an increasing desire for a GE. They look like they will clean up in Scotland and it might be their last chance now to stop Brexit. Similar logic applies to the LDs.

Thus the chances of a GE shoot up once an extension is granted, but the Cons and Labour have a mutual self interest in getting a deal done ASAP before a GE in many ways.

This of course would probably suit the French and therefore the EU.

Which is why a deal before 15th Nov and by the 15th Dec, isnt unrealistic. A GE might come before Christmas but I think both the Cons and Lab have something of an interest in letting the dust settle and getting new messaging in to head off threats from the LDs and Brexit Party. I'd be more inclined to say a Feb election tbh.

Anyway things may have changed since I started typing this up given how quickly things are moving.

But despite the headlines that Brexit is in pergortory it is now slowly rolling forward and now has some momentum behind it.

I was at the doctor what did I miss?

The LDs and Tories are poles apart on the most important political issue of our generation...

I dont think you're right on that or they wouldnt have so many Tory MP's in their midst

Re GDPR : I have been reported to the ICO for a data breach. On the submission form notifying was an explanation of what had been done to mitigate and avoid repetition. That will be the end of it.

Americans have no rights over their data whatsoever - your ISP can sell your browsing data to the highest bidder and there is nothing you can do about it.
exciting what junk mail arrives if you have a teenage boy in the house
Now that Americans are learning about GDPR they are more likely to come up to the EU standard than the UK going down.

The Libdems are far more likely to go into coalition with a more centrist (Starmer /Watson) party than a Tory one. They would have preferred to have done so in 2010 and had talks with Labour but the numbers did not stack up. They believed they were going into coalition with a one nation centrist party and remember there was plenty of window dressing. The extent to which they had the tiger by the tail is shown by what happened when Cameron got his majority. It’s not been more of the same has it? Aside from the acceleration to austerity and the dive to universal credit there would never have been a referendum in a coalition government. Whoever is in charge and it seems to be unlikely to be anyone moderate anytime soon, if not Cummings and Boris some other neo Brexit Party frothing at the mouth Or careerist type, voted in by the all those UKippers who have taken over the membership, is even less likely to be acceptable to the party than Corbyn. Many of their Labour converts held back a long time because of the toxicity of the memory of the coalition, but in the end they jumped which says it all in terms of the far left being as toxic as the far right.

Caroline Lucas:

"MPs had more time to debate the Wild Animals in Circuses Act (affecting 19 animals) than they will to decide the future of 65 million people"

I'm not sure how many MPs (or journalists) realise this:

Dmitry Grozoubinski@DmitryOpines

UK MPs:

Even an FTA which eliminates ALL tariffs and sees the EU fully recognise ALL UK rules
wouldn't eliminate the need for customs checks in the Irish Sea.

If you're voting for a deal that includes such checks
believing they'll never be needed, you have been ill advised.

The extent to which they had the tiger by the tail is shown by what happened when Cameron got his majority. It’s not been more of the same has it? Aside from the acceleration to austerity and the dive to universal credit there would never have been a referendum in a coalition government.

I think one of the issues in 2015 was that a chunk of centrist voters preferred continuation of the LD/Tory coalition to Labour, and accidentally engineered a Tory majority in trying to bring this about.

The lovely Alyn Smith used the internet and how to control the data as an example of the major power blocs and their different approaches.

China: authoritarian; how the state controls its citizens.

USA: corporate; allows businesses to make money out of the data used by its citizens.

EU: citizens: putting individuals in control of the data that is held on them.

The UK on its own doesn't have a chance on its own and no prizes for guessing which model is likely to prevail once we are on our lonesome And those who complain about "having to cookies all the time" and "it's all the EU's fault" are just sticking their heads in the sand about the fact that previously companies just collected that information without their permission

The UK can't go back to lording it over the world and/or acting in splendid isolation post Brexit (as it would appear that various Brexiters simultaneously aspire to ). The world has moved on.

Now that Americans are learning about GDPR they are more likely to come up to the EU standard than the UK going down.

Indeed, Elizabeth Warren is pushing this, I believe. As is the state of California (which is significant, since that's where Google, Microsoft and Facebook are headquartered).

What is more interesting is that the trade deals the US is pushing around the world all have a few things in common. 1: all your data belongs to Uncle Sam, and 2: You have no rights in the US over that data.

Obviously a free-trade UK will just have to sign up to those terms (or maybe it already has, after the 1994 secret treaty, I do wonder how many more there are). Which will be interesting because the EU most certainly will not. And is already squaring up for a showdown over it.

^^ I can't quite believe it, but I genuinely don't think people realise that leaving the EU means leaving the EU. The only other option is to have some kind of membership of one or other of the movement Unions.

Merkel nailed it - she has said that once Brexit happens, Britain will be a rival to the EU. Many people do not seem to grasp that simple reality. What do you have to say to make them realise it?? We will be independent. Borders will appear. That's what independence and sovereignty means!

Emilyontmoor
there would never have been a referendum in a coalition government

There was a referendum in the coalition government. We got a vote about voting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

I absolutely agree that the NHS is picking up the mess left by the social care system. Whatever the safeguarding responsibilities Councils have, the fact as I have witnessed is that NHS orthopaedic wards are full of octogenarians who were not safe in their homes and have fallen. On an orthopaedic ward where there were six bays each with six beds, over 80% of the beds were occupied by old people with dementia that was at the level of or far worse than my FIL’s, by the time he needed 24 hour care to keep him safe. In our 6 bed ward that ranged from screaming and shouting because they were in pain and did not know where they were or why to wondering naked and in one case urinating wherever she stood. I have nothing but respect for nurses that were coping with that whilst trying to meet medical needs with far less staffing than is required in care homes, that even though pain relief after complex and very painful surgery was always an hour or more late. Young people went home after two days after surgery even in pain and with low mobility but the old people were there for days until they could be sure they had a home that was even vaguely safe to go back to. In one case that was with a son who was openly and loudly abusive to his mother on the ward. I remember as a cleaner in a hospital in the 70s orthopaedic wards as full of people with sports and traffic accident injuries. Physiotherapy services are so stretched they are simply refusing new referrals, and even urgent referrals for young patients With complex fractures after surgery are not seen for a month. The cost must be tremendous.

Add to that the increasing cost of new treatments for eg increasing rates of Cancer. The good news is that a whole raft of new drugs for patients who have secondary Cancer have been fast tracked by NICE because their trials were so positive that it was immoral to continue not to offer them to all patients are keeping patients alive for years longer but they are expensive.....

On MRI, PET and CT scanning machines, the number of machines per capita in this country are simply much fewer than the US and much of the rest of the developed world. I am not sure about France. As a result there are unacceptable waiting times for diagnostic scans for Cancer patients, now made worse by delays in reading them. My Consultants told me they cannot do the routine yearly follow up scans for those who have been treated for Cancer that are the norm elsewhere in the world , even for their private patients because that would increase the queue for finite resources........ Presumably that means that private providers can keep their charges high.

Asking I thought that as I posted, I should have said the referendum. You know, the referendum to end all referendums 😏

TatianaLariana said The idea that 4 visits a day is available to everyone who needs it until they are ready for a home is simply not true. And 4 visits a day is actually insufficient long before those people are considered unsafe at home.

That isn't what I said, as I was responding to the previous poster who claimed that there was no home help provision any more. Nor did I say that 4 visits a day was enough to meet people's needs, but it does seem to be the rule of thumb for most local authorities in terms of maximum home care provision. The decision as to when and why people move to residential care is a complex and emotive one, where issues of autonomy, paternalism and concern for wellbeing are being played out. Not all of this is about money and the ability to pay privately: amongst other things society's changing demographics, women's roles, the nature and location of typical employment - these all feed into how care is provided to people who are aging and/or disabled.

Luckily for my relatives they had the money to pay for private carers, but it was an insight into the harsh reality that OAPs who can’t afford to pay carers face. You cannot rely on the state for care in old age

I agree, and unless as a society we're ok with this (I'm not), then we need to have a proper debate about it. It's one of the reasons why I'd be interested in a citizen's assembly approach - there are so very many issues and interests which are often in conflict, and the rather polarised way in which the media tend to report the issues often does a disservice to their importance and complexity.

I can't quite believe it, but I genuinely don't think people realise that leaving the EU means leaving the EU

Oh, I can believe it. Remember some MPs didn't realise it either.

It's shocking how clueless some MPs are. Even more shocking is that they hold high office!

Clueless ones and lying ones.

NB not all of them! I don't subscribe to Cummings theory that parliament is the enemy.

NAMPALT

I'm with you, tobee.

And, you know, be fair. The MPs will have a range of disciplines behind them when they enter Parliament. Being expert on the issues Brexit has raised is difficult. It's why Brexit should have had a committed stage either before or just after the Referendum.

I dont think you're right on that or they wouldnt have so many Tory MP's in their midst

They are picking up the moderate Tories, like Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen, the sort that made you wonder why they were Tories in the first place.

What you said Arborea was that dementia sufferers, in the early days, are generally cared for at home by a mixture of carers and family. This is true but the state care is totally insufficient - it’s mainly family if you can’t afford private carers. You also said:

about 4 visits a day tends to be the maximum that LAs fund, but this model tends to be the starting point and will typically carry on until the person isn't able to manage safely at home any more, at which point a residential placement would be considered

Wasn’t disputing that 4 visits is the maximum LAs will fund. Was saying that’s not sufficient for people with even medium care needs and it will certainly not suffice until they can’t manage ‘safely’ any more and are obliged to go into a care home.

They are picking up the moderate Tories, like Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen, the sort that made you wonder why they were Tories in the first place.

Austerity begs to differ

Being expert on the issues Brexit has raised is difficult. It's why Brexit should have had a committed stage either before or just after the Referendum.
Well said. Leaving/not leaving the EU should have been a non party political issue (pie in the sky I realise). Instead there was no careful thought behind it at all. Even a 60/40 winning margin might have been helpful. Now all we've got is rabid factions yelling at each other. Business losing billions and waiting for a decision...

Hear hear derxa
I'm lucky that my work is pretty much unaffected but all around me are turning purple holding their breath
and for farmers trying to work out what seed to buy and what livestock to breed from must be just horrible.

Well said. Leaving/not leaving the EU should have been a non party political issue (pie in the sky I realise). Instead there was no careful thought behind it at all

Because the most cursory analysis would have revealed there were no quantifiable benefits to leaving the EU. There still aren't.

There are qualifiable benefits (if you don't look too carefully) blue passports and so on. But if you had asked people Are you willing to lose £1,000 a year to have a blue passport ? I suspect there may have been a somewhat different result.

All paths lead back to that thundercunt Cameron. If he had acted like a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, rather than a wannabee head boy of a second rate public school, we wouldn't be in this mess now.