Johnson is desperate for a deal. Any deal. Or an election before Oct 31. Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo. Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
I think that you can easily argue that Boris will be toast if we don't leave at the end of October. This is completely his fault due to his "do or die", " come what may", "rather die in a ditch" strategy. It is strange that he has not spent more time in Brussels, if he is as keen to get a deal as he claims. His behaviour in Parliament is likely to have made getting a deal passed less likely. His strategy makes no sense to me. You would think that he would only prefer to get a deal because it is the best outcome for our country. This is backed up by the Yellowhammer documents. So if you were motivated by choosing the option that caused the least economic damage to the UK, why would you combine this aim with such a short deadline before implementing the measure that caused the most economic damage. Wouldn't he gain more credibility by apologising for the delay, and extending for a reasonable time to secure a reasonable deal. You either think a deal is in our interests, or you don't. You would think that actually compromising, rather than just talking about it, would make sense. It is madness to support a deal and then say if we don't have one by the end of October, you are quite prepared to inflict a disaster on your own country. He has painted himself into a corner, or planted his feet firmly on the absolute cliff edge, and there seems to be no way back. I think that if he refuses to seek an extension, it will end up back in court, and he will lose again. The intentions of Parliament were crystal clear, and the courts will back them. It is difficult to predict how the polls translate into seats in Parliament. In 2015 UKIP got almost 4 million votes, but only one seat. Whereas the Tories got just over 11 million votes, for 330 seats. Voters will be faced with some difficult choices. Many Tory remainers would prefer to execute their first born than elect Corbyn. Similarly many Labour voters would prefer to amputate two or three body parts, than help to re-elect Boris. This is the case whatever their views on Brexit. While both major parties continue to select MPs from both sides of the argument, it would seem to point to the impasse continuing. One thing is certain, EU members that have witnessed this debacle, are unlikely to be wishing to follow in our footsteps any time soon.
This in my opinion is a major fault in our election process,be it whatever party suffers by this system.
Johnson is desperate for a deal. Any deal. Or an election before Oct 31. Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo. Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
I think that you can easily argue that Boris will be toast if we don't leave at the end of October. This is completely his fault due to his "do or die", " come what may", "rather die in a ditch" strategy. It is strange that he has not spent more time in Brussels, if he is as keen to get a deal as he claims. His behaviour in Parliament is likely to have made getting a deal passed less likely. His strategy makes no sense to me. You would think that he would only prefer to get a deal because it is the best outcome for our country. This is backed up by the Yellowhammer documents. So if you were motivated by choosing the option that caused the least economic damage to the UK, why would you combine this aim with such a short deadline before implementing the measure that caused the most economic damage. Wouldn't he gain more credibility by apologising for the delay, and extending for a reasonable time to secure a reasonable deal. You either think a deal is in our interests, or you don't. You would think that actually compromising, rather than just talking about it, would make sense. It is madness to support a deal and then say if we don't have one by the end of October, you are quite prepared to inflict a disaster on your own country. He has painted himself into a corner, or planted his feet firmly on the absolute cliff edge, and there seems to be no way back. I think that if he refuses to seek an extension, it will end up back in court, and he will lose again. The intentions of Parliament were crystal clear, and the courts will back them. It is difficult to predict how the polls translate into seats in Parliament. In 2015 UKIP got almost 4 million votes, but only one seat. Whereas the Tories got just over 11 million votes, for 330 seats. Voters will be faced with some difficult choices. Many Tory remainers would prefer to execute their first born than elect Corbyn. Similarly many Labour voters would prefer to amputate two or three body parts, than help to re-elect Boris. This is the case whatever their views on Brexit. While both major parties continue to select MPs from both sides of the argument, it would seem to point to the impasse continuing. One thing is certain, EU members that have witnessed this debacle, are unlikely to be wishing to follow in our footsteps any time soon.
This in my opinion is a major fault in our election process,be it whatever party suffers by this system.
A form of proportional representation is much fairer, where every vote counts.
Changing a system that suits the two main parties will always prove to be impossible.
I don't think Labour have a chance, while Corbyn is in place.
Boris surely cant win if we haven't left by the end of October.
The most likely outcome is a Hung Parliament, and no solution.
As I have said previously the public would seem very calm over Parliament having a fourth vote on a WA, or a forth general election since 2015, but are opposed to the one vote that would definitely provide a solution.
LibDim share of vote reduced from 2015, yet went up from 1 to 4 seats
I can't stand UKIP, but it is patently ridiculous that in 2015 UKIP's 4 million votes amounted to 1 seat, whereas SNPs 1.45 million was worth 56 seats.
I know there needs to be weighting for regional parties, but this is ridiculous.
Half the country has safe seats, that have effectively meaningless votes. As an example, in my seat (Clacton) the only 2 meaningful parties will be Conservative and Brexit. A vote for anyone else will just not count.
LibDim share of vote reduced from 2015, yet went up from 1 to 4 seats
I can't stand UKIP, but it is patently ridiculous that in 2015 UKIP's 4 million votes amounted to 1 seat, whereas SNPs 1.45 million was worth 56 seats.
I know there needs to be weighting for regional parties, but this is ridiculous.
Half the country has safe seats, that have effectively meaningless votes. As an example, in my seat (Clacton) the only 2 meaningful parties will be Conservative and Brexit. A vote for anyone else will just not count.
The first past the post system is unfair in many ways.
Many people will be discouraged from voting throughout their whole lives, where they live in a constituency in which a party they dislike gets elected time after time with a huge majority, and they feel that their vote will never ever count.
The fact that a party that may be supported by a huge number of votes, but only be placed second in a large number of constituencies, and would therefore gain a small number of seats, would seem very unfair.
It is impossible to expect any change that is not supported by the two main parties.
We seem to hold ourselves up as a great example to the rest of the world in many areas, when in reality many of them don't stand up to much scrutiny.
LibDim share of vote reduced from 2015, yet went up from 1 to 4 seats
I can't stand UKIP, but it is patently ridiculous that in 2015 UKIP's 4 million votes amounted to 1 seat, whereas SNPs 1.45 million was worth 56 seats.
I know there needs to be weighting for regional parties, but this is ridiculous.
Half the country has safe seats, that have effectively meaningless votes. As an example, in my seat (Clacton) the only 2 meaningful parties will be Conservative and Brexit. A vote for anyone else will just not count.
The first past the post system is unfair in many ways.
Many people will be discouraged from voting throughout their whole lives, where they live in a constituency in which a party they dislike gets elected time after time with a huge majority, and they feel that their vote will never ever count.
The fact that a party that may be supported by a huge number of votes, but only be placed second in a large number of constituencies, and would therefore gain a small number of seats, would seem very unfair.
It is impossible to expect any change that is not supported by the two main parties.
We seem to hold ourselves up as a great example to the rest of the world in many areas, when in reality many of them don't stand up to much scrutiny.
The thing that amuses me is that (regardless of peoples position re the EU) the European elections in the UK are a lot fairer. I'm mystified as to why Brexit/Ukip are not championing this as the way forward
Mind you, I'm also waiting for Mr Farage to admit that the biggest single UK beneficiary of the enormous bill for Pensions from the European Parliament is Mr Farage...
LibDim share of vote reduced from 2015, yet went up from 1 to 4 seats
I can't stand UKIP, but it is patently ridiculous that in 2015 UKIP's 4 million votes amounted to 1 seat, whereas SNPs 1.45 million was worth 56 seats.
I know there needs to be weighting for regional parties, but this is ridiculous.
Half the country has safe seats, that have effectively meaningless votes. As an example, in my seat (Clacton) the only 2 meaningful parties will be Conservative and Brexit. A vote for anyone else will just not count.
The first past the post system is unfair in many ways.
Many people will be discouraged from voting throughout their whole lives, where they live in a constituency in which a party they dislike gets elected time after time with a huge majority, and they feel that their vote will never ever count.
The fact that a party that may be supported by a huge number of votes, but only be placed second in a large number of constituencies, and would therefore gain a small number of seats, would seem very unfair.
It is impossible to expect any change that is not supported by the two main parties.
We seem to hold ourselves up as a great example to the rest of the world in many areas, when in reality many of them don't stand up to much scrutiny.
The thing that amuses me is that (regardless of peoples position re the EU) the European elections in the UK are a lot fairer. I'm mystified as to why Brexit/Ukip are not championing this as the way forward
Mind you, I'm also waiting for Mr Farage to admit that the biggest single UK beneficiary of the enormous bill for Pensions from the European Parliament is Mr Farage...
He will never willingly admit to that.
Perhaps we could reduce the £39billion, by not paying the pensions.
Probably the saddest thing about politics for me is that I have had to listen to a number of politicians, and commenters over the last few months claiming that Nigel Farage is the UKs most influential politician over the last 30 years.
American model Jennifer Arcuri 'told friends she was having a sexual affair with Boris Johnson': Fresh claims emerge about Prime Minister's close relationship with entrepreneur amid police investigation into his conduct
American businesswoman and ex-model Jennifer Arcuri told friends she was having a sexual affair with Boris Johnson, it was claimed last night. Among those who Ms Arcuri (right and centre with Mr Johnson at a data conference in 2014) confided in were university classmates and a Conservative Party activist who said: 'She told me they were sleeping together. The prime minister has been dogged by allegations he improperly provided benefits to the entrepreneur's company during his stint as London Mayor. But as he continues to evade questions surrounding his friendship with Ms Arcuri, a US reporter close to the entrepreneur has given a bombshell interview detailing Mr Johnson and her's close relationship. David Enrich, the financial editor of the New York Times, said that Ms Arcuri had confided to close university peers she was sleeping with Mr Johnson. He said: 'Two friends from her business class said they had been told by Arcuri that she was sleeping with Boris.' These fresh revelations of the prime minister's links to Ms Arcuri came on the eve of his party conference (pictured arriving in Manchester with girlfriend Carrie Symonds, left) where he will hope to shake off a
Downing Street denies claim Boris Johnson squeezed journalist's thigh
Downing Street has denied a journalist's claim that Boris Johnson squeezed her thigh under the table at a private lunch. Charlotte Edwardes said the incident took place at the offices of The Spectator magazine in London shortly after Mr Johnson became editor in 1999. In her first column for The Sunday Times, Ms Edwardes said she had confided in a woman who was sitting on the other side of Mr Johnson, who told her: "Oh God, he did exactly the same to me." Downing Street has denied the claims, with a Number 10 spokesman saying: “This allegation is untrue.”
I wrote about the time Boris Johnson squeezed my thigh over lunch - while doing the same thing to the woman sitting on his other side #DoubleThighSqueezer @TheSTStyle@thesundaytimes https://www. thetimes.co.uk/article/charlo tte-edwardes-on-boris-johnson-s-wandering-hands-hnxnqwbb8 …
In her column, Ms Edwardes said: "I'm seated on Johnson's right; on his left is a young woman I know. "More wine is poured; more wine is drunk. Under the table I feel Johnson's hand on my thigh. He gives it a squeeze. "His hand is high up my leg and he has enough inner flesh beneath his fingers to make me sit suddenly upright." Labour's shadow secretary for women and equalities Dawn Butler said it was a "shocking but sadly all too familiar story".
Could you point to one tangible advantage of leaving the EU that is likely to improve your life?
Lots of work in the fresh air and Fields of Cornwall........
.....oh yes, and cheaper prices in WETHERSPOONS (which has already happened)
The D1 ck strikes again.
JD Wetherspoon may have breached law over 1.9m Brexit beer mats
JD Wetherspoon has been accused of breaching the Companies Act after failing to seek shareholder approval for spending on almost 2m pro-leave beer mats before the 2016 EU referendum. The pub chain spent £94,856 during the referendum campaign, comprising £18,000 on 1.5m “Brexit beer mats”, £8,400 on 200,000 beer mats, and £68,186 on another 200,000 beer mats, 5,000 posters and 500,000 booklets, Electoral Commission records show. Legal experts said shareholder approval was necessary because the spending constituted political expenditure under the 2006 legislation.
Comments
This in my opinion is a major fault in our election process,be it whatever party suffers by this system.
Changing a system that suits the two main parties will always prove to be impossible.
I don't think Labour have a chance, while Corbyn is in place.
Boris surely cant win if we haven't left by the end of October.
The most likely outcome is a Hung Parliament, and no solution.
As I have said previously the public would seem very calm over Parliament having a fourth vote on a WA, or a forth general election since 2015, but are opposed to the one vote that would definitely provide a solution.
SNP-977,000 votes:-35 seats
Conservative-757,000 votes-12 seats
Labour-707,000-7 seats
Lib Dems-179,000-4 seats
LibDim share of vote reduced from 2015, yet went up from 1 to 4 seats
I can't stand UKIP, but it is patently ridiculous that in 2015 UKIP's 4 million votes amounted to 1 seat, whereas SNPs 1.45 million was worth 56 seats.
I know there needs to be weighting for regional parties, but this is ridiculous.
Half the country has safe seats, that have effectively meaningless votes. As an example, in my seat (Clacton) the only 2 meaningful parties will be Conservative and Brexit. A vote for anyone else will just not count.
Many people will be discouraged from voting throughout their whole lives, where they live in a constituency in which a party they dislike gets elected time after time with a huge majority, and they feel that their vote will never ever count.
The number of seats allocated to the four individual UK countries seems quite fair. As per the electorate summary on the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies#Scotland
The fact that a party that may be supported by a huge number of votes, but only be placed second in a large number of constituencies, and would therefore gain a small number of seats, would seem very unfair.
It is impossible to expect any change that is not supported by the two main parties.
We seem to hold ourselves up as a great example to the rest of the world in many areas, when in reality many of them don't stand up to much scrutiny.
Mind you, I'm also waiting for Mr Farage to admit that the biggest single UK beneficiary of the enormous bill for Pensions from the European Parliament is Mr Farage...
Perhaps we could reduce the £39billion, by not paying the pensions.
Probably the saddest thing about politics for me is that I have had to listen to a number of politicians, and commenters over the last few months claiming that Nigel Farage is the UKs most influential politician over the last 30 years.
That is really embarrassing.
American businesswoman and ex-model Jennifer Arcuri told friends she was having a sexual affair with Boris Johnson, it was claimed last night. Among those who Ms Arcuri (right and centre with Mr Johnson at a data conference in 2014) confided in were university classmates and a Conservative Party activist who said: 'She told me they were sleeping together. The prime minister has been dogged by allegations he improperly provided benefits to the entrepreneur's company during his stint as London Mayor. But as he continues to evade questions surrounding his friendship with Ms Arcuri, a US reporter close to the entrepreneur has given a bombshell interview detailing Mr Johnson and her's close relationship. David Enrich, the financial editor of the New York Times, said that Ms Arcuri had confided to close university peers she was sleeping with Mr Johnson. He said: 'Two friends from her business class said they had been told by Arcuri that she was sleeping with Boris.' These fresh revelations of the prime minister's links to Ms Arcuri came on the eve of his party conference (pictured arriving in Manchester with girlfriend Carrie Symonds, left) where he will hope to shake off a
Downing Street has denied a journalist's claim that Boris Johnson squeezed her thigh under the table at a private lunch.
Charlotte Edwardes said the incident took place at the offices of The Spectator magazine in London shortly after Mr Johnson became editor in 1999.
In her first column for The Sunday Times, Ms Edwardes said she had confided in a woman who was sitting on the other side of Mr Johnson, who told her: "Oh God, he did exactly the same to me."
Downing Street has denied the claims, with a Number 10 spokesman saying: “This allegation is untrue.”
I wrote about the time Boris Johnson squeezed my thigh over lunch - while doing the same thing to the woman sitting on his other side #DoubleThighSqueezer @TheSTStyle @thesundaytimes
https://www.
thetimes.co.uk/article/charlo
tte-edwardes-on-boris-johnson-s-wandering-hands-hnxnqwbb8
…
In her column, Ms Edwardes said: "I'm seated on Johnson's right; on his left is a young woman I know.
"More wine is poured; more wine is drunk. Under the table I feel Johnson's hand on my thigh. He gives it a squeeze.
"His hand is high up my leg and he has enough inner flesh beneath his fingers to make me sit suddenly upright."
Labour's shadow secretary for women and equalities Dawn Butler said it was a "shocking but sadly all too familiar story".
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/downing-street-denies-claim-boris-johnson-squeezed-journalists-thigh/ar-AAI1EkQ?ocid=spartanntp
JD Wetherspoon may have breached law over 1.9m Brexit beer mats
JD Wetherspoon has been accused of breaching the Companies Act after failing to seek shareholder approval for spending on almost 2m pro-leave beer mats before the 2016 EU referendum.
The pub chain spent £94,856 during the referendum campaign, comprising £18,000 on 1.5m “Brexit beer mats”, £8,400 on 200,000 beer mats, and £68,186 on another 200,000 beer mats, 5,000 posters and 500,000 booklets, Electoral Commission records show.
Legal experts said shareholder approval was necessary because the spending constituted political expenditure under the 2006 legislation.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/jd-wetherspoon-may-breached-law-120122867.html