aaid

Amazing what a change of editor can do to a paper.

Anyone else getting promoted tweets from Number 10 telling me to support the deal in the national interest?

Theoretically possible but not practially so. The scenario you're painting is one where a new Tory government could be formed out of the current parliament that would "command the confidence of the house". In that case they'd probably win the second vote - the two week window is designed to allow the government to address whatever issues led to them losing the first vote. It's hard to see how that would happen but it would depend on the numbers.

Esther McVey gone as well. I hope someone explains to her how Universal Credit works.

Two things that seem to be getting confused here. 1. Vote of no confidence in her as Tory leader, triggered by 48 letters for Tory MPs going in to the 1922 committee. This is an internal Tory party process and only Tory MPs get to vote. If she survives that - and she needs a majority of Tory MPs, around 150 to do so, she's safe and can't be challenged for another 12 months. If she loses then there will be a election within the Tory party, who will de facto be the new PM. No need for a general election although pressure would build to have one. 2. Vote of no confidence in the government. This is a vote in parliament by all MPs and only requires a simple majority. The government then has two weeks and then there is a follow up vote and if they lose that the government falls and there will be a general election. I can see 1. Happening but think she'd have enough support to survive. I can see 2. Happening as well but also don't think it'll succeed as despite them being extremely pissed off I don't think the Tory rebels and the DUP would bring the government down as both of them would see a Corbyn-led government as being a lot worse than the current shambles

Tbf to Ruth Davidson, she's currently on maternity leave. David Mundell on the other hand.

I assume that's a No Confidence from Tory MPs in respect of May as leader rather than anNo Confodence motion from the opposition in resent of the government. They're two very different things and FWIW, I think she'd survive both.

No reason there would be.

I would put nothIng past that shower but I reckon if they did that it would finish Corbyn.

Just blame it on predictive text, I do. 😉

It's worth pointing out though, at the start of this process some of the more bullish Brexiteers expected us to have the withdrawal agreement and future trade deal sorted out by now.

The withdrawal deal will be voted on in December. Any deal relating to the future trading relationship after the tradition phase will be much later. The Withdrawal will also have to be passed by all EU 27 states and the EU parliament before it can take effect

I think the word you're looking for here is authoritarian and not authoritative.

No, the "meaningful vote" is on the Withdrawal Agreement. The media - and politicians - are confusing things by referring to this as "the deal", its really only stage one.

What did you mean then?

Fair enough, I should have done better than that. I assume that you'll accept the Judiciary of Scotland website as reliable source. It says : http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/29/0/Glossary/a#G Now would you explain where in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 there is provision to introduce named guardians for everyone?

Deflect, deflect

So do you want to address the substantive point of where in the Named Person legislation it mentions anything about every child having a state guardian?

Here you go - https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-a-legal-guardian.html I think as far as Scotland is concerned the relevant legislation is the Guardianship 1973 act and Children (Scotland) Act.

A bit more sinister than that, he's been abusive to Carole Cadwalladr on other occasions, there is more than a suspicion that its concerted with Aaron Banks and Andy Wigmore from Leave.EU. He's entitled to his opinions but it really doesn't square with him being a high-profile BBC political presenter and supposedly impartial. I think he gets away with it as he's freelance but it's probably something the BBC should look at. You do wonder whether he has something to hide.

This is just the withdrawal agreement and covers the three major areas that need to be agreed for an "orderly" withdrawal, those are: the amount of money due to the EU to meet the UK's commitments; the rights of EU Citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU; the UK/EU border on the island of Ireland. That's it. It's not a trade deal, all this does is to allow the UK to "leave" the EU on the 29th March, then go into an implementation period - undefined - where it will have to follow all EU rules and regulations - but will have no representation in any of the EU institutions. It's during the period that the future relationship, trading and other areas, will be negotiated and agreed and free movement of people will undoubtedly form part of that negotiation process. Coming alongside the withdrawal agreement will be a political statement that details the EU and UK's view of that future agreement but expect that to be short on detail and long on aspiration. If you like, this is the deal to be able to negotiate the deal.

Gammon overload in the media today. Time to get the popcorn out.

I'm constantly getting popups as described to the site described in the article below. This only occurs from this website and McAfee is catching it for me. I wonder if it's related to the site ads, something Admin might want to take a look at https://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-nextoptim-com/

I'm sure you can google it yourself but essentially its when someone takes on the same legal rights and responsibilities for a child as their parents - usually but not exclusively when both parents are dead. That's a million miles away from what the Named Person legislation proposes.

Guardian has a very specific legal definition wrt to children. Its misleading in the extreme to use that in relation to the named person legislation.