Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
Oh, no, you've started the fecking abortion debate again. I sometimes think you are a glutton for punishment. Treat him kindly please folks!
What should Starmer's approach be today ? He has a number of options, ; an embarassment of riches, even.
Difficult one - if it's just a reprise of the last two weeks it could fall a bit flat. Because he should be aiming to spread the damage to the whole party not just the PM, a good approach would be to cite various Tory MPs' "helpful" comments and ask if Boris agrees - e.g. about the UK having a presidential system, about breaching covid rules not being that bad, about the ambush capabilities of baked goods... give Boris a choice between disowning his supporters' comments or trying to defend manifestly stupid or dishonest comments.
Yes but in November 1990 all the polls showed a Major or Heseltine led Conservatives leading Kinnock Labour again, even as Thatcher's Tories trailed Labour.
Not a single hypothetical poll now has a Sunak led Tories leading Starmer Labour, even if it gets a bit closer and a Truss or Hunt or Gove or Patel led Tories does even worse than a Boris led Tories.
In 1990 there was also a major policy difference between Thatcher and Major, with Major dumping the poll tax, which played a big part in his bounce. Similarly Boris got a bounce in 2019 due to his differences with May over Brexit.
Where is the major policy difference between Sunak and Boris? Sunak even apparently attended the birthday cake offering to Boris, even if like the PM it was 'sprung' on him by Carrie.
Changes of PM without major policy changes to follow eg Blair to Brown in 2007 or Cameron to May in 2016 rarely see sustained poll bounces and subsequent general election wins
No major policy changes between Cameron and May?
Cameron: no to Brexit May: get Brexit done
Both Cameron and May were Remainers, even Cameron agreed with May we had to get Brexit done after Leave won the referendum
Surely the people signing this are all the three quidders from the Tories who voted him into the Labour leadership in the first place!
I'm certainly not a three quidder. But I would love Jeremy Corbyn to start a new party and take the Diane Abbots, Dawn Butlers, Richard Burgons and Nadia Whittomes with him. My main motivation for the last couple of elections has been keeping that lot as far from power as possible - I'd be very happy to have a Labour Party I felt I could vote for without risking another insurgency from the far left (or even a token "we'll appoint that Corbynite as a minister to keep the far left onside").
A key doctrine of the Catholic Church is that what you do is the key determinant of whether you are saved or not. The focus. therefore, is on people's behaviour. It can also lead to greater acceptance, in some cases, of people's choices.
For a lot of the Protestant Church, their roots like with Calvinism whose (probably) key element is - in a nutshell - it doesn't matter what you do on Earth because it has been predetermined that God has already saved you. In my experience, that can make them less tolerant because their view is you either get it (and so you are saved) or you don't (and therefore you are damned, so not worth bothering with).
The CoE encompasses both wings so you are likely to get a range of views within its congregation.
Here endeth the lesson.
OTOH, that aspect has been heavily downgraded in recent years AIUI. It's also the Presbyterian (at least) teaching that (a) it is a sin to assume that any particular person is damned; and (b) that it is nevertheless your duty to behave as a full Christian; "by their fruits shall they be known".
Presbyterianism also regards the conflation of Church and State, as seen in the Anglican Catholic Church, with horror. "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
I don't think there has ever been much official Calvinism in the CofE. Even the Westminster Confession - drawn up in 16xx under iirc Presbyterian tutelage - never made it as official doctrine/policy.
Though of course elements can be found.
Though today it is still a key primary or secondary document for many Denominations - from the Church of Scotland (with a few bits redacted) to the church in NI founded by Ian Paisley.
On a minor point of order - "Anglican Catholic Church" is a "continuing" Anglican denomination, ie one of those that split off a few decades ago (1977) over issues such as gay marriage, but have a far wider cultural critique rooted in traditionalism. They have a few 10s of thousands of members. Perhaps you mean normal CofE integration into the state in some ways.
Thanks. Apols for slip - it is of course Anglican Church formally. I was originally thinking in terns of Reformed denominations vs C of E and didn't edit out that deleted thought.
Who decides when the report is published and how redacted it is?
Sky just now... Sue Gray decides when it's released, the PM decides how redacted it is. Potentially the latter impacting why the former has not occurred.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
Oh, no, you've started the fecking abortion debate again. I sometimes think you are a glutton for punishment. Treat him kindly please folks!
I'm in awe of his steadfast conviction. I'm so wishy washy I can never win an argument.
Inferring faith to be a "fairy tale" is quite frankly extremely childish and very simplistic.
To me, it’s “faith” itself which is extremely childish and very simplistic.
We live in a complicated, fascinating world of which we understand little. No god needed.
Fair enough if that is your view. However I doubt TSE would have mocked Islam the same way he mocked Christianity, even if he was not of Muslim heritage as he is, comedians rarely dare target Islam as they do not want a Fatwa on them.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
Interesting little note that the Fire Brigades Union and friends have been trying to insert Mr Corbyn back into the PLP, and it was voted down in the NEC 20-14.
Inferring faith to be a "fairy tale" is quite frankly extremely childish and very simplistic.
To me, it’s “faith” itself which is extremely childish and very simplistic.
We live in a complicated, fascinating world of which we understand little. No god needed.
Fair enough if that is your view. However I doubt TSE would have mocked Islam the same way he mocked Christianity, even if he was not of Muslim heritage as he is, comedians rarely dare target Islam as they do not want a Fatwa on them.
Difficult for Christians to complain about mocking though, given the many New Testament injunctions to welcome persecution.
An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations
He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period
He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)
Not to decry your points, however!
My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel
It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them
I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter
In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
I don't see the May elections looking that newsworthy for Boris - the Tory party will lose seats but don't have many councils where control is at risk of being lost - beyond I think Newcastle-under-Lyme
Wandsworth and Barnet also at risk
They might also lose control of Somerset to the Lib Dems and Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance.
I don't know if they will lose much more than 200 seats overall though.
It's even possible the Tories could gain a few seats net in Scotland because they will stand more candidates in the multimember wards in places like Aberdeenshire where they under nominated last time.
Whatever happens the Tories will not do as badly as they did under May in May 2019 when they lost over 1,000 councillors and got just 28% of the vote.
However Labour is likely to have its best local elections since 2012 as most Tory losses in 2019 were to the LDs, Greens and Independents not Labour and Labour is polling much better than it was in 2019 now Starmer has replaced Corbyn. Councils in London and Wales are also up unlike 2019 and offer Labour better chances for gains
By 'won't do as badly', do you mean they won't lose another 1000 councillors, or do you mean they will end up with more councillors than in 2019 and get more than 28% of the vote? I agree that they won't lose another 1000 councillors, but it seems unlikely to me they will gain councillors. But maybe the position wrt UKIP/Reform is different now?
Of course, if the leadership landscape is different by May we will have to re-evaluate!
Have the time wasters and oxygen thieves in the PCP found their quills yet?
No, got to catch a goose and pluck it first (apparently in those good old days this was best done when it is alive from the discussion last night on eating really, really fresh food such as live shrimps).
This Labour Party member fully endorses this move, and would like to suggest a handful of Labour MPs who may wish to join Jezza's new partry.
I do like the #Labourisdead at a time of vast polling improvement.
The more the Corbynista nutters vacate the party the better they will poll. My concern about Labour is not Starmer, but the remnants of the extreme left that are still there
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
I remember reading one of Dawkins' books perhaps 20 years ago, in which he defined a 7-point scale, on which 1 was pure theism, 7 was pure atheism, and the rest were varying shades of agnosticism. He claimed that he saw himself as somewhere between 5 and 6 at the time, and possibly he was noting he had moved "upwards" on the scale throughout his career.
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
You're trying to retrofit your views onto Judea. 🤦♂️
I do believe that in the year 26 telling a man he couldn't just divorce his wife even if he wanted to was not a traditional or socially conservative position though!
Prior to Jesus both the Romans and the Jews allowed men to divorce their wives for basically any reason; the reverse was not true, women couldn't simply divorce their husbands.
Telling men they couldn't divorce their wives was quite a revolutionary concept, not a conservative one.
So strike that one. Jesus was being revolutionary not conservative there.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
I don't agree that HMQ would dismiss a PM who failed to resign (based on the precedent set by her refusal to engage in the prorogation debate). I can see the Supreme Court having to decide whether the PM was obliged to resign, but am not sure which way it would go. Your last sentence sums up the problem when MPs are content to allow a person to be leader who they know is unfit to uphold the operation of our constitution.
NI Questions. Lots of mentions of Her Majesty and no problem. Yet last week the accused wanted Starmer's mention of her withdrawn, to be brushed away by the speaker
Trouble is, it's impossible to discuss UK politics without it. Seeing as the UK, or at least the dominant English bit, has imported theocracy lock stock and barrel into the UK constitution. How many modern states guarantee that thje top priests of one denomination (and only one denomination of one religion) are given automatic seats in its legislature?
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
I don't think it's confusing, beyond the fact that the name of the act isn't really what it does. The old system gave the PM a weird prerogative that they could abuse, and the FTPA fixes this.
Without FTPA: PM can call an election whenever they like, technically they're within their rights to call an election to prevent themselves from being replaced by a new leader.
With FTPA: Parliament is in the driving seat, so if the majority of MPs want to kick out their PM and substitute someone else, they can. The mechanism is: Vote of confidence to dismiss the old PM, indicate to The Queen (by a formal vote or a letter or whatever) that they support someone else, and that person becomes PM.
If MPs go ahead and vote to repeal the FTPA, they're writing a blank cheque to their PM, who they know only cares about himself, to send them on a kamikaze run to save his own job. It's probably not in their best interests to let him do that.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
I remember reading one of Dawkins' books perhaps 20 years ago, in which he defined a 7-point scale, on which 1 was pure theism, 7 was pure atheism, and the rest were varying shades of agnosticism. He claimed that he saw himself as somewhere between 5 and 6 at the time, and possibly he was noting he had moved "upwards" on the scale throughout his career.
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
That was in The God Delusion. He's not a 7 because, as he explains, he is a scientist and does not know there is no god. Rather, he is a "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. ""I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"."
Dawkins has been criticised for his forays into religious philosophy, a tad unfairly I think. But he is at his best for sure when he sticks to his field - natural selection. The Selfish Gene is simply superb.
There are some stupid people who don't look it, other smart people who look a bit stupid. Rosindell looks exactly as thick as he is.
Reminder to Mr Rosindell
Worth remembering that the puritanical Rex Banner is the villain of the episode and is promptly thrown from town by a catapult. I assume @Morris_Dancer would approve.
There are some stupid people who don't look it, other smart people who look a bit stupid. Rosindell looks exactly as thick as he is.
Reminder to Mr Rosindell
Worth remembering that the puritanical Rex Banner is the villain of the episode and is promptly thrown from town by a catapult. I assume @Morris_Dancer would approve.
Well, memes aren't perfect - I wanted one which showed his follow up line, about if it were up to us he'd shoot anyone who looked at him crosswise.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
I don't think it's confusing, beyond the fact that the name of the act isn't really what it does. The old system gave the PM a weird prerogative that they could abuse, and the FTPA fixes this.
Without FTPA: PM can call an election whenever they like, technically they're within their rights to call an election to prevent themselves from being replaced by a new leader.
With FTPA: Parliament is in the driving seat, so if the majority of MPs want to kick out their PM and substitute someone else, they can. The mechanism is: Vote of confidence to dismiss the old PM, indicate to The Queen (by a formal vote or a letter or whatever) that they support someone else, and that person becomes PM.
If MPs go ahead and vote to repeal the FTPA, they're writing a blank cheque to their PM, who they know only cares about himself, to send them on a kamikaze run to save his own job. It's probably not in their best interests to let him do that.
Under FTPA a vote of confidence doesn't dismiss the old PM - it simply sets the clock ticking for a GE.
KS If you knowingly mislead parliament should you resign BJ Of course KS Here are examples of you misleading parliament. Will you resign? BJ No. Blah. Waffle.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
You're trying to retrofit your views onto Judea. 🤦♂️
I do believe that in the year 26 telling a man he couldn't just divorce his wife even if he wanted to was not a traditional or socially conservative position though!
Prior to Jesus both the Romans and the Jews allowed men to divorce their wives for basically any reason; the reverse was not true, women couldn't simply divorce their husbands.
Telling men they couldn't divorce their wives was quite a revolutionary concept, not a conservative one.
So strike that one. Jesus was being revolutionary not conservative there.
Indeed, and Paul suggesting women should have their heads covered when speaking in church was quite avant-garde too.
Previously women had either been silent or refused entry.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
This is a pretty good prediction but I don't know if Macron has it in him or it would be enough for Putin.
Macron is probably best placed of the Western leaders to do this as Russia has had a cultural inferiority complex toward France since the time of Pyotr Perviy. France's opinion matters to Russia.
I'd love to know Putin's candid thoughts about Johnson.
I've travelled a lot in Russia. I've never met one who gave a chicken's pizzle about the opinion of France. These are not the days of Pushkin writing his letters in exquisite French
Germany, on the other hand, very much Yes. There is mutual fear and grudging respect on both sides, and they are hyper-aware of each other, for obvious reasons
This does not mean Macron won't succeed, Putin might be looking for a way to climb down. Tricky thing to do tho. And, remember, Putin dislikes the EU and won't wish to see it succeed: his ambition is to prise away weaker or less committed members - Hungary, Greece, etc. China is doing the same
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.
Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative: Overturned money lender tables in the temple Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart
A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
No, a social conservative is someone who believes in traditional marriage, is sceptical of divorce and opposes abortion and arguably wants controls on immigration.
You can be a socialist economically and still be a social conservative, in fact many working class Labour voters often were in that category, though some of them voted for May and Boris.
You can also on the other side be rightwing economically but socially liberal.
Jesus may have been open to immigrants but he was also certainly pro traditional marriage and anti divorce except for adultery:
As he says in Matthew 'The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
7 The proud religious law-keepers said to Jesus, “Then why did the Law of Moses allow a man to divorce his wife if he put it down in writing and gave it to her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
Many also believe when Jesus says 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', that should also apply to the fetus when it comes to abortion
You're trying to retrofit your views onto Judea. 🤦♂️
I do believe that in the year 26 telling a man he couldn't just divorce his wife even if he wanted to was not a traditional or socially conservative position though!
Prior to Jesus both the Romans and the Jews allowed men to divorce their wives for basically any reason; the reverse was not true, women couldn't simply divorce their husbands.
Telling men they couldn't divorce their wives was quite a revolutionary concept, not a conservative one.
So strike that one. Jesus was being revolutionary not conservative there.
No it was a socially conservative statement of support for traditional marriage.
The idea the Romans were ever socially conservative is absurd, they frequently had orgies, often of multiple sexes and with their slaves and as you say got divorced on a whim.
The Romans also did not punish abortion except in violation of a father's right to dispose of his offspring.
The Romans were wealthy, sex mad libertarians basically with a sadistic streak as seen in the Colosseum.
KS Do you understand exactly is happening? Here is what the police have said. Please stop laughing PM this is serious BJ Its sub judice. And I can't quit because Ukraine
If he does get to be PM his small (ha!) target strategy isn't going to work. He can't keep getting 'excited' about visiting Ilfracombe and just fucking off out of it.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
I don't think it's confusing, beyond the fact that the name of the act isn't really what it does. The old system gave the PM a weird prerogative that they could abuse, and the FTPA fixes this.
Without FTPA: PM can call an election whenever they like, technically they're within their rights to call an election to prevent themselves from being replaced by a new leader.
With FTPA: Parliament is in the driving seat, so if the majority of MPs want to kick out their PM and substitute someone else, they can. The mechanism is: Vote of confidence to dismiss the old PM, indicate to The Queen (by a formal vote or a letter or whatever) that they support someone else, and that person becomes PM.
If MPs go ahead and vote to repeal the FTPA, they're writing a blank cheque to their PM, who they know only cares about himself, to send them on a kamikaze run to save his own job. It's probably not in their best interests to let him do that.
Under FTPA a vote of confidence doesn't dismiss the old PM - it simply sets the clock ticking for a GE.
That's what I said: The vote of confidence doesn't dismiss the old PM (likewise under the old system). Doing that *then finding somebody else who can command a majority* dismisses the old PM. The difference is that with the FTPA, MPs unambiguously get a chance to do that, whereas without it the rejected PM may be able to dissolve parliament instead.
KS Do you understand exactly is happening? Here is what the police have said. Please stop laughing PM this is serious BJ Its sub judice. And I can't quit because Ukraine
Boris tells SKS he needs to raise his game.
SKS does not have the ability to get out of neutral
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
I remember reading one of Dawkins' books perhaps 20 years ago, in which he defined a 7-point scale, on which 1 was pure theism, 7 was pure atheism, and the rest were varying shades of agnosticism. He claimed that he saw himself as somewhere between 5 and 6 at the time, and possibly he was noting he had moved "upwards" on the scale throughout his career.
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
That was in The God Delusion. He's not a 7 because, as he explains, he is a scientist and does not know there is no god. Rather, he is a "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. ""I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"."
Dawkins has been criticised for his forays into religious philosophy, a tad unfairly I think. But he is at his best for sure when he sticks to his field - natural selection. The Selfish Gene is simply superb.
I think he tends to ignore how a lot of modern theists actually think, and lazily assumes that they all have fundamentalist tendencies. There's no reason why natural selection has to contradict with religious interpretation of the Bible - in the same way as no-one believes gravity operates because God actively makes things fall to the ground when dropped, it makes sense that God would also have a mechanism for evolution. The only reason the latter is a talking point and the former is not, is because historically people got hung up on interpreting the 6 days of creation in literal terms, which can't be what was intended.
You can see what the tories are trying to do - “but there are more serious things over here!”
I’ve voted Tory since I was able to vote. I just cannot vote for a party led by him and supported by characters such as Rees Mogg, Nadine Dorris or Priti Patel.
He’s lost all credible authority and he ploughs on like nothing has changed
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
That is true - although there is the caveat that it doesn't need to resign: the previous government can be dismissed.
If it was the case that there clearly was an alternative government capable of being formed within the existing House, the Queen would not only be quite within her rights but arguably duty-bound (not least by the FTPA) to give parliament the chance to vote confidence in it.
Any elected leader of the Conservative party would be in a position to form such a government in the current parliament, if his or her predecessor did not resign after being ousted as party leader.
Boris Johnson in pretty punchy mood here. Tells Starmer to "raise his game" and focus on world events. Fighting spirit from PM, but this is all before Sue Gray reports of course. #PMQs
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
I remember reading one of Dawkins' books perhaps 20 years ago, in which he defined a 7-point scale, on which 1 was pure theism, 7 was pure atheism, and the rest were varying shades of agnosticism. He claimed that he saw himself as somewhere between 5 and 6 at the time, and possibly he was noting he had moved "upwards" on the scale throughout his career.
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
As Orwell once said of a well-known atheist, "he doesn't just not believe in God, he HATES God"
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
I remember reading one of Dawkins' books perhaps 20 years ago, in which he defined a 7-point scale, on which 1 was pure theism, 7 was pure atheism, and the rest were varying shades of agnosticism. He claimed that he saw himself as somewhere between 5 and 6 at the time, and possibly he was noting he had moved "upwards" on the scale throughout his career.
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
As Orwell once said of a well-known atheist, "he doesn't just not believe in God, he HATES God"
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
I remember reading one of Dawkins' books perhaps 20 years ago, in which he defined a 7-point scale, on which 1 was pure theism, 7 was pure atheism, and the rest were varying shades of agnosticism. He claimed that he saw himself as somewhere between 5 and 6 at the time, and possibly he was noting he had moved "upwards" on the scale throughout his career.
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
As Orwell once said of a well-known atheist, "he doesn't just not believe in God, he HATES God"
I get that sense with Dawkins
Dawkins has said he hates the God of the Old Testament, he is less bothered by Jesus although he does not believe he was the Messiah obviously either
Not Starmer's absolute best performance of the last few months, but not his worst either. Everyone knows the key information is still missing, and this isn't really the main action.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
This is a case where things would work very differently in a hung parliament vs a majority government. In the former, the PM wouldn't have to resign unless it could be established that an alternative government that could win a vote of confidence could be formed. In the latter, the presumption is long-established that the leader of the majority party will be asked to form a government, so if the PM is no longer party leader and his government loses a Commons VONC, he would surely be expected to resign and nominate his successor as party leader to be the new PM - and if he doesn't HMQ could sack him.
Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?
This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
I don't think it's confusing, beyond the fact that the name of the act isn't really what it does. The old system gave the PM a weird prerogative that they could abuse, and the FTPA fixes this.
Without FTPA: PM can call an election whenever they like, technically they're within their rights to call an election to prevent themselves from being replaced by a new leader.
With FTPA: Parliament is in the driving seat, so if the majority of MPs want to kick out their PM and substitute someone else, they can. The mechanism is: Vote of confidence to dismiss the old PM, indicate to The Queen (by a formal vote or a letter or whatever) that they support someone else, and that person becomes PM.
If MPs go ahead and vote to repeal the FTPA, they're writing a blank cheque to their PM, who they know only cares about himself, to send them on a kamikaze run to save his own job. It's probably not in their best interests to let him do that.
Under FTPA a vote of confidence doesn't dismiss the old PM - it simply sets the clock ticking for a GE.
That's what I said: The vote of confidence doesn't dismiss the old PM (likewise under the old system). Doing that *then finding somebody else who can command a majority* dismisses the old PM. The difference is that with the FTPA, MPs unambiguously get a chance to do that, whereas without it the rejected PM may be able to dissolve parliament instead.
But under FTPA the only thing that stops an election is a vote of confidence in "HM Government" - not "somebody else". You can't vote confidence in them until they are appointed, and they can't be appointed unless the PM resigns or is dismissed. Agree that the rejected PM can't dissolve parliament, but that's what happens automatically 14 days later.
7m The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.
Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon
We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
I could foresee a situation where Macron and Putin announce that after their call the Russians will reduce troops or pull back having received guarantees that the French and Germans will continue to work to address the problem with “Russian people in Disputed Ukrainian regions” and the threat to Russia from NATO enlargement and influence.
Macron gets his global leader scout badge, the Germans can carry on doing business and can prevaricate at will over Russian/western relations, the EU core seem reasonable having not “flapped” unlike those panicky war-lingering Anglo Saxons, who aren’t calm statesmen like France and Germany, Putin gets his “respect” but carries on destabilising Ukraine and also gets his “grievances” stamped as official and this justified by having France and Germany acknowledge them.
Putin also gets to drive a nice wedge between EU core and US/UK.
Trebles all round.
This is a pretty good prediction but I don't know if Macron has it in him or it would be enough for Putin.
Macron is probably best placed of the Western leaders to do this as Russia has had a cultural inferiority complex toward France since the time of Pyotr Perviy. France's opinion matters to Russia.
I'd love to know Putin's candid thoughts about Johnson.
I've travelled a lot in Russia. I've never met one who gave a chicken's pizzle about the opinion of France. These are not the days of Pushkin writing his letters in exquisite French
Germany, on the other hand, very much Yes. There is mutual fear and grudging respect on both sides, and they are hyper-aware of each other, for obvious reasons
This does not mean Macron won't succeed, Putin might be looking for a way to climb down. Tricky thing to do tho. And, remember, Putin dislikes the EU and won't wish to see it succeed: his ambition is to prise away weaker or less committed members - Hungary, Greece, etc. China is doing the same
Unwoke Hungary is weak? Surely they are strong, their moral fibre not sapped by pandering to minorities.
Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.
I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.
I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.
You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.
I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
Dawkins is yes just a fundamentalist militant atheist.
Most of the global population are religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, most of them are not as fundamentally religious however as Dawkins is fundamentally atheist
I remember reading one of Dawkins' books perhaps 20 years ago, in which he defined a 7-point scale, on which 1 was pure theism, 7 was pure atheism, and the rest were varying shades of agnosticism. He claimed that he saw himself as somewhere between 5 and 6 at the time, and possibly he was noting he had moved "upwards" on the scale throughout his career.
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
As Orwell once said of a well-known atheist, "he doesn't just not believe in God, he HATES God"
I get that sense with Dawkins
Dawkins has said he hates the God of the Old Testament, he is less bothered by Jesus although he does not believe he was the Messiah obviously either
I feel obliged to add just that he was a very naughty boy.
Boris just pissing off the entire legal profession there.
Most criminal and legal aid and human rights lawyers vote Labour anyway, even many corporate and commercial lawyers would now vote Starmer Labour or LD not Tory as they oppose Brexit.
Lawyers are hardly Boris' core vote and the redwall and most Tory Leavers are not exactly in love with lawyers either
KS Do you understand exactly is happening? Here is what the police have said. Please stop laughing PM this is serious BJ Its sub judice. And I can't quit because Ukraine
Boris tells SKS he needs to raise his game.
SKS does not have the ability to get out of neutral
He's just shish-kebabbed him on lying to the House and refusing to resign. All of the bluster and bluff and bravado won't save the accused from the Gray report and the police.
I do think that some of the public are getting fed up with the endless reporting of this party stuff. Yesterday's story regarding the birthday cake with everything else that is going on in the world was pushing it too far. To have headline news that a man had a bit of birthday cake whilst at work whilst Russia is on the brink of invading the Ukraine is a bit silly.
Labour to be below 40% after everything that has happened over the past 3 months is pretty poor. They should be mid 40s regularly. Corbyn got 40% at the 2017 GE
Yorkshire could have their right to host international matches restored as early as next week — after their chairman warned that the county would “not be financially viable” without having England games at Headingley.
Comments
But I would love Jeremy Corbyn to start a new party and take the Diane Abbots, Dawn Butlers, Richard Burgons and Nadia Whittomes with him. My main motivation for the last couple of elections has been keeping that lot as far from power as possible - I'd be very happy to have a Labour Party I felt I could vote for without risking another insurgency from the far left (or even a token "we'll appoint that Corbynite as a minister to keep the far left onside").
Let the report be published in full FFS.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
https://labourlist.org/2022/01/labour-leadership-wins-key-nec-votes-on-corbyn-whip-and-selections-changes/
I agree that they won't lose another 1000 councillors, but it seems unlikely to me they will gain councillors.
But maybe the position wrt UKIP/Reform is different now?
Of course, if the leadership landscape is different by May we will have to re-evaluate!
Listening to some of his more recent output, you'd be hard pressed to call him anything other than a solid 7, though. I do sometimes get the impression that his views are driven more by dislike of theism than anything else.
I do believe that in the year 26 telling a man he couldn't just divorce his wife even if he wanted to was not a traditional or socially conservative position though!
Prior to Jesus both the Romans and the Jews allowed men to divorce their wives for basically any reason; the reverse was not true, women couldn't simply divorce their husbands.
Telling men they couldn't divorce their wives was quite a revolutionary concept, not a conservative one.
So strike that one. Jesus was being revolutionary not conservative there.
Without FTPA: PM can call an election whenever they like, technically they're within their rights to call an election to prevent themselves from being replaced by a new leader.
With FTPA: Parliament is in the driving seat, so if the majority of MPs want to kick out their PM and substitute someone else, they can. The mechanism is: Vote of confidence to dismiss the old PM, indicate to The Queen (by a formal vote or a letter or whatever) that they support someone else, and that person becomes PM.
If MPs go ahead and vote to repeal the FTPA, they're writing a blank cheque to their PM, who they know only cares about himself, to send them on a kamikaze run to save his own job. It's probably not in their best interests to let him do that.
Dawkins has been criticised for his forays into religious philosophy, a tad unfairly I think. But he is at his best for sure when he sticks to his field - natural selection. The Selfish Gene is simply superb.
BJ Of course
KS Here are examples of you misleading parliament. Will you resign?
BJ No. Blah. Waffle.
Previously women had either been silent or refused entry.
Lab: 39% (n/c from 13-14 Jan)
Con: 32% (+1)
Lib Dem: 8% (-3)
Green: 8% (+2)
SNP: 5% (n/c)
Reform UK: 4% (-1)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/01/21/voting-intention-con-32-lab-39-20-21-jan?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=voting_intention https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1486310710804111361/photo/1
Keir Starmer: 35% (n/c on 12-13 Jan)
Boris Johnson: 25% (+3)
Not sure: 36% (-4)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/01/21/voting-intention-con-32-lab-39-20-21-jan?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=voting_intention https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1486310715485003778/photo/1
BJO please explain
Germany, on the other hand, very much Yes. There is mutual fear and grudging respect on both sides, and they are hyper-aware of each other, for obvious reasons
This does not mean Macron won't succeed, Putin might be looking for a way to climb down. Tricky thing to do tho. And, remember, Putin dislikes the EU and won't wish to see it succeed: his ambition is to prise away weaker or less committed members - Hungary, Greece, etc. China is doing the same
Desperate.
But will work with his troops I think.
The idea the Romans were ever socially conservative is absurd, they frequently had orgies, often of multiple sexes and with their slaves and as you say got divorced on a whim.
The Romans also did not punish abortion except in violation of a father's right to dispose of his offspring.
The Romans were wealthy, sex mad libertarians basically with a sadistic streak as seen in the Colosseum.
BJ Its sub judice. And I can't quit because Ukraine
What about the cost of living, Ukraine?
SKS does not have the ability to get out of neutral
I’ve voted Tory since I was able to vote. I just cannot vote for a party led by him and supported by characters such as Rees Mogg, Nadine Dorris or Priti Patel.
He’s lost all credible authority and he ploughs on like nothing has changed
If it was the case that there clearly was an alternative government capable of being formed within the existing House, the Queen would not only be quite within her rights but arguably duty-bound (not least by the FTPA) to give parliament the chance to vote confidence in it.
Any elected leader of the Conservative party would be in a position to form such a government in the current parliament, if his or her predecessor did not resign after being ousted as party leader.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1486311479443922945?s=20
Starmer still coming across as a bit smug, needs to work on his "more in sorrow than in anger".....
I get that sense with Dawkins
Starmer targets partygate while Boris deals with the important issues
Starmer has probably become too predictable.
Made it easy for Boris to bat it away and talk about what really matters to people
What a waste of space SKS is.
The old tunes rolled out.
That's a win for Starmer.
Lawyers are hardly Boris' core vote and the redwall and most Tory Leavers are not exactly in love with lawyers either
He's going to need some good ones soon.
Labour to be below 40% after everything that has happened over the past 3 months is pretty poor. They should be mid 40s regularly. Corbyn got 40% at the 2017 GE
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10439965/Photos-new-linkage-SF-facility-populated-drug-users-shooting-broad-daylight.html
Yorkshire could have their right to host international matches restored as early as next week — after their chairman warned that the county would “not be financially viable” without having England games at Headingley.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cash-strapped-yorkshire-set-to-regain-england-hosting-rights-xscsm6nkm
SKS is not up to the job.