ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
She cannot call one but she can force one by using the Tory majority to deliberately lose a vote of no confidence and then voting down any alternatives.
It's not a clean route and it's not without risk. The public might not like the game-playing and once you lose a VoNC, you lose some control over what happens next (which would be unchartered territory). All the same, it can be done.
Curiously, the FTPA doesn't allow for an election in the event that a government simply resigns and no replacement can be found. The clock would tick from when the first VoNC in a new government is passed.
Surely somebody would be invited to 'try' to form a Government which would then need an affirmative Confidence Vote in the Commons.Some argue that would be someone other than May - who had just lost a No Confidence Vote. Effectively a new Government would be formed awaiting affirmation by the Legislature. For an Affirmation Vote to take place there would have to be a Government in existence to vote for or against!
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
Curiously, the FTPA doesn't allow for an election in the event that a government simply resigns and no replacement can be found. The clock would tick from when the first VoNC in a new government is passed.
Surely somebody would be invited to 'try' to form a Government which would then need an affirmative Confidence Vote in the Commons.Some argue that would be someone other than May - who had just lost a No Confidence Vote. Effectively a new Government would be formed awaiting affirmation by the Legislature. For an Affirmation Vote to take place there would have to be a Government in existence to vote for or against!
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
Ramsay Macdonald only had 191 MPs in Jan 1924. Campbell-Bannerman faced a Tory majority of 100 when appointed PM in December 1905.
Speaking to a few Dems, they think they don't have anyone who can beat Trump in 2020. No congressperson, Senator or Governor sticks out to them as someone who can beat Trump. They all want Obama back. Desperately.
If the Democrats can't find a better candidate by 2020 they might as well shut up shop. Your party is in deep trouble if beating Trump looks challenging to you.
This is what I was talking about earlier, no new net Hispanic voters, returning GOP traditionalists and the possibility of a fast growing economy on the back of a mega fiscal stimulus. There is no Dem candidate who can defeat all of those shifts away.
Presidents normally win a second term if they run for it. Carter is the exception that proves the rule.
And Bush senior.
We are in completely uncharted territory with Trump. This will be a presidency like no other. making predictions about his re-election before he has even taken office does seem a touch speculative.
Not quite like no other. There are strong elements of Andrew Jackson about him.
Though Jackson was unarguably racist even by the standards of the time, and we're told Trump isn't, thank goodness.
The Hoff is awesome, forget Ronald Reagan, The Berlin Wall came down thanks to the Hoff.
One of my favourite nightclubs was Reflex Bar in Liverpool, it played 80s pop music, and they had a giant life sized photo of the Hoff in his speedos on the wall. It was awesome.
I see Death To Traitors, Freedom For Britain told the police that arrested him that he was a political activist. Amazing the things you say when in the grip of mental illness.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
Curiously, the FTPA doesn't allow for an election in the event that a government simply resigns and no replacement can be found. The clock would tick from when the first VoNC in a new government is passed.
Surely somebody would be invited to 'try' to form a Government which would then need an affirmative Confidence Vote in the Commons.Some argue that would be someone other than May - who had just lost a No Confidence Vote. Effectively a new Government would be formed awaiting affirmation by the Legislature. For an Affirmation Vote to take place there would have to be a Government in existence to vote for or against!
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
Ramsay Macdonald only had 191 MPs in Jan 1924. Campbell-Bannerman faced a Tory majority of 100 when appointed PM in December 1905.
Did he have to face a confidence vote at the start like the FTPA stipulates?
And Ramsay had the support of the liberals, so that's 191+158.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
Nah. Obama would probably have won a third term. Much better favourability ratings than Hillary and he's a much better campaigner than her too. His ratings would probably have suffered in a campaign as against what they are now but given how close it ultimately was, I think he'd have come through.
I can't believe Obama would not have won a third term if it were an option. For one thing, he would have been far more vital in his second term, rather than spending several years as a lame duck President.
His golf handicap might have suffered, mind.
This is the Obama who won by a margin of just 3.86% at the height of his powers in 2012, against Mighty Mitt Romney?
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
Repeal or amend the FTPA to remove the stipulation of the waiting period.
Voters overwhelmingly want Britain to remain in the EU single market after Brexit but would also like to see controls on immigration, according to a study that suggests Theresa May faces a tough political challenge in reconciling public expectations.
Extensive polling carried out by NatCen, the independent social research agency, and overseen by the elections expert John Curtice suggests 90% of people favour remaining in the single market, regardless of how they voted in the referendum.
51-49 split on the trade off, in favour of limiting migration.
It seems reasonably clear that if the EU approaches the issue with a degree of sense and pragmatism, rather than ideological zeal, a deal should be very possible. Merkel seems to get it.
' Stephen Crabb said the latest labour report, which showed the unemployment total rose by 21,000 in the three months to February to 1.7 million, was a signal that the looming EU referendum vote was hitting the jobs market. '
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
Repeal or amend the FTPA to remove the stipulation of the waiting period.
That would be the sensible idea, if their Lordships would agree to it.
FTPA is really not fit for purpose for the current situation, where a new PM is popular but has only a tiny majority and struggles to get things done - such as implementing the result of a referendum.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
So May resigns on the day after the vote of no confidence, asks HM to call Corbyn. Corbyn goes to the Palace and declines the job. Then what?
Does HM call May back? What happens is Corbyn accepts then gets voted down, does he remain in charge for the duration of the campaign? Surely all this is written down somewhere and a few guys on a blog shouldn't really be discussing the process?
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
So May resigns on the day after the vote of no confidence, asks HM to call Corbyn. Corbyn goes to the Palace and declines the job. Then what?
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
So May resigns on the day after the vote of no confidence, asks HM to call Corbyn. Corbyn goes to the Palace and declines the job. Then what?
I'm sure Bercow would get involved somewhere along the road.
The data tables from Natcen give some indication of the strength of feeling the public have concerning various Brexit Issues.
The following is a list that they strongly support;
65% - giving EU companies permission to trade freely here in return for UK companies having the same; 48% - reintroducing customs checks at EU borders; 47% - introducing visa requirements for EU citizens to match non-EU ones; 45% - allow EU citizens to stay if they are already here; 44% - barring NHS access to EU citizens; 43% - capping numbers arriving from EU; 36% - comply with EU regulations on industry; 32% - bank passporting agreements allowing EU banks access here in return for UK banks having the same; 31% - giving access to UK territorial waters in return for same; 30% - abolishing working time directive; 25% - hard border with Ireland 24% - maintain mobile phone rules from EU
The free trade question is phrased in terms of us giving them access if we have it, rather than the other way around. Quite curious.
The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (who derive their funding from???)
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
Canvass update (usual disclaimers, just for entertainment/curiosity): not really very much happening at the moment compared with the 2015 election. Sample 97. People in my quiet WWC division don't seem to be following politics particularly closely, and the most common response is "I always vote X" (usually Lab in these streets). Some sign of keenness: 5 normally apathetic Lab voters agreed to fill out PV applications "to make sure we can vote next time".
One couple ONLY wanted to discuss Brexit - they had opposing views, but neither cared in the least about County politics. It's a LibDem-held seat but LibDem support today was literally invisible, as was UKIP support (although the division voted Leave) - non-Lab voters were all Tory or "don't know".
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
So May resigns on the day after the vote of no confidence, asks HM to call Corbyn. Corbyn goes to the Palace and declines the job. Then what?
Does HM call May back? What happens is Corbyn accepts then gets voted down, does he remain in charge for the duration of the campaign? Surely all this is written down somewhere and a few guys on a blog shouldn't really be discussing the process?
Lawd, not something else that Cameron bungled. No wonder the Pound Shop Eden scuttled off at the earliest opportunity.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
So May resigns on the day after the vote of no confidence, asks HM to call Corbyn. Corbyn goes to the Palace and declines the job. Then what?
I'm sure Bercow would get involved somewhere along the road.
Yes, he's the sort of guy who will find a way to put himself in the middle of it all.
But seriously, there's no way May will go down the route of engineering an election if she's not positive it can be done without letting Corbyn (or Bercow) through the door of Number 10.
As was mentioned earlier, there's always the 2/3 of the HoC option, daring the Opposition to vote against an election.
Lawd, not something else that Cameron bungled. No wonder the Pound Shop Eden scuttled off at the earliest opportunity.
Yawn, no, he didn't bungle it, you are showing both arrogance and ignorance. Theresa May remains PM until a new PM is appointed. Nothing has changed in this respect.
The data tables from Natcen give some indication of the strength of feeling the public have concerning various Brexit Issues.
The following is a list that they strongly support;
65% - giving EU companies permission to trade freely here in return for UK companies having the same; 48% - reintroducing customs checks at EU borders; 47% - introducing visa requirements for EU citizens to match non-EU ones; 45% - allow EU citizens to stay if they are already here; 44% - barring NHS access to EU citizens; 43% - capping numbers arriving from EU; 36% - comply with EU regulations on industry; 32% - bank passporting agreements allowing EU banks access here in return for UK banks having the same; 31% - giving access to UK territorial waters in return for same; 30% - abolishing working time directive; 25% - hard border with Ireland 24% - maintain mobile phone rules from EU
The free trade question is phrased in terms of us giving them access if we have it, rather than the other way around. Quite curious.
The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (who derive their funding from???)
They are a government organisation, they get most their funding from the Government via the BIS Department.
Why are you curious where they derive their funding from???
The data tables from Natcen give some indication of the strength of feeling the public have concerning various Brexit Issues.
The following is a list that they strongly support;
65% - giving EU companies permission to trade freely here in return for UK companies having the same; 48% - reintroducing customs checks at EU borders; 47% - introducing visa requirements for EU citizens to match non-EU ones; 45% - allow EU citizens to stay if they are already here; 44% - barring NHS access to EU citizens; 43% - capping numbers arriving from EU; 36% - comply with EU regulations on industry; 32% - bank passporting agreements allowing EU banks access here in return for UK banks having the same; 31% - giving access to UK territorial waters in return for same; 30% - abolishing working time directive; 25% - hard border with Ireland 24% - maintain mobile phone rules from EU
The free trade question is phrased in terms of us giving them access if we have it, rather than the other way around. Quite curious.
The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (who derive their funding from???)
What are the nets on those? Without DKs it's hard to get a feel from those numbers.
Lawd, not something else that Cameron bungled. No wonder the Pound Shop Eden scuttled off at the earliest opportunity.
Yawn, no, he didn't bungle it, you are showing both arrogance and ignorance. Theresa May remains PM until a new PM is appointed. Nothing has changed in this respect.
The question is, is he appointed before the vote of confidence?
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
The data tables from Natcen give some indication of the strength of feeling the public have concerning various Brexit Issues.
The following is a list that they strongly support;
65% - giving EU companies permission to trade freely here in return for UK companies having the same; 48% - reintroducing customs checks at EU borders; 47% - introducing visa requirements for EU citizens to match non-EU ones; 45% - allow EU citizens to stay if they are already here; 44% - barring NHS access to EU citizens; 43% - capping numbers arriving from EU; 36% - comply with EU regulations on industry; 32% - bank passporting agreements allowing EU banks access here in return for UK banks having the same; 31% - giving access to UK territorial waters in return for same; 30% - abolishing working time directive; 25% - hard border with Ireland 24% - maintain mobile phone rules from EU
The free trade question is phrased in terms of us giving them access if we have it, rather than the other way around. Quite curious.
The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (who derive their funding from???)
As an aside what - if any - percentage of funding is EU related? It's one thing if it's sub 5%, it's another if it's 50% or more.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
Lawd, not something else that Cameron bungled. No wonder the Pound Shop Eden scuttled off at the earliest opportunity.
Yawn, no, he didn't bungle it, you are showing both arrogance and ignorance. Theresa May remains PM until a new PM is appointed. Nothing has changed in this respect.
The question is, is he appointed before the vote of confidence?
Exactly as in the past, a new PM would be appointed when Her Majesty is advised that he or she commands a majority in the House. That could be before a formal vote of confidence, exactly as after a GE the new PM is (usually) appointed immediately. When it's not clear that anyone commands a majority (as was the case for a few days after the 2010 GE), the current PM remains in office until it becomes clear.
From Der Spiegal - "However, if conventional troops no longer provide the necessary clout, the nuclear option automatically comes to the fore". I do hope we don't offer a nuclear back stop for the EU. It would make us the one important nuclear target. Not for governments that have spent the last 6 months threatening us. If the USA takes its 75% of Nato home I can see us going back to the post war levels of military spending if we try.
Lawd, not something else that Cameron bungled. No wonder the Pound Shop Eden scuttled off at the earliest opportunity.
Yawn, no, he didn't bungle it, you are showing both arrogance and ignorance. Theresa May remains PM until a new PM is appointed. Nothing has changed in this respect.
The question is, is he appointed before the vote of confidence?
Exactly as in the past, a new PM would be appointed when Her Majesty is advised that he or she commands a majority in the House. That could be before a formal vote of confidence, exactly as after a GE the new PM is (usually) appointed immediately. When it's not clear (as was the case for a few days after the 2010 GE), the current PM remains in office.
So the government would not resign after the first vote? Otherwise which government is the second vote referring to?
From Der Spiegal - "However, if conventional troops no longer provide the necessary clout, the nuclear option automatically comes to the fore". I do hope we don't offer a nuclear back stop for the EU. It would make us the one important nuclear target. Not for governments that have spent the last 6 months threatening us. If the USA takes its 75% of Nato home I can see us going back to the post war levels of military spending if we try.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
From Der Spiegal - "However, if conventional troops no longer provide the necessary clout, the nuclear option automatically comes to the fore". I do hope we don't offer a nuclear back stop for the EU. It would make us the one important nuclear target. Not for governments that have spent the last 6 months threatening us. If the USA takes its 75% of Nato home I can see us going back to the post war levels of military spending if we try.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Surely somebody would be invited to 'try' to form a Government which would then need an affirmative Confidence Vote in the Commons.Some argue that would be someone other than May - who had just lost a No Confidence Vote. Effectively a new Government would be formed awaiting affirmation by the Legislature. For an Affirmation Vote to take place there would have to be a Government in existence to vote for or against!
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The Queen might invite Corbyn as LotO to try. However, even if she did, Corbyn might refuse on the grounds that he clearly could not command the confidence of the House. Alternatively, the Queen might not even ask him on the same basis. FWIW, I think she would, simply because it would keep her above politics for him to refuse / fail, even if that outcome were inevitable. However, if he did accept and put it to the Commons then yes, he would have to be appointed PM, even if only briefly.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
Ramsay Macdonald only had 191 MPs in Jan 1924. Campbell-Bannerman faced a Tory majority of 100 when appointed PM in December 1905.
Wow. Didn't we used to joke about you referring to 1905.
2016 - the year that jokes actually become used as constitutional evidence....
Seriously Justin, there is no way in the real world that Corbyn becomes PM in your situation despite the FTPA. The civil service and palace officials wouldn't be bogged down in examples from 1905, they'd encourage a dissolution.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
I could combine the Hyperloop story with the tram one we discussed earlier: as I've said before, in my view one of the biggest problems with Hyperloop will be safety. You might be able to get it to work most of the time, but how does it work when it fails? And have you thought of all failure mechanisms?
The latter was why the supposedly-safe Maglev test track in Germany killed many people in a crash. The amount of energy that will need safely dissipating in Hyperloop from momentum alone will be immense.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
Why would he do that? He could still 'try' - lose the Affirmative Confidence Vote - but remain PM throughout the ensuing election campaign period!
So the government would not resign after the first vote? Otherwise which government is the second vote referring to?
The government wouldn't resign until there's an alternative government ready to take its place. It's a fundamental principle of our unwritten constitution that Her Majesty must always have ministers.
From Der Spiegal - "However, if conventional troops no longer provide the necessary clout, the nuclear option automatically comes to the fore". I do hope we don't offer a nuclear back stop for the EU. It would make us the one important nuclear target. Not for governments that have spent the last 6 months threatening us. If the USA takes its 75% of Nato home I can see us going back to the post war levels of military spending if we try.
France has nuclear weapons.
Force de Frape. Sounds like a type of coffee!
That's the Force de Frappé. Very effective against Greeks.
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
So the government would not resign after the first vote? Otherwise which government is the second vote referring to?
The government wouldn't resign until there's an alternative government ready to take its place. It's a fundamental principle of our unwritten constitution that Her Majesty must always have ministers.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
Sounds like macho bullshit. Will he take responsibility for the collateral damage caused by his posturing?
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
Why would he do that? He could still 'try' - lose the Affirmative Confidence Vote - but remain PM throughout the ensuing election campaign period!
Could HM refuse if she/her advisors didn't think he could?
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after the vote of confidence. In pre-FTPA times, the Government would resign and Parliament dissolved. Under the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indicated they have enough support for the PM to go to the Palace and formally resign. If so then the vote of confidence happens, we all wait two weeks and Parliament is dissolved.
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
Why would he do that? He could still 'try' - lose the Affirmative Confidence Vote - but remain PM throughout the ensuing election campaign period!
Could HM refuse if she/her advisors didn't think he could?
Yup, I wouldn't be the only one pointing recent events show Jeremy Corbyn does not command the confidence of a majority of Labour MPs, let alone the House of Commons.
When I attended a seminar last year on the FTPA, someone made the observation that the FTPA was conceived in 2010 on the assumption we'd have minority governments for the next few Parliaments.
Dave winning a majority threw a spanner into the works.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
Sounds like macho bullshit. Will he take responsibility for the collateral damage caused by his posturing?
I've no idea what he will take responsibility for and I am not even an apologist for him, let alone a fan. But there are clearly more than one possible view of him and more than one possible set of motivators/strategies behind his actions. Which possibility you discount entirely. I will leave you to your monochrome world.
ScreamingEagles: Mrs May cannot call an election, The Parliament Act rules.
.
Not necessarily, though it couldn't be ruled out. That would be the risk.
Were May to lose a VoNC (deliberately), she could seek to stay on pending someone else being invited to form a government. That might work; it might not.
The better option if parliament were being unreasonably obstructionist would first be to put down a motion in the Commons for an early election and then to challenge Labour to vote against it.
But if Corbyn accepted, his Government would surely have to exist before an Affirmative Confidence Vote could take place? The Commons could hardly vote for or against a Phantom Government! On that basis he would already be PM and would require the Affirmative vote to continue. On his being denied the Confidence of the House a Dissolution would follow. By the way, I can see no reason why Corbyn would not 'try' after being invited.
This is exactly why the FTPA is a piece of junk. He shouldn't be able to try given the number of Labour MPs.
The unanswered question is what happens after thender the FTPA there is a two week window to form a government, will this in practice be similar to the post-2010 situation, where the PM and govt would stay in place until another party indic
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
No, because Corbyn would indicate to HM that he is unable to command a majority.
Why would he do that? He could still 'try' - lose the Affirmative Confidence Vote - but remain PM throughout the ensuing election campaign period!
Could HM refuse if she/her advisors didn't think he could?
Yup, I wouldn't be the only one pointing recent events show Jeremy Corbyn does not command the confidence of a majority of Labour MPs, let alone the House of Commons.
The PM recommends to Hm who to invite to form a government. For Corbyn to become Pm May would have to say that he could command a majority. She wouldn't if he couldn't.
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
I could combine the Hyperloop story with the tram one we discussed earlier: as I've said before, in my view one of the biggest problems with Hyperloop will be safety. You might be able to get it to work most of the time, but how does it work when it fails? And have you thought of all failure mechanisms?
The latter was why the supposedly-safe Maglev test track in Germany killed many people in a crash. The amount of energy that will need safely dissipating in Hyperloop from momentum alone will be immense.
For all that I've been a fan of the Hyperloop technology, the idea of doing a freight version first is a sensible one. There would as you say be a huge amount of energy involved in a accident, if it were full of people there wouldn't be much left to put in the coffins either.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
Sounds like macho bullshit. Will he take responsibility for the collateral damage caused by his posturing?
I've no idea what he will take responsibility for and I am not even an apologist for him, let alone a fan. But there are clearly more than one possible view of him and more than one possible set of motivators/strategies behind his actions. Which possibility you discount entirely. I will leave you to your monochrome world.
My world aspires to monochrome. Far too dark these days. Perfectly willing to believe that's his motivation, just saddened that he could be so cynical. Mad is almost better than cynical.
Obama's favourables are excellent, and he would have carried NC and FL.
PA, MI and WI as well.
Ohio to Trump,
Iowa would have been interesting - Obama won it "despite" the demographics there.
He campaigned in Iowa a lot in 2008, his personal voter contact levels were huge.
He understood the difference between losing a red county by 20% and 50%, looks like Hillary thought it would be enough to just win big in the city and immediate suburbs and just really ignore the rest. He must be pretty pissed with her now.
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
It's a bit of an in-joke between Mr Jessop and I. I've always been supportive of it and he dismissive - and now my home town is going to build one - for freight initially, which is actually the sensible middle way that makes us both happy!
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
I've seen that tactic used in Freddy Forsythe novels.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
I've seen that tactic used in Freddy Forsythe novels.
He'll be eating cordite and hiding a rifle in crutches next.
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
It's a bit of an in-joke between Mr Jessop and I. I've always been supportive of it and he dismissive - and now my home town is going to build one - for freight initially, which is actually the sensible middle way that makes us both happy!
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
There's some great innovation going on in aerospace right now, and the amazing thing is it's almost all being done with private money.
It's a bit of an in-joke between Mr Jessop and I. I've always been supportive of it and he dismissive - and now my home town is going to build one - for freight initially, which is actually the sensible middle way that makes us both happy!
Obama's favourables are excellent, and he would have carried NC and FL.
PA, MI and WI as well.
Ohio to Trump,
Iowa would have been interesting - Obama won it "despite" the demographics there.
He campaigned in Iowa a lot in 2008, his personal voter contact levels were huge.
He understood the difference between losing a red county by 20% and 50%, looks like Hillary thought it would be enough to just win big in the city and immediate suburbs and just really ignore the rest. He must be pretty pissed with her now.
Obama is a likeable man, and people enjoy meeting him, even those who disagree with him. I'm told that in private, Hilary can be good company, but she just wasn't interested in working those far-flung counties.
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
I've seen that tactic used in Freddy Forsythe novels.
The outrageous demand followed by a reasonable one is *not* using OODA. And it is quite often done in politics. Leak a 20p per whatsit tax rise and then everyone thinks that 2p is so so reasonable...
OODA is about making decisions faster than the opposition. An example in politics was the Damien Green afafir. Damien Green had a source inside the Home Office who was telling him what the next excuse the spin doctors would come up with plus what was really happening. So Green briefed the lobby journalists on the story, the government attempt to spin it and the rebuttal of the spin before the spin doctors had even had a go. So they would rattle off the spin to the press and wlak straight into a barrage of questions... and by then Green would be telling journalists the rebuttal to the next spin lines....
The whole thing upset the spin machine that the Cabinet Secretary came up with the novel argument that being defeated at spinning was a threat to organised government and got Green arrested...
Interestingly a certain MP who posts here claimed that he was entirely in favour of arresting MPs who received leaks. When it was pointed out to him that a certain Gordon Brown publicly boasted of his sources inside the government (when in opposition), he retreated to the position that he had been out of the country alot and had had no idea that leaking to MPs was a part of public life....
Lost on previous thread. Friend had dinner last night with former NY Governor who knows Trump well (on other side of table from him multiple times).
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Do he's an arsehole, not a fascist
Not necessarily even an arsehole.
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
If he's using military tactics like that in civilian election , he's a weapons grade arsehole.
It is a total war approach to politics, but given that POTUS is also CinC of the greatest military force in the history of the planet, it is hardly just a civilian election.
I've seen that tactic used in Freddy Forsythe novels.
The outrageous demand followed by a reasonable one is *not* using OODA. And it is quite often done in politics. Leak a 20p per whatsit tax rise and then everyone thinks that 2p is so so reasonable...
OODA is about making decisions faster than the opposition. An example in politics was the Damien Green afafir. Damien Green had a source inside the Home Office who was telling him what the next excuse the spin doctors would come up with plus what was really happening. So Green briefed the lobby journalists on the story, the government attempt to spin it and the rebuttal of the spin before the spin doctors had even had a go. So they would rattle off the spin to the press and wlak straight into a barrage of questions... and by then Green would be telling journalists the rebuttal to the next spin lines....
There's a great chapter on OODA and Trump in Tim Harford's latest book 'Messy'. To be honest, there's nothing that Trump is doing / has done that can't be found in 'The Art of War' but then politicians have probably stopped reading just like most other people in society. People should read more (good) fiction - it trains you to spot archetypal patterns and narratives as they evolve...
Comments
Must be an outlier
Also, Trump would have become a painter in Austria
Interestingly there are 2 people with no ballot paper description at all.
Um, how did you know???
Because he is talking about 3 million immediate deportations, not a cumulative figure over the whole term
And Ramsay had the support of the liberals, so that's 191+158.
Anger 32%
It surely can't be that Mrs May is forced to resign, allowing Corbyn to be in charge for the six weeks of the election campaign, following which the Tories are returned again with a majority. That's not good for democracy.
The concept of the FTPA was to protect the last Coalition govt, for which it served its purpose. it doesn't really work with a single party majority.
It seems reasonably clear that if the EU approaches the issue with a degree of sense and pragmatism, rather than ideological zeal, a deal should be very possible. Merkel seems to get it.
(note: unweighted base was Remain heavy)
' Stephen Crabb said the latest labour report, which showed the unemployment total rose by 21,000 in the three months to February to 1.7 million, was a signal that the looming EU referendum vote was hitting the jobs market. '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/20/uk-unemployment-rises-and-pay-growth-falls
' UK unemployment fell by 37,000 to 1.6 million in the three months to September, hitting an 11-year low. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37997713
Days on which it is not Sunil's birthday 99.73%
FTPA is really not fit for purpose for the current situation, where a new PM is popular but has only a tiny majority and struggles to get things done - such as implementing the result of a referendum.
One for the constitutional scholars.
Does HM call May back? What happens is Corbyn accepts then gets voted down, does he remain in charge for the duration of the campaign? Surely all this is written down somewhere and a few guys on a blog shouldn't really be discussing the process?
The following is a list that they strongly support;
65% - giving EU companies permission to trade freely here in return for UK companies having the same;
48% - reintroducing customs checks at EU borders;
47% - introducing visa requirements for EU citizens to match non-EU ones;
45% - allow EU citizens to stay if they are already here;
44% - barring NHS access to EU citizens;
43% - capping numbers arriving from EU;
36% - comply with EU regulations on industry;
32% - bank passporting agreements allowing EU banks access here in return for UK banks having the same;
31% - giving access to UK territorial waters in return for same;
30% - abolishing working time directive;
25% - hard border with Ireland
24% - maintain mobile phone rules from EU
The free trade question is phrased in terms of us giving them access if we have it, rather than the other way around. Quite curious.
The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (who derive their funding from???)
Elon Musk and SpaceX have sort-of announced plans to launch up to 4,400 satellites into low-earth orbit to give worldwide satellite Internet coverage. To be launched up to 50 on a rocket.
The guy's rather ambitious. Though I think others have similar plans, so they're probably in a hurry.
One couple ONLY wanted to discuss Brexit - they had opposing views, but neither cared in the least about County politics. It's a LibDem-held seat but LibDem support today was literally invisible, as was UKIP support (although the division voted Leave) - non-Lab voters were all Tory or "don't know".
But seriously, there's no way May will go down the route of engineering an election if she's not positive it can be done without letting Corbyn (or Bercow) through the door of Number 10.
As was mentioned earlier, there's always the 2/3 of the HoC option, daring the Opposition to vote against an election.
Why are you curious where they derive their funding from???
Said that his standard MO was to come in with a demand so outrageous as to knock you off balance & to anchor the negotiation.
In his view the wall is just this: he has no intention of building it, but it is designed to force concessions from Mexico
Richard Branson's also helping a startup in the US with a small supersonic jet, aiming for the same price as business class between London and NY
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/15/richard-branson-supersonic-flight-virgin-boom
Oh, and Dubai are gonna build a H*******p prototype, initially for freight
http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/transport/dubai-to-have-hyperloop-prototype-by-2020-1.1926075
Read up about Boyd and the OODA loop. It is a military strategy for winning based on disorientating the enemy. As with any strategy, it can only be successful if the other side thinks you mean it and if you are impervious to criticisms of your tactics. The enemy has to believe utterly and totally that you are an arsehole*.
* In the Trump version of the political rendering of the strategy.
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Analysis-paper-9-Appendix-What-do-voters-want-from-Brexit.pdf
ESRC are the UK funders of the bi-annual European Social Study for our element of a Europe wide study.
2016 - the year that jokes actually become used as constitutional evidence....
Seriously Justin, there is no way in the real world that Corbyn becomes PM in your situation despite the FTPA. The civil service and palace officials wouldn't be bogged down in examples from 1905, they'd encourage a dissolution.
I could combine the Hyperloop story with the tram one we discussed earlier: as I've said before, in my view one of the biggest problems with Hyperloop will be safety. You might be able to get it to work most of the time, but how does it work when it fails? And have you thought of all failure mechanisms?
The latter was why the supposedly-safe Maglev test track in Germany killed many people in a crash. The amount of energy that will need safely dissipating in Hyperloop from momentum alone will be immense.
Dave winning a majority threw a spanner into the works.
Mythbusters showed what an 800mph impact does, and it's really not good.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dWXyr4Y0aP0
https://twitter.com/NeilMackay/status/798924634204893184
"Between Mr Jessop and ME"
End Grammar Nazi mode
oh, wait...
OODA is about making decisions faster than the opposition. An example in politics was the Damien Green afafir. Damien Green had a source inside the Home Office who was telling him what the next excuse the spin doctors would come up with plus what was really happening. So Green briefed the lobby journalists on the story, the government attempt to spin it and the rebuttal of the spin before the spin doctors had even had a go. So they would rattle off the spin to the press and wlak straight into a barrage of questions... and by then Green would be telling journalists the rebuttal to the next spin lines....
The whole thing upset the spin machine that the Cabinet Secretary came up with the novel argument that being defeated at spinning was a threat to organised government and got Green arrested...
Interestingly a certain MP who posts here claimed that he was entirely in favour of arresting MPs who received leaks. When it was pointed out to him that a certain Gordon Brown publicly boasted of his sources inside the government (when in opposition), he retreated to the position that he had been out of the country alot and had had no idea that leaking to MPs was a part of public life....
That makes Trump a kind of giant earthworm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38004836
Scotland worst place in UK for homophobia.