@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
Would the new potential new intake of Tory MPs be mainly Kipper-lites or Osbornites? May would be taking a personal risk with no tight majority to keep her backbenchers honest.
There is no shared public space, no fervent and widely read EU media, no agreed social space, there is no essential European newspaper, broadcaster, radio station, no European forum and piazza where we can come together to debate and discuss.
Nor there is in the United States. They have a common language, some fairly popular TV channels, and that's it. Newspapers are nearly all regional (USA Today is not the general medium that it would like to be), no TV or radio station that everyone follows, no US-wide forum or piazza. And that's AFTER 240 YEARS of being a single country.
Moreover, arguably unlike the USA, small states in the EU are generally more pro-federalist than the big ones. Ask a Brit or a Frenchman and he'll usually look a bit dubious about the EU. Ask a Dane, a Belgian, a Spaniard, a Latvian, even a Greek, and they'll usually tell you that membership is an excellent thing: that's why even now Greece doesn't want to leave the Euro. That's because the big countries know they could manage after a fashion alone. The small countries, not so much.
It's a country in development, and it will in time largely determine the direction of Europe. At some point, we will probably decide to shuffle back in.
Shuffle back in?
Once the new United Europe has arrived at its destination and the people of the UK can see what becoming a part of that country will mean, we/they can make a fully informed decision.
If the United Europe then wishes to enrol the UK as a member region and the UK then wishes to join, I would expect that it would be a whole hearted and celebratory coalescence.
Shuffle back in is the style of poor Mr Brown, signing up to something he dared not put to the voters.
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
Would look odd to the EU. "We've just sent your our EU notification, but now we need to spend the next two months on an election footing".
Would the new potential new intake of Tory MPs be mainly Kipper-lites or Osbornites? May would be taking a personal risk with no tight majority to keep her backbenchers honest.
Depends on the mood of the local party selection panels
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
If Cliffe is saying May should call an early election, he's right, of course.
There are a number takeaways from the Assembly elections. Lucian is correct that big tent stuff doesn't work. NI Unionism is not as monolithic as Northern Nationalism, it tends to motivate its voter base better when there is competition.
1. Unionists do rebel against their own parties when unhappy. For all those extra who came out there were plenty who sat at home.
2. UUP transfers to the DUP, often unreliable, were very fickle this time and went elsewhere to a greater degree.
3. The DUP were always going to lose more seats with the Assembly seat reduction than everyone else.
4. Sinn Fein were sorely pissed by the result in 2016, the republican vote got to similar levels of regular Unionist participation and it showed in the results. So they found their moment and took it. That won't always be the case.
5. Two lost DUP seats in part had little to do with the Republican vote surge and everything to do with a lack of intra unionist transfers: Lagan Valley, South Belfast.
6. The loss in North Belfast had a significant additional element that may surprise those on the mainland. Its a constituency that it has a high concentration of Loyalist working or plain unemployed class and they have long had a fairly tense relationship with the DUP and this time they didn't buy in. Added to the Unionist old money middle class in in that constituency not transferring to the DUP, a winnable seat was lost.
In fact the failure to mobilise notable loyalist working class voter bases in South & North Belfast in particular are a longer term issue. Christopher Stalford in South Belfast held himself up on personal support that was due in good part to that working class vote. He's been working donkey's years to get it but there are plenty more who couldn't be arsed voting.
7. The guilty Prod vote for Alliance is still plenty in evidence.
8. Political Unionism is in a poor patch but this is one cycle. Unionists will most likely get into gear if Sinn Fein gloat too much and the DUP get their act together.
On another note, its well known that Martin McGuinness' illness is progressive and therefore terminal but treatment might have extended him for up to a couple of years. Someone mentioned to me today that he's already in the stage of true palliative care. Not sure how educated a report that is.
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
The principal reason for trying to engineer an early election is that, because of the ill-judged attempts by the Lords and MPs to tie the PM's hands, there is a risk of us getting a bad deal, or no deal at all. The EU will of course seize on the divisions in the UK, and attempt to exploit them. This is a grave risk for the UK. William Hague is quite right:
“As British law needs to be amended countless times to take account of leaving the EU treaties, the Government could face many close votes, concessions or defeats as it tries to implement Brexit.
That prospect will embolden the EU negotiators, and makes an agreement that is good for the UK harder to achieve. It could also lead to a situation where the Prime Minister faces a standoff with parliament over a deal that will have taken two years to negotiate and is nearly impossible to change.”
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
If Cliffe is saying May should call an early election, he's right, of course.
LOL, are people ever going to read the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and realise May CAN'T just call an election whenever she feels like it?
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
Given that it's in our national interest for the negotiations to fail I don't see why anyone should be so concerned about this prospect.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
Given that it's in our national interest for the negotiations to fail I don't see why anyone should be so concerned about this prospect.
If you think it's in our interests to crash out with no deal, I suggest you speak to someone in the car industry (although it's true that the car industry might be unsalvageable anyway).
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
Given that it's in our national interest for the negotiations to fail I don't see why anyone should be so concerned about this prospect.
If you think it's in our interests to crash out with no deal, I suggest you speak to someone in the car industry (although it's true that the car industry might be unsalvageable anyway).
If there is no deal the only crashing out that will take place will be Theresa May crashing out of Downing Street, which is something I'm sure the country could withstand. The government would fall and Brexit would be called off before we stepped over a cliff edge to economic collapse.
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
If Cliffe is saying May should call an early election, he's right, of course.
LOL, are people ever going to read the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and realise May CAN'T just call an election whenever she feels like it?
Substitute 'engineer' for 'call' and the sentiment works, as there are mechanisms, albeit not without some drawbacks. I still cannot see it - with Brexit about to begin in earnest and the Lords surely not likely to delay the A50 much further (for all the march date was arbitrary), a GE is hard to justify when we need to be getting on with things after A50 is triggered, and are there really so many things that would justify delaying triggering until a GE has been held? I get why the Tories would really want one now, the temptation is huge, but if they truly believe Corbyn will remain in place and Labour will be smashed at the next election (or that due to his leadership the same will occur even when he is replaced) they can be patient.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
It's not a case of 'inconvenient', it's a question of very seriously damaging. You can't possibly carry out a negotiation by parliamentary debate.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
Given that it's in our national interest for the negotiations to fail I don't see why anyone should be so concerned about this prospect.
If you think it's in our interests to crash out with no deal, I suggest you speak to someone in the car industry (although it's true that the car industry might be unsalvageable anyway).
If there is no deal the only crashing out that will take place will be Theresa May crashing out of Downing Street, which is something I'm sure the country could withstand. The government would fall and Brexit would be called off before we stepped over a cliff edge to economic collapse.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
It's not a case of 'inconvenient', it's a question of very seriously damaging. You can't possibly carry out a negotiation by parliamentary debate.
Whatever occurs we will still have an opposition and Lords sticking their necks in. The reactions to the attempts have been hysterical.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
Given that it's in our national interest for the negotiations to fail I don't see why anyone should be so concerned about this prospect.
If you think it's in our interests to crash out with no deal, I suggest you speak to someone in the car industry (although it's true that the car industry might be unsalvageable anyway).
If there is no deal the only crashing out that will take place will be Theresa May crashing out of Downing Street, which is something I'm sure the country could withstand. The government would fall and Brexit would be called off before we stepped over a cliff edge to economic collapse.
Whatever occurs we will still have an opposition and Lords sticking their necks in. The reactions to the attempts have been hysterical.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between them sticking their necks (oars?) in when there's a tiny majority, and after an election with a big majority and a popular vote giving an unambiguous mandate to the PM.
Of course, this all assumes that she'd get a big majority in an early GE. That seems very likely, but she'll be more conscious than most of the risks, given that her immediate predecessor came a cropper with a vote he thought he'd win easily...
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
If Cliffe is saying May should call an early election, he's right, of course.
LOL, are people ever going to read the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and realise May CAN'T just call an election whenever she feels like it?
Substitute 'engineer' for 'call' and the sentiment works, as there are mechanisms, albeit not without some drawbacks. I still cannot see it - with Brexit about to begin in earnest and the Lords surely not likely to delay the A50 much further (for all the march date was arbitrary), a GE is hard to justify when we need to be getting on with things after A50 is triggered, and are there really so many things that would justify delaying triggering until a GE has been held? I get why the Tories would really want one now, the temptation is huge, but if they truly believe Corbyn will remain in place and Labour will be smashed at the next election (or that due to his leadership the same will occur even when he is replaced) they can be patient.
Night all.
It's not at all easy to engineer an election anymore, either. Again, people don't seem to have read the Act; they seem to think it's simply a case of the PM unilaterally declaring the government is finished, and then the election is called the next day. In reality, the Act has all sorts of clauses which are designed EXACTLY to stop an early election being engineered like this. There has to be a vote of no confidence (which would involve virtually every Tory MP getting in line to vote for it, including the handful in Remain seats who would fear a LibDem surge), AND THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
And that's before we even consider the possibility of a Gina Miller-style legal challenge, arguing that the government had breached the spirit of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
Whatever occurs we will still have an opposition and Lords sticking their necks in. The reactions to the attempts have been hysterical.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between them sticking their necks (oars?) in when there's a tiny majority, and after an election with a big majority and a popular vote giving an unambiguous mandate to the PM.
Of course, this all assumes that she'd get a big majority in an early GE. That seems very likely, but she'll be more conscious than most of the risks, given that her immediate predecessor came a cropper with a vote he thought he'd win easily...
A huge Tory majority might create its own problems as the kind of triumphalist Brexiteer rhetoric that you'd be likely to hear more of would not make winning a second Scottish independence referendum any easier.
THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
Always a chance it could lead to a government of national unity led by Clegg, Osborne and Umunna.
A huge Tory majority might create its own problems as the kind of triumphalist Brexiteer rhetoric that you'd be likely to hear more of would not make winning a second Scottish independence referendum any easier.
Other way round - she'd find it easier to ignore the more extreme calls if she had her own solid majority.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
It's not a case of 'inconvenient', it's a question of very seriously damaging. You can't possibly carry out a negotiation by parliamentary debate.
The commons will vote down the amendments, with the bill heading back to the Lords. I expect it will pass through a 2nd time with no amendments.
Obviously Brexit didn't help but I think Vauxhall/Opel were doomed, no matter what. BMW, VAG and Mercedes has been furiously micro-segmenting the market in way that doesn't leave much room for such a prosaic brand as Vauxhall. PSA, au moins, show at least some signs of knowing how to do a product led recovery.
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
If Cliffe is saying May should call an early election, he's right, of course.
LOL, are people ever going to read the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and realise May CAN'T just call an election whenever she feels like it?
Substitute 'engineer' for 'call' and the sentiment works, as there are mechanisms, albeit not without some drawbacks. I still cannot see it - with Brexit about to begin in earnest and the Lords surely not likely to delay the A50 much further (for all the march date was arbitrary), a GE is hard to justify when we need to be getting on with things after A50 is triggered, and are there really so many things that would justify delaying triggering until a GE has been held? I get why the Tories would really want one now, the temptation is huge, but if they truly believe Corbyn will remain in place and Labour will be smashed at the next election (or that due to his leadership the same will occur even when he is replaced) they can be patient.
Night all.
It's not at all easy to engineer an election anymore, either. Again, people don't seem to have read the Act; they seem to think it's simply a case of the PM unilaterally declaring the government is finished, and then the election is called the next day. In reality, the Act has all sorts of clauses which are designed EXACTLY to stop an early election being engineered like this. There has to be a vote of no confidence (which would involve virtually every Tory MP getting in line to vote for it, including the handful in Remain seats who would fear a LibDem surge), AND THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
And that's before we even consider the possibility of a Gina Miller-style legal challenge, arguing that the government had breached the spirit of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
She has a majority in the Commons and hence can pass a two-clause Bill amending FTPA s1.2 to set a new starting point for the five year cycle. And the Lords would have to be far more suicidal than it has already shown itself to reject it.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
If Cliffe is saying May should call an early election, he's right, of course.
LOL, are people ever going to read the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and realise May CAN'T just call an election whenever she feels like it?
Substitute 'engineer' for 'call' and the sentiment works, as there are mechanisms, albeit not without some drawbacks. I still cannot see it - with Brexit about to begin in earnest and the Lords surely not likely to delay the A50 much further (for all the march date was arbitrary), a GE is hard to justify when we need to be getting on with things after A50 is triggered, and are there really so many things that would justify delaying triggering until a GE has been held? I get why the Tories would really want one now, the temptation is huge, but if they truly believe Corbyn will remain in place and Labour will be smashed at the next election (or that due to his leadership the same will occur even when he is replaced) they can be patient.
Night all.
It's not at all easy to engineer an election anymore, either. Again, people don't seem to have read the Act; they seem to think it's simply a case of the PM unilaterally declaring the government is finished, and then the election is called the next day. In reality, the Act has all sorts of clauses which are designed EXACTLY to stop an early election being engineered like this. There has to be a vote of no confidence (which would involve virtually every Tory MP getting in line to vote for it, including the handful in Remain seats who would fear a LibDem surge), AND THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
And that's before we even consider the possibility of a Gina Miller-style legal challenge, arguing that the government had breached the spirit of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
Every other Government has been able to determine the date of the election. We are still being governed by the 2010-2015 Coalition in respect of election timing. Well fvck that....
THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
Always a chance it could lead to a government of national unity led by Clegg, Osborne and Umunna.
In all seriousness, if May did try to pass a vote of no confidence in herself, I wouldn't be surprised if the SNP play silly buggers, try to say that THEY will form the next government. Obviously they wouldn't win a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, but it would stretch out the charade (since, again, the legislation is designed to try to make sure ALL possibilities of a new government being formed are exhausted, even after the previous govt has lost a vote of no confidence).
The commons will vote down the amendments, with the bill heading back to the Lords. I expect it will pass through a 2nd time with no amendments.
Yes, but her opponents have been emboldened and there's a non-negligible risk that her majority may be chipped away over two years. At the moment, an awful lot of ministerial time and effort is having to be spent fighting rearguard actions against would-be wreckers of the negotiations. Worse still, it emboldens the sillier elements within the EU27, who see a divided UK political establishment and kid themselves that she doesn't have popular support for her approach. A big mistake, but one which could severely damage both sides of the negotiations.
THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
Always a chance it could lead to a government of national unity led by Clegg, Osborne and Umunna.
In all seriousness, if May did try to pass a vote of no confidence in herself, I wouldn't be surprised if the SNP play silly buggers, try to say that THEY will form the next government. Obviously they wouldn't win a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, but it would stretch out the charade (since, again, the legislation is designed to try to make sure ALL possibilities of a new government being formed are exhausted, even after the previous govt has lost a vote of no confidence).
I don't believe the duration of the charade can change.
Every other Government has been able to determine the date of the election. We are still being governed by the 2010-2015 Coalition in respect of election timing. Well fvck that....
Like it or not, that's the law as it stands, though.
The government could theoretically repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, of course, but that would involve lots of time and palaver too.
There is no shared public space, no fervent and widely read EU media, no agreed social space, there is no essential European newspaper, broadcaster, radio station, no European forum and piazza where we can come together to debate and discuss.
So far, we just have disaster, in Greece. Who knows how bad it could get.
Greece. The birthplace of democracy destroyed by the E.U/Euro. sad.
THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
Always a chance it could lead to a government of national unity led by Clegg, Osborne and Umunna.
In all seriousness, if May did try to pass a vote of no confidence in herself, I wouldn't be surprised if the SNP play silly buggers, try to say that THEY will form the next government. Obviously they wouldn't win a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, but it would stretch out the charade (since, again, the legislation is designed to try to make sure ALL possibilities of a new government being formed are exhausted, even after the previous govt has lost a vote of no confidence).
I don't believe the duration of the charade can change.
From what I understand, even tabling a vote of confidence extends the process (even if that vote of confidence has no chance of passing).
THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
Always a chance it could lead to a government of national unity led by Clegg, Osborne and Umunna.
In all seriousness, if May did try to pass a vote of no confidence in herself, I wouldn't be surprised if the SNP play silly buggers, try to say that THEY will form the next government. Obviously they wouldn't win a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, but it would stretch out the charade (since, again, the legislation is designed to try to make sure ALL possibilities of a new government being formed are exhausted, even after the previous govt has lost a vote of no confidence).
I don't believe the duration of the charade can change.
From what I understand, even tabling a vote of confidence extends the process (even if that vote of confidence has no chance of passing).
The act states there are 14 days in which a new government can seek the confidence of the house. After that, there is an election. I don't see a mention of the process being sped up.
Every other Government has been able to determine the date of the election. We are still being governed by the 2010-2015 Coalition in respect of election timing. Well fvck that....
Like it or not, that's the law as it stands, though.
The government could theoretically repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, of course, but that would involve lots of time and palaver too.
Yes, since it repealed the Septennial Act, for starters! Bloody FTPA.
If the PM does want to engineer an early election, I think this mechanism would work:
1. Make a speech saying we need an election to give her a mandate for her Brexit approach (hard for the other parties to disagree with that, since they've been attacking her Brexit approach, and claiming she doesn't have a mandate for it).
2. Table a motion under Section 2 of the Act that "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". This requires a two-thirds majority. What are Labour and the SNP going to do, vote against and show themselves to be frit?
3. If they do vote against, bring on a vote of confidence. The Conservatives only need to abstain, et voila! 14 days later, the election is on. No other government can be formed in the 14 days, because the Conservatives would vote against.
If the PM does want to engineer an early election, I think this mechanism would work:
1. Make a speech saying we need an election to give her a mandate for her Brexit approach (hard for the other parties to disagree with that, since they've been attacking her Brexit approach).
2. Table a motion under Section 2 of the Act that "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". This requires a two-thirds majority. What are Labour and the SNP going to do, vote against and show themselves to be frit?
3. If they do vote against, bring on a vote of confidence. The Conservatives only need to abstain, et voila! 14 days later, the election is on. No other government can be formed in the 14 days, because the Conservatives would vote against.
On Option 2:- why would Labour vote for an election with the polls as they are?!? If it's a choice between getting catcalls of being called "frit" for a few weeks, or unemployment from losing their seats in a general election, it's pretty obvious what they would choose.
Option 3 again relies on no more than 8-10 Tory MPs in Remainer/LibDem-friendly seats getting scared, as well as the presentational problems of there being no functioning government for weeks on end, civil servants running round in a panic trying to set up National Governments, and the public scratching their heads wondering what on earth's going on and why that previously sensible Mrs May is suddenly plunging the country into such chaos.
And you missed out the other problem: the possibility of a legal challenge, since trying to engineer an early election goes against the explicit intentions of the Act.
An early general election is pointless and May shows no sign of wanting one, Britain has voted for Brexit and as Copeland shows has not much changed its mind since, a general election should be held only once a deal has been done and so the electorate can then give their verdict on the terms and if they want to go back to the single market they can vote LD and if they want even tougher immigration controls and an end to all EU budget contributions they can vote UKIP, while if they are happy enough with the deal they can vote Tory.
On Option 2:- why would Labour vote for an election with the polls as they are?!? If it's a choice between getting catcalls of being called "frit" for a few weeks, or unemployment from losing their seats in a general election, it's pretty obvious what they would choose.
Option 3 again relies on no more than 8-10 Tory MPs in Remainer/LibDem-friendly seats getting scared.
And you missed out the other problem: the possibility of a legal challenge, since trying to engineer an early election goes against the explicit intentions of the Act.
On Option 2, Labour would be in a bind. Oh dear. I'm sure Mrs May would be very sympathetic.
If it goes to Option 3, it relies on nearly all Tory MPs rebelling (by perversely voting that they DO have confidence in her!). That's clearly not going to happen.
I can't see a legal challenge working. This is using the provisions of the Act, which in any case was intended to prevent coalition partners being shafted.
If the PM does want to engineer an early election, I think this mechanism would work:
1. Make a speech saying we need an election to give her a mandate for her Brexit approach (hard for the other parties to disagree with that, since they've been attacking her Brexit approach, and claiming she doesn't have a mandate for it).
2. Table a motion under Section 2 of the Act that "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". This requires a two-thirds majority. What are Labour and the SNP going to do, vote against and show themselves to be frit?
3. If they do vote against, bring on a vote of confidence. The Conservatives only need to abstain, et voila! 14 days later, the election is on. No other government can be formed in the 14 days, because the Conservatives would vote against.
Richard. Are you suggesting an election in May is quite likely or even possible? How likely do you rate an election in May in percentage terms?
On Option 2:- why would Labour vote for an election with the polls as they are?!? If it's a choice between getting catcalls of being called "frit" for a few weeks, or unemployment from losing their seats in a general election, it's pretty obvious what they would choose.
Option 3 again relies on no more than 8-10 Tory MPs in Remainer/LibDem-friendly seats getting scared.
And you missed out the other problem: the possibility of a legal challenge, since trying to engineer an early election goes against the explicit intentions of the Act.
On Option 2, Labour would be in a bind. Oh dear. I'm sure Mrs May would be very sympathetic.
You miss the point. I'm not saying the Tories would be "sympathetic". I'm saying Labour MPs wouldn't vote for it, and thus wouldn't give her the two-thirds majority that your scenario relies on.
If it goes to Option 3, it relies on nearly all Tory MPs rebelling (by perversely voting that they DO have confidence in her!). That's clearly not going to happen.
No it wouldn't? The Tory majority is only 12. It takes only 8-10 rebels for a vote of no confidence to not go the way the Tories want it.
Richard. Are you suggesting an election in May is quite likely or even possible? How likely do you rate an election in May in percentage terms?
Too late for May. But conceivably June, or more likely October.
I don't think it is very likely, mainly because I think Theresa May doesn't like to change her plans. I think she might be making a mistake because the Gina Miller legal challenge has poisoned things.
If it goes to Option 3, it relies on nearly all Tory MPs rebelling (by perversely voting that they DO have confidence in her!). That's clearly not going to happen.
No it wouldn't? The Tory majority is only 12. It takes only 8-10 rebels for a vote of no confidence to not go the way the Tories want it.
In my plan, the Tories abstain. Labour, the SNP and the LibDems say they have no confidence in the government (they are hardly going to say they have, are they?). So the vote of no confidence carries overwhelmingly. Rebels are irrelevant.
If the PM does want to engineer an early election, I think this mechanism would work:
1. Make a speech saying we need an election to give her a mandate for her Brexit approach (hard for the other parties to disagree with that, since they've been attacking her Brexit approach, and claiming she doesn't have a mandate for it).
2. Table a motion under Section 2 of the Act that "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". This requires a two-thirds majority. What are Labour and the SNP going to do, vote against and show themselves to be frit?
3. If they do vote against, bring on a vote of confidence. The Conservatives only need to abstain, et voila! 14 days later, the election is on. No other government can be formed in the 14 days, because the Conservatives would vote against.
On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?
Richard. Are you suggesting an election in May is quite likely or even possible? How likely do you rate an election in May in percentage terms?
Too late for May. But conceivably June, or more likely October.
I don't think it is very likely, mainly because I think Theresa May doesn't like to change her plans. I think she might be making a mistake because the Gina Miller legal challenge has poisoned things.
If it goes to Option 3, it relies on nearly all Tory MPs rebelling (by perversely voting that they DO have confidence in her!). That's clearly not going to happen.
No it wouldn't? The Tory majority is only 12. It takes only 8-10 rebels for a vote of no confidence to not go the way the Tories want it.
In my plan, the Tories abstain. Labour, the SNP and the LibDems say they have no confidence in the government (they are hardly going to say they have, are they?). So the vote of no confidence carries overwhelmingly. Rebels are irrelevant.
Um...yes, if the alternative is an election where Labour gets annihilated! Normal politics (where the Opposition has to say they'd love an early election and a chance to kick the Government out) is not going to apply at a time when they're losing seats they've held for 80 years.
If it goes to Option 3, it relies on nearly all Tory MPs rebelling (by perversely voting that they DO have confidence in her!). That's clearly not going to happen.
No it wouldn't? The Tory majority is only 12. It takes only 8-10 rebels for a vote of no confidence to not go the way the Tories want it.
In my plan, the Tories abstain. Labour, the SNP and the LibDems say they have no confidence in the government (they are hardly going to say they have, are they?). So the vote of no confidence carries overwhelmingly. Rebels are irrelevant.
Um...yes, if the alternative is an election where Labour gets annihilated! Normal politics (where the Opposition has to say they'd love an early election and a chance to kick the Government out) is not going to apply at a time when they're losing seats they've held for 80 years.
If Labour also abstain it would then only take a handful of Tory MPs to vote down the government.
On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?
The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!
It would be a most hilarious scene if the opposition were voting that they did have confidence in the Conservative government and the Conservatives were saying they didn't.
Re early election...There could a decent number of labour MPs who think let's get it over and done, get rid of jahadi jez and rebuild. It can't be any fun being a moderate labour MPs at the moment and a number have already jumped.
The alternative prospect is of another 3 years of the Berk killing the labour party and it being at least 2025, maybe even 2030, before any shot at getting back into power.
Re early election...There could a decent number of labour MPs who think let's get it over and done, get rid of jahadi jez and rebuild...Rather than prospect of another 3 years of the Berk killing the labour party and it being 2025 at least before any shot at getting back into power.
My thought too. I guess there would have been feelers put out - May quietly acknowledging she needs an effective Opposition through the Article 50 process....
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
Re early election...There could a decent number of labour MPs who think let's get it over and done, get rid of jahadi jez and retcantbe anufIt can't uany n being a moderate labour MPs at the moment and a number have already jumped.
The alternative prospect is of another 3 years of the Berk killing the labour party and it being 2025 at least before any shot at getting back into power.
In practice that would mean throwing a lot of their colleagues to the dogs. It doesn't remotely feel like the type of thing Labour MPs would do.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
Democracy?
LEAVE 52% REMOAN 48%
Scotland 1979
YES 52% NO 48%
Result - Ignore the 52%
Arguably the bill enabling that particular referendum was better. Parliament did consider having a threshold for the EU referendum, but it was rejected.
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
@JeremyCliffe: If you were Theresa May & you wanted to call an early election, you'd have someone nudge William Hague to help square off the the Tory base.
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
If Cliffe is saying May should call an early election, he's right, of course.
LOL, are people ever going to read the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and realise May CAN'T just call an election whenever she feels like it?
Night all.
It's not at all easy to engineer an election anymore, either. Again, people don't seem to have read the Act; they seem to think it's simply a case of the PM unilaterally declaring the government is finished, and then the election is called the next day. In reality, the Act has all sorts of clauses which are designed EXACTLY to stop an early election being engineered like this. There has to be a vote of no confidence (which would involve virtually every Tory MP getting in line to vote for it, including the handful in Remain seats who would fear a LibDem surge), AND THEN there's 14 days of parliament still sitting (time where there would be no functioning government, and when the Queen and civil servants are required to get involved and start meddling to try to create a new government), before an election is even officially triggered.
And that's before we even consider the possibility of a Gina Miller-style legal challenge, arguing that the government had breached the spirit of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
She has a majority in the Commons and hence can pass a two-clause Bill amending FTPA s1.2 to set a new starting point for the five year cycle. And the Lords would have to be far more suicidal than it has already shown itself to reject it.
But the Opposition could move amendments to such a Bill and refuse to co-operate in any attempt to have it rushed through Parliament.
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
So democracy and parliamentary scrutiny should stop just because it's going to make things inconvenient??
Democracy?
LEAVE 52% REMOAN 48%
Scotland 1979
YES 52% NO 48%
Result - Ignore the 52%
Did you read the footnote to my Thread from back in October?
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
The Lords would have to be squared away on Article 50 at the same time. Are they going t play ball?
I can see the logic to triggering Article 50 and going for an immediate election. Labour would be royally screwed. UKIP no better. The LibDems would be painted as the party of Rejoin. Scotland would be as you were on the SNP, with the Tories maybe chiseling away a couple of seats.
But...but...but - it wouldn't help the process in Northern Ireland to have fresh elections weeks after they've just had them.
And what if it went wrong and we ended up with another coalition? What the hell would happen to Brexit, with one party wheeling out lawyers saying Article 50 can be withdrawn and the won't enter into Govt. unless it is.... It might mean a grand coalition to deliver Article 50 - with Corbyn as May's deputy? How unstable would THAT be?
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
No - There now have to be 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day - ie 5 weeks. This implies that March 27th would be the latest date for a Dissolution to hold an election on May 4th - given the Easter & May Day Bank Holidays.
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
No - There now have to be 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day - ie 5 weeks. This implies that March 27th would be the latest date for a Dissolution to hold an election on May 4th - given the Easter & May Day Bank Holidays.
Why 25 days? FTPA suggests 17.
Edit: Ah, I see the amendment in the 2013 Electoral Registration and Administration Act
On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?
The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!
That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
No - There now have to be 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day - ie 5 weeks. This implies that March 27th would be the latest date for a Dissolution to hold an election on May 4th - given the Easter & May Day Bank Holidays.
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
No - There now have to be 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day - ie 5 weeks. This implies that March 27th would be the latest date for a Dissolution to hold an election on May 4th - given the Easter & May Day Bank Holidays.
Why 25 days? FTPA suggests 17.
No - the FTPA was eventually amended to 25 days!
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. So only four days left.. tick tock!
Re early election...There could a decent number of labour MPs who think let's get it over and done, get rid of jahadi jez and rebuild. It can't be any fun being a moderate labour MPs at the moment and a number have already jumped.
The alternative prospect is of another 3 years of the Berk killing the labour party and it being at least 2025, maybe even 2030, before any shot at getting back into power.
Labour MPs who acted in that way would be denied endorsement by the NEC - and effectively deselected.
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
No - There now have to be 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day - ie 5 weeks. This implies that March 27th would be the latest date for a Dissolution to hold an election on May 4th - given the Easter & May Day Bank Holidays.
Why 25 days? FTPA suggests 17.
No - the FTPA was eventually amended to 25 days!
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. So only four days left.. tick tock!
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
No - There now have to be 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day - ie 5 weeks. This implies that March 27th would be the latest date for a Dissolution to hold an election on May 4th - given the Easter & May Day Bank Holidays.
Why 25 days? FTPA suggests 17.
No - the FTPA was eventually amended to 25 days!
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. So only four days left.. tick tock!
What is the timeframe for a possible election? Two weeks to satisfy the clauses of the FTPA regarding confidence. Then seventeen working days, or three and a half weeks, between the dissolution and polling day. May 4th still a possibility? (thinking of the Sun's headline writers here)
No - There now have to be 25 working days between Dissolution and Polling Day - ie 5 weeks. This implies that March 27th would be the latest date for a Dissolution to hold an election on May 4th - given the Easter & May Day Bank Holidays.
Why 25 days? FTPA suggests 17.
No - the FTPA was eventually amended to 25 days!
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. So only four days left.. tick tock!
I don't believe May has any such intention.
Definitely not in four days!
Assuming that nothing now happens before the local elections on May 4th the earliest election date would then be June 15th - but only if Corbyn went along with it. Effectively he could delay it until June 29th or July 6th which many would argue takes us too far into the Summer Holiday period.
Snap, owner of the Snapchat, has priced its shares for listing on the US stock market at $17 per share. The flotation values the business at $24bn, although Snap has never made a profit.
F##king bonkers. There is nothing particularly unique about snapchat, its just the fad of the moment (and even then is slipping among the youngsters).
I really don't get these insane valuations on tech that doesn't make money and that can be easily replicated, unlike say Google or AWS.
I find that one of the disadvantages of investing via low-cost tracker funds and the like, is that you nevertheless end up holding stock that you highly suspect to be utter crud and wouldn't ever have actively sought to go long on.
Just a shame there is no Index of Proper Actual Companies With Proper Non-Fluffy Valuations to track.
In fairness to Snap: (1) network effects are hard to replicate (not that this saved MySpace, Bebo, Friends Reunited, Orkut - which was big in Brazil and India, Friendster - which had dominated SE Asia...) and (2) Snap has shown itself very willing and able to pivot its offering, in a way that eg Twitter hasn't.
I still haven't worked out why young people spend so much time on it, quite what they feel they are achieving by being on it, or how it's expected to make a profit out of them, mind.
Shares in Snap, the owner of Snapchat, slid 12% on Monday to close below the price at which they started trading just last week in New York. ... Analysts have given mixed views on the future of Snap, debating whether it can emulate the success of Facebook, sending shares down $3.32 to close at $23.77. It remains unclear whether Snap can expand beyond its core base of young users, or how it will fare in many international markets in a competitive social media environment. Five of seven financial analysts covering Snap advised investors to "sell" the stock, with none advising them to buy, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Needham analyst Laura Martin rated Snap as "underperform" and compared the shares to buying a lottery ticket. ...
There was more bad news for Snap on Monday after a group representing big US institutional investors asked index providers S&P Dow Jones Indices and MSCI to bar the company - and others that sell investors non-voting shares - from their stock benchmarks. Both index providers have said they are reviewing Snap's inclusion.
If it was added to indexes such as the S&P 500, managers of stock index portfolios would have to buy Snap shares, and other investors whose performance is tracked against such indexes would likely follow suit.
Praise be - may not end up in those tracker funds yet!!
On Option 2:- why would Labour vote for an election with the polls as they are?!? If it's a choice between getting catcalls of being called "frit" for a few weeks, or unemployment from losing their seats in a general election, it's pretty obvious what they would choose.
Not wanting a General Election isn't ever a defensible position for the Opposition. It would be a tacit endorsement of the government. The message of the Oppostion cannot credibly be: we'd do a better job of running the country but just not yet.
Obviously Brexit didn't help but I think Vauxhall/Opel were doomed, no matter what. BMW, VAG and Mercedes has been furiously micro-segmenting the market in way that doesn't leave much room for such a prosaic brand as Vauxhall. PSA, au moins, show at least some signs of knowing how to do a product led recovery.
This is the bone-headed line that will get spun every time the entirely foreseeable adverse effects of Brexit become cold reality.
"It would have happened anyway" say the Leavers, too stupid to recognise its full fat inconsistency with their "the EU is doomed, just you wait" schtick.
I'm saddened to see Hague argue for narrow party interest in calling for an early general election. One of the admirable legacies of the Coalition was the FTPA.
The timing of a general election should no longer be the plaything of a Prime Minister, least of all when the going gets tough or when the opposition is about as much use as a chocolate fire screen.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said there will be no early general election. She should keep her word, a novelty in politics but perhaps it might just catch on.
I'm saddened to see Hague argue for narrow party interest in calling for an early general election. One of the admirable legacies of the Coalition was the FTPA.
The timing of a general election should no longer be the plaything of a Prime Minister, least of all when the going gets tough or when the opposition is about as much use as a chocolate fire screen.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said there will be no early general election. She should keep her word, a novelty in politics but perhaps it might just catch on.
A rare occasion where I am taking the exact opposite position, Jack. The FTPA was a measure required for a specific circumstance: the stability of the Coalition 2010 to 2015. It served that purpose, but it is now an anachronism for a majority Govt. to be bound by is predecessor. Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al are long gone from the tiller of the nation, except when it comes to the timing of the next election. Which is ridiculous.
All previous Prime Ministers up to 2010 have had the power to call an election at a time of their choosing. This is not a party partisan point. It is a component of a Prime Minister having the tools to do the job. Part of that is not just changing the Govt. - it is changing the Opposition too. One of the reasons that Labour members could try out the experiment of Corbyn as LOTO was that they had years to "suck it and see". That has killed any effective Opposition. It should be open to a Prime Minister to punish a party that ducks its Parliamentary obligations.
Theresa May having the ability to call an election is a different one to whether she SHOULD actually call an election. I would be very wary of her using the power. She has the same majority she had when Cameron won in 2015. It is enough to get the job done if the party Whips are up to the task. And if there should be some Black Swan in the election campaign that robbed her of that majority and put Brexit delivery in doubt, that would a huge folly.
I can see there is some force to William Hague's argument to go early. It would disarm any EU arguments about May's lack of a mandate for her specific approach. But it would just be an opportunity for some to turn an election campaign into Project Fear Redux. Why take the risk with Brexit?
On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?
The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!
That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.
Mr Balfour informed HM that the Liberals had the confidence of the House, so I'm not sure the situations are comparable.
I'm saddened to see Hague argue for narrow party interest in calling for an early general election. One of the admirable legacies of the Coalition was the FTPA.
The timing of a general election should no longer be the plaything of a Prime Minister, least of all when the going gets tough or when the opposition is about as much use as a chocolate fire screen.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said there will be no early general election. She should keep her word, a novelty in politics but perhaps it might just catch on.
A rare occasion where I am taking the exact opposite position, Jack. The FTPA was a measure required for a specific circumstance: the stability of the Coalition 2010 to 2015. It served that purpose, but it is now an anachronism for a majority Govt. to be bound by is predecessor. Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al are long gone from the tiller of the nation, except when it comes to the timing of the next election. Which is ridiculous.
All previous Prime Ministers up to 2010 have had the power to call an election at a time of their choosing. This is not a party partisan point. It is a component of a Prime Minister having the tools to do the job. Part of that is not just changing the Govt. - it is changing the Opposition too. One of the reasons that Labour members could try out the experiment of Corbyn as LOTO was that they had years to "suck it and see". That has killed any effective Opposition. It should be open to a Prime Minister to punish a party that ducks its Parliamentary obligations.
Theresa May having the ability to call an election is a different one to whether she SHOULD actually call an election. I would be very wary of her using the power. She has the same majority she had when Cameron won in 2015. It is enough to get the job done if the party Whips are up to the task. And if there should be some Black Swan in the election campaign that robbed her of that majority and put Brexit delivery in doubt, that would a huge folly.
I can see there is some force to William Hague's argument to go early. It would disarm any EU arguments about May's lack of a mandate for her specific approach. But it would just be an opportunity for some to turn an election campaign into Project Fear Redux. Why take the risk with Brexit?
The democratic principle should be no party should have an advantage in the calling of an election. You are correct we have moved on - moved on from the whim of the Prime Minister in such matters.
I'm saddened to see Hague argue for narrow party interest in calling for an early general election. One of the admirable legacies of the Coalition was the FTPA.
The timing of a general election should no longer be the plaything of a Prime Minister, least of all when the going gets tough or when the opposition is about as much use as a chocolate fire screen.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said there will be no early general election. She should keep her word, a novelty in politics but perhaps it might just catch on.
A rare occasion where I am taking the exact opposite position, Jack. The FTPA was a measure required for a specific circumstance: the stability of the Coalition 2010 to 2015. It served that purpose, but it is now an anachronism for a majority Govt. to be bound by is predecessor. Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al are long gone from the tiller of the nation, except when it comes to the timing of the next election. Which is ridiculous.
All previous Prime Ministers up to 2010 have had the power to call an election at a time of their choosing. This is not a party partisan point. It is a component of a Prime Minister having the tools to do the job. Part of that is not just changing the Govt. - it is changing the Opposition too. One of the reasons that Labour members could try out the experiment of Corbyn as LOTO was that they had years to "suck it and see". That has killed any effective Opposition. It should be open to a Prime Minister to punish a party that ducks its Parliamentary obligations.
Theresa May having the ability to call an election is a different one to whether she SHOULD actually call an election. I would be very wary of her using the power. She has the same majority she had when Cameron won in 2015. It is enough to get the job done if the party Whips are up to the task. And if there should be some Black Swan in the election campaign that robbed her of that majority and put Brexit delivery in doubt, that would a huge folly.
I can see there is some force to William Hague's argument to go early. It would disarm any EU arguments about May's lack of a mandate for her specific approach. But it would just be an opportunity for some to turn an election campaign into Project Fear Redux. Why take the risk with Brexit?
Calling an unnecessary election might just be one of those be careful what you wish for moments.... Despite Corbyn's utter crapness, it will undoubtedly focus the minds of those who oppose. And it will force the Tories to set out what they want from Brexit, via a manifesto. That in itself could create issues within the party.
Comments
@JeremyCliffe: Why now? Polls fantastic for Tories. Lib Dem threat to metro Tories will only grow. UKIP & Lab shambles may - may - have expiration date.
@JeremyCliffe: Most of all: it's increasingly easy to imagine Brexit talks collapsing. To wait is to bet Brits would blame EU27, not No 10. Risky.
Once the new United Europe has arrived at its destination and the people of the UK can see what becoming a part of that country will mean, we/they can make a fully informed decision.
If the United Europe then wishes to enrol the UK as a member region and the UK then wishes to join, I would expect that it would be a whole hearted and celebratory coalescence.
Shuffle back in is the style of poor Mr Brown, signing up to something he dared not put to the voters.
Good evening, everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dATuq8O3920
1. Unionists do rebel against their own parties when unhappy. For all those extra who came out there were plenty who sat at home.
2. UUP transfers to the DUP, often unreliable, were very fickle this time and went elsewhere to a greater degree.
3. The DUP were always going to lose more seats with the Assembly seat reduction than everyone else.
4. Sinn Fein were sorely pissed by the result in 2016, the republican vote got to similar levels of regular Unionist participation and it showed in the results. So they found their moment and took it. That won't always be the case.
5. Two lost DUP seats in part had little to do with the Republican vote surge and everything to do with a lack of intra unionist transfers: Lagan Valley, South Belfast.
6. The loss in North Belfast had a significant additional element that may surprise those on the mainland. Its a constituency that it has a high concentration of Loyalist working or plain unemployed class and they have long had a fairly tense relationship with the DUP and this time they didn't buy in. Added to the Unionist old money middle class in in that constituency not transferring to the DUP, a winnable seat was lost.
In fact the failure to mobilise notable loyalist working class voter bases in South & North Belfast in particular are a longer term issue. Christopher Stalford in South Belfast held himself up on personal support that was due in good part to that working class vote. He's been working donkey's years to get it but there are plenty more who couldn't be arsed voting.
7. The guilty Prod vote for Alliance is still plenty in evidence.
8. Political Unionism is in a poor patch but this is one cycle. Unionists will most likely get into gear if Sinn Fein gloat too much and the DUP get their act together.
On another note, its well known that Martin McGuinness' illness is progressive and therefore terminal but treatment might have extended him for up to a couple of years. Someone mentioned to me today that he's already in the stage of true palliative care. Not sure how educated a report that is.
“As British law needs to be amended countless times to take account of leaving the EU treaties, the Government could face many close votes, concessions or defeats as it tries to implement Brexit.
That prospect will embolden the EU negotiators, and makes an agreement that is good for the UK harder to achieve. It could also lead to a situation where the Prime Minister faces a standoff with parliament over a deal that will have taken two years to negotiate and is nearly impossible to change.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/theresa-may-should-scrap-fixed-term-parliaments-hold-early-election/
This whole negotiation is difficult enough as it is without grandstanding lords and MPs with their own agendas trying to stick their contradictory oars into it.
Night all.
Of course, this all assumes that she'd get a big majority in an early GE. That seems very likely, but she'll be more conscious than most of the risks, given that her immediate predecessor came a cropper with a vote he thought he'd win easily...
And that's before we even consider the possibility of a Gina Miller-style legal challenge, arguing that the government had breached the spirit of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
LEAVE 52%
REMOAN 48%
The government could theoretically repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, of course, but that would involve lots of time and palaver too.
1. Make a speech saying we need an election to give her a mandate for her Brexit approach (hard for the other parties to disagree with that, since they've been attacking her Brexit approach, and claiming she doesn't have a mandate for it).
2. Table a motion under Section 2 of the Act that "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election". This requires a two-thirds majority. What are Labour and the SNP going to do, vote against and show themselves to be frit?
3. If they do vote against, bring on a vote of confidence. The Conservatives only need to abstain, et voila! 14 days later, the election is on. No other government can be formed in the 14 days, because the Conservatives would vote against.
Option 3 again relies on no more than 8-10 Tory MPs in Remainer/LibDem-friendly seats getting scared, as well as the presentational problems of there being no functioning government for weeks on end, civil servants running round in a panic trying to set up National Governments, and the public scratching their heads wondering what on earth's going on and why that previously sensible Mrs May is suddenly plunging the country into such chaos.
And you missed out the other problem: the possibility of a legal challenge, since trying to engineer an early election goes against the explicit intentions of the Act.
If it goes to Option 3, it relies on nearly all Tory MPs rebelling (by perversely voting that they DO have confidence in her!). That's clearly not going to happen.
I can't see a legal challenge working. This is using the provisions of the Act, which in any case was intended to prevent coalition partners being shafted.
I don't think it is very likely, mainly because I think Theresa May doesn't like to change her plans. I think she might be making a mistake because the Gina Miller legal challenge has poisoned things.
Overall, maybe a 20% chance this year?
The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!
The alternative prospect is of another 3 years of the Berk killing the labour party and it being at least 2025, maybe even 2030, before any shot at getting back into power.
YES 52%
NO 48%
Result - Ignore the 52%
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
I can see the logic to triggering Article 50 and going for an immediate election. Labour would be royally screwed. UKIP no better. The LibDems would be painted as the party of Rejoin. Scotland would be as you were on the SNP, with the Tories maybe chiseling away a couple of seats.
But...but...but - it wouldn't help the process in Northern Ireland to have fresh elections weeks after they've just had them.
And what if it went wrong and we ended up with another coalition? What the hell would happen to Brexit, with one party wheeling out lawyers saying Article 50 can be withdrawn and the won't enter into Govt. unless it is.... It might mean a grand coalition to deliver Article 50 - with Corbyn as May's deputy? How unstable would THAT be?
*head explodes....*
Edit: Ah, I see the amendment in the 2013 Electoral Registration and Administration Act
Snap slides as Wall Street ends lower
Shares in Snap, the owner of Snapchat, slid 12% on Monday to close below the price at which they started trading just last week in New York. ... Analysts have given mixed views on the future of Snap, debating whether it can emulate the success of Facebook, sending shares down $3.32 to close at $23.77. It remains unclear whether Snap can expand beyond its core base of young users, or how it will fare in many international markets in a competitive social media environment. Five of seven financial analysts covering Snap advised investors to "sell" the stock, with none advising them to buy, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Needham analyst Laura Martin rated Snap as "underperform" and compared the shares to buying a lottery ticket. ...
There was more bad news for Snap on Monday after a group representing big US institutional investors asked index providers S&P Dow Jones Indices and MSCI to bar the company - and others that sell investors non-voting shares - from their stock benchmarks. Both index providers have said they are reviewing Snap's inclusion.
If it was added to indexes such as the S&P 500, managers of stock index portfolios would have to buy Snap shares, and other investors whose performance is tracked against such indexes would likely follow suit.
Praise be - may not end up in those tracker funds yet!!
The version below has English subtitles.
Haven't seen Fillon's first ad yet - I need a good lawyer might be a suitable title. No doubt Macron's will be very slick.
https://youtu.be/AOzmuPoEfJA
"It would have happened anyway" say the Leavers, too stupid to recognise its full fat inconsistency with their "the EU is doomed, just you wait" schtick.
The timing of a general election should no longer be the plaything of a Prime Minister, least of all when the going gets tough or when the opposition is about as much use as a chocolate fire screen.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said there will be no early general election. She should keep her word, a novelty in politics but perhaps it might just catch on.
https://youtu.be/t2dct9ErA_g
Vulture springs to mind ....
All previous Prime Ministers up to 2010 have had the power to call an election at a time of their choosing. This is not a party partisan point. It is a component of a Prime Minister having the tools to do the job. Part of that is not just changing the Govt. - it is changing the Opposition too. One of the reasons that Labour members could try out the experiment of Corbyn as LOTO was that they had years to "suck it and see". That has killed any effective Opposition. It should be open to a Prime Minister to punish a party that ducks its Parliamentary obligations.
Theresa May having the ability to call an election is a different one to whether she SHOULD actually call an election. I would be very wary of her using the power. She has the same majority she had when Cameron won in 2015. It is enough to get the job done if the party Whips are up to the task. And if there should be some Black Swan in the election campaign that robbed her of that majority and put Brexit delivery in doubt, that would a huge folly.
I can see there is some force to William Hague's argument to go early. It would disarm any EU arguments about May's lack of a mandate for her specific approach. But it would just be an opportunity for some to turn an election campaign into Project Fear Redux. Why take the risk with Brexit?
FTPA rules ok ....