I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
The difference is that under the new rules of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, there is a 14-day window following a vote of no confidence before the election is called, during which time another government is supposed to try and be formed. It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so.
Callaghan lost a vote of confidence and went to the Queen asking for a dissolution and election, Mrs May can't do that. It's a bit of a mess in the scenario of a government with a small majority and a large polling lead, but it was designed explicitly to prevent the PM from going to the country at a time of their own choosing.
The alternative route provided for in the FTPA is that 2/3 of the Commons votes for an election. That needs only a couple of dozen Labour MPs to vote for it, assuming everyone else does. I think it would be hilarious to watch the Opposition vote against an election, it's the whole point of having an Official Opposition in the first place!
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
The difference is that under the new rules of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, there is a 14-day window following a vote of no confidence before the election is called, during which time another government is supposed to try and be formed. It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so.
Callaghan lost a vote of confidence and went to the Queen asking for a dissolution and election, Mrs May can't do that. It's a bit of a mess in the scenario of a government with a small majority and a large polling lead, but it was designed explicitly to prevent the PM from going to the country at a time of their own choosing.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: the FTPA is a big mistake.
@tlg86 Fillon-Melenchon is value to lay at 65, I make the price 150-1. If you think they'll make the 2nd round (together) then back both of them to win the first round at 14 and 21.
Of course that is only 8.4 for your money but mathematically it is better !
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
Mr. Borough, agree entirely. It made sense for the previous government due to the unusual arrangement, but the lack of a sunset clause was sheer stupidity from Cameron.
Mr. Urquhart, nonsense. As the polling clearly shows, Chairman Corbyn is ruthlessly gaining ground on the capitalist pigdog party!
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
The difference is that under the new rules of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, there is a 14-day window following a vote of no confidence before the election is called, during which time another government is supposed to try and be formed. It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so.
Callaghan lost a vote of confidence and went to the Queen asking for a dissolution and election, Mrs May can't do that. It's a bit of a mess in the scenario of a government with a small majority and a large polling lead, but it was designed explicitly to prevent the PM from going to the country at a time of their own choosing.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: the FTPA is a big mistake.
Yep! It was designed by Nick Clegg to see the 2010 coalition through to 2015, a job that it did well. It leaves a constitutional mess in the no-confidence scenario, and has a good chance of bringing the Queen into politics in an uncomfortable manner. It certainly has a major role for the Speaker, which is not a good thing with the current incumbent - as an example he could well rule a confidence motion out of order if it came from a Conservative.
The alternative route provided for in the FTPA is that 2/3 of the Commons votes for an election. That needs only a couple of dozen Labour MPs to vote for it, assuming everyone else does. I think it would be hilarious to watch the Opposition vote against an election, it's the whole point of having an Official Opposition in the first place!
On that point, it would certainly be awkward for Labour not to vote for an election, especially if one was going to be called in a couple of weeks anyway. Also, in the scenario we are talking about, the position of Labour and the LibDems would be that the Conservatives had improperly got into power in the first place; how on earth could they vote against a GE in those circumstances?
Mr. Borough, agree entirely. It made sense for the previous government due to the unusual arrangement, but the lack of a sunset clause was sheer stupidity from Cameron.
Mr. Urquhart, nonsense. As the polling clearly shows, Chairman Corbyn is ruthlessly gaining ground on the capitalist pigdog party!
A sunset clause would have been difficult as it repealed other acts which wouldn't be restored simply by the FTPA expiring.
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
That precedent doesn't apply.
After the loss of a vote of confidence there's a 14 day period to try and form a new government.
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
The difference is that under the new rules of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, there is a 14-day window following a vote of no confidence before the election is called, during which time another government is supposed to try and be formed. It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so.
Callaghan lost a vote of confidence and went to the Queen asking for a dissolution and election, Mrs May can't do that. It's a bit of a mess in the scenario of a government with a small majority and a large polling lead, but it was designed explicitly to prevent the PM from going to the country at a time of their own choosing.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: the FTPA is a big mistake.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't know what the fuss is about, it all seems very reasonable, at the 'cost' of political inconvenience, since in a genuine emergency there are mechanisms for early election.
A change brought about due to short term circumstances which has neverhtheless had a positive impact for the medium and long term.
Now, Carillon Court is the focus of a dispute involving residents, the housing association, and Bugler, the construction firm who built it. Residents began to complain about leaks and damp in 2009, when one resident claimed that “the property that I bought in good faith and paid a large sum of money for is now, I, believe uninhabitable … My health is suffering, not only due to the stress but also because of the damp.”
Among the other people affected are a family of seven living in a flat in which damp and mould are present in all but one room, who have serious concerns about resulting ill-health. Bugler construction say s it has not been notified of any problems since 2010. Notting Hill told the Guardian it was aware of “both latent defects and maintenance and repairs issues” and was working to remedy them.
One recent case involving a new-build development highlights many of the same issues. Solomon’s Passage, in Peckham, south London, was completed in 2010 and owned and run by Wandle, who oversee 7,000 homes across nine London boroughs. Last year, it was announced that two blocks containing 48 homes were to be demolished, because of issues including water damage and faulty roofs and balconies. The entire development attracted £9.4m of public money.
The alternative route provided for in the FTPA is that 2/3 of the Commons votes for an election. That needs only a couple of dozen Labour MPs to vote for it, assuming everyone else does. I think it would be hilarious to watch the Opposition vote against an election, it's the whole point of having an Official Opposition in the first place!
On that point, it would certainly be awkward for Labour not to vote for an election, especially if one was going to be called in a couple of weeks anyway. Also, in the scenario we are talking about, the position of Labour and the LibDems would be that the Conservatives had improperly got into power in the first place; how on earth could they vote against a GE in those circumstances?
It's awkward, but politicians can handle awkward if the alternative is they would struggle - they can always have time to rebound from such awkwardness after all. They'd say it was not the right time, Tories are playing games, etc etc. Not all arguments will be credible, but they'd take a poor argument over a near certain poor election.
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
That precedent doesn't apply.
After the loss of a vote of confidence there's a 14 day period to try and form a new government.
There is no precedent for this situation. Whatever happens is going to be new.
But I'll probably still be one of the 2% - it's a safe Tory seat, I might as well vote another way just to keep their majority from titanic to stonking levels.
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
The difference is that under the new rules of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, there is a 14-day window following a vote of no confidence before the election is called, during which time another government is supposed to try and be formed. It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so.
Callaghan lost a vote of confidence and went to the Queen asking for a dissolution and election, Mrs May can't do that. It's a bit of a mess in the scenario of a government with a small majority and a large polling lead, but it was designed explicitly to prevent the PM from going to the country at a time of their own choosing.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: the FTPA is a big mistake.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't know what the fuss is about, it all seems very reasonable, at the 'cost' of political inconvenience, since in a genuine emergency there are mechanisms for early election.
A change brought about due to short term circumstances which has neverhtheless had a positive impact for the medium and long term.
Quite right. The FTPA was a superb innovation. Why anyone wants a return to the cynical shenanigans Gordon got up to - albeit ultimately to his detriment - is beyond me.
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
That precedent doesn't apply.
After the loss of a vote of confidence there's a 14 day period to try and form a new government.
There is no precedent for this situation. Whatever happens is going to be new.
I'm not sure that's true. The 18th and early 19th century may offer some precedents, where command of the Commons was not the sole criterion for holding office, at least in the short term. Might we see Jeremy Corbyn as a mayfly Prime Minister, like the Earl of Bath or the Earl Waldegrave? Or might we see a Corbynite government akin to the one that Peel offered in 1834 - unable to command the confidence of the Commons but able to use a brief period in office to set out his manifesto?
The central question (for betting purposes) remains: does Theresa May continue in office until someone new commands the confidence of the House or is she replaced once she loses the confidence of the House by the next most likely person to be able to command the confidence of the House, even if they are unlikely in practice to do so?
If there are to be by-elections in the expense scandal constituencies then surely the Conservatives would use the Brixit scare tactic - that voting in Lib Dems would mean Conservatives losing their majority and making the Brexit negotiations harder to complete.
Alternatively May could try to call a general election at the same time as re-running the expense scandal seat elections. Would Labour MPs comply?
They would be mad if they did!
The implication of that post after the last 20 months is that they will!
Edit - on a more serious note, I could easily see 50 Labour MPs backing an election as the quickest and surest - maybe only - way to get rid of Corbyn. Snag is that's not enough to trigger a dissolution.
Oh and 5,000 posts in just under 5 years. Just over 2.7 a day on average.
Labour MPs who acted in that way would be denied NEC endorsement and effectively deselected.
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
Agreed. In theory anyway. What actually happens in practice will be unprecedented, starting with the government trying to no-confidence themselves.
The 2/3 of MPs route seems the right way to go about it - win the vote and we have an election, lose it and the Tories can call Labour (and probably the SNP) scared of the voters for the next couple of years.
@tlg86 Fillon-Melenchon is value to lay at 65, I make the price 150-1. If you think they'll make the 2nd round (together) then back both of them to win the first round at 14 and 21.
Of course that is only 8.4 for your money but mathematically it is better !
Thanks. I'm on Fillon for the overall win at 10-1. I'm confident he would be beat Le Pen, but I'm not certain he would beat Melenchon. But as you say, it's an unlikely scenario so I'm happy to run the risk. Glad I covered Le Pen v Melenchon at 66-1, though.
Surely the Tories will lose all X seats (X to be determined). Will the voting public support a party who cheated their way to a 'win'?
Some may not under any circumstances as a result. But of course, for others it will be relevant who the alternative is, and who they represent, set against how serious the offence. I'd say the public would support a party who cheated their way to a win, not because of that of course, but looking past it. Only up to a point, but enough to secure most.
Mr. StClare, ha, I suspect I'd be horrendous at it. A combination of not travelling much, disliking loud noises, disliking crowds and being very cautious wouldn't make for a good F1 boss.
Turkey referendum - in five days the referendum on making Supreme God-King Erdogan, thrice-praised be his name! the role of president more powerful takes place.
On Ladbrokes, it's 1.28 for Yes to win, 3.5 for No.
Given the forthright and proactive manner of Erdogan's approach to the media, one would've thought even those odds might be tempting. What does PB think?
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
That precedent doesn't apply.
After the loss of a vote of confidence there's a 14 day period to try and form a new government.
There is no precedent for this situation. Whatever happens is going to be new.
I'm not sure that's true. The 18th and early 19th century may offer some precedents, where command of the Commons was not the sole criterion for holding office, at least in the short term. Might we see Jeremy Corbyn as a mayfly Prime Minister, like the Earl of Bath or the Earl Waldegrave? Or might we see a Corbynite government akin to the one that Peel offered in 1834 - unable to command the confidence of the Commons but able to use a brief period in office to set out his manifesto?
The central question (for betting purposes) remains: does Theresa May continue in office until someone new commands the confidence of the House or is she replaced once she loses the confidence of the House by the next most likely person to be able to command the confidence of the House, even if they are unlikely in practice to do so?
That is the correct question.
The second question is who would that person be? In my mind the person most likely to command the Commons if Mrs May resigned would be Philip Hammond rather than Jeremy Corbyn. Does Hammond take over as PM and then lose his own vote of confidence, as the Tories play for time with the 14-day clock running down?
Could we even get a temporary custodian of No.10 from the Lords, as the Commons sorts the mess out and the election takes place? Lord Hague or Lord Howard would be two suitable candidates in that scenario (and probably backable at very long odds).
If Mr Dancer and Sandpit are interested in F1 business, perhaps PB can have a whip round.
Ha ha, nice idea but I think we'd fall some millions short of the funds required to go racing, if it were easy they'd have found a buyer for the team over the winter. Would be cool to get a wheel nut or similar little trinket, but I doubt the lots will go that small.
If there's a no confidence vote, we could even see Alex Salmond as PM for a bit.
Because Buckingham Palace (to their credit) will be desperate to avoid causing a constitutional crisis, they may feel obliged to offer any volunteers from Parliament a go at it (before formally losing no confidence votes), and the SNP have hardly been shy to play silly buggers in the past.
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
But he could form a Government - even though it would not command the confidence of the House of Commons. The latter would only be confirmed a few days after the Government had been formed.
I'm confused by the claims that Corbyn would become PM if May engineered a confidence defeat in the period between the defeat and the election. To my knowledge the last confidence defeat was in 1979 and the PM remained the PM from the defeat until the election results were known.
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
That precedent doesn't apply.
After the loss of a vote of confidence there's a 14 day period to try and form a new government.
There is no precedent for this situation. Whatever happens is going to be new.
I'm not sure that's true. The 18th and early 19th century may offer some precedents, where command of the Commons was not the sole criterion for holding office, at least in the short term. Might we see Jeremy Corbyn as a mayfly Prime Minister, like the Earl of Bath or the Earl Waldegrave? Or might we see a Corbynite government akin to the one that Peel offered in 1834 - unable to command the confidence of the Commons but able to use a brief period in office to set out his manifesto?
The central question (for betting purposes) remains: does Theresa May continue in office until someone new commands the confidence of the House or is she replaced once she loses the confidence of the House by the next most likely person to be able to command the confidence of the House, even if they are unlikely in practice to do so?
That is the correct question.
The second question is who would that person be? In my mind the person most likely to command the Commons if Mrs May resigned would be Philip Hammond rather than Jeremy Corbyn. Does Hammond take over as PM and then lose his own vote of confidence, as the Tories play for time with the 14-day clock running down?
Could we even get a temporary custodian of No.10 from the Lords, as the Commons sorts the mess out and the election takes place? Lord Hague or Lord Howard would be two suitable candidates in that scenario (and probably backable at very long odds).
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
But he could form a Government - even though it would not command the confidence of the House of Commons. The latter would only be confirmed a few days after the Government had been formed.
How could Corbyn form a government if it's known he cannot command the confidence of the House?
If TMay cannot command the confidence, then it's even more certain that Corbyn cannot.
Mrs May and her government loses her majority and can't pass a budget or even Brexit related legislation such as The Great Repeal Bill (sic), fun times ahead.
Oh and primus inter pares.
If they did have the results annulled in 27 seats (!) I think we'd be seeing another general election.
How do you satisfy or circumvent the FTPA?
The Conservatives place a motion of no confidence in their own government and challenge Labour to vote against - ie they do have confidence. Which would be totally weird, but would work?
Oh no... cue a thousand comments on who would be PM in the interim...
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
It's possible to see that if the PM or her party don't wish to try and form a government in that period then the LotO should be allowed to try and do so..
Of course he would be allowed (in fact invited) to see whether he could form a government. But he wouldn't be appointed as PM unless he was in a position to do so, or at least had a credible chance.
But he could form a Government - even though it would not command the confidence of the House of Commons. The latter would only be confirmed a few days after the Government had been formed.
How could Corbyn form a government if it's known he cannot command the confidence of the House?
If TMay cannot command the confidence, then it's even more certain that Corbyn cannot.
I think in such a scenario, which would all be about political gamesmanship with the veneer of formality, then even though it would be ridiculous, constitutionally the palace might feel obligated under the act as described by others on here. You cannot formally say he cannot command the confidence of the House until you've given them the chance to formally express that view.
Yet more reason for TMay to not play silly buggers, which I imagine was a factor in her decision.
Surely the Tories will lose all X seats (X to be determined). Will the voting public support a party who cheated their way to a 'win'?
Even if the Tories technically broke expenses laws it is highly doubtful all those seats went Tory because a few extra leaflets were delivered, the abysmal 2015 LD poll rating probably had more to do with it
Surely the Tories will lose all X seats (X to be determined). Will the voting public support a party who cheated their way to a 'win'?
Even if the Tories technically broke expenses laws it is highly doubtful all those seats went Tory because a few extra leaflets were delivered, the abysmal 2015 LD poll rating probably had more to do with it
Probably, although why bother to cheat in that case? (Yes, all the parties cheated to some extent on expenses).
Surely the Tories will lose all X seats (X to be determined). Will the voting public support a party who cheated their way to a 'win'?
Even if the Tories technically broke expenses laws it is highly doubtful all those seats went Tory because a few extra leaflets were delivered, the abysmal 2015 LD poll rating probably had more to do with it
Poor attempt at trying to justify the cheating lying toerags
A good precedent for the situation Theresa May would be in if she lost a vote of confidence but no other party was in a position to form a government before an election could be held is that of the vote of confidence of 26 January 1886. The Salisbury government was defeated, but remained in office until November because an election could not be held until the Reform Act provisions were in place.
If there's a no confidence vote, we could even see Alex Salmond as PM for a bit.
Because Buckingham Palace (to their credit) will be desperate to avoid causing a constitutional crisis, they may feel obliged to offer any volunteers from Parliament a go at it (before formally losing no confidence votes), and the SNP have hardly been shy to play silly buggers in the past.
I don't think there's a crisis. The PM loses the vote of confidence, the Queen says OK, we'll wait 2 weeks, if it looks like anybody can form a government then let one my designated minion know and they'll tell me if it's serious, nobody can so nobody does. Once she does that all the news is going to be about the forthcoming election in any case; Nobody's going to be getting excited about whether Corbyn or someone else has a legitimate AirBNB booking for Number 10.
If somebody actually plausibly could form a government then that changes the conversation, but I think the position is simply that if they might be able to do it then they'd get a go; If nobody at The Palace knows how to evaluate the claim that Person X might plausibly win a confidence vote then they can ask Shadsy. However, this is all quite unlikely, because this PM would have to unite the left and peel off some Tories too, against the background of a likely election.
If there is an election rerun in the seats where alleged overspending has gone on then I'd expect the Tories to win handily.
See, this is the issue with the rules - the risk/reward is completely asymmetric... if you overspend and win then you're getting your ideological program implemented, making decisions over the economy. It's worth billions in terms of power over the UK.
You get caught out, and you'll get a fine of maybe £100k or so - and the election might have to be rerun... but when people are asked this question twice they are overwhemingly likely to give the same answer again. Absolute peanuts compared to the potential reward of winning the seat.
An appropriate censure would be to have to rerun the election, and any party deemed to have broken the rules be unallowed to stand again (And the individual former MP can't run again as an independent either). That might discourage the rule breaking in the first place, a two tiered disqualification of both individual and party.
When Balfour resigned as PM in 1905, Campbell-Bannerman was invited to try to form a Government, despite having only about 180 or so seats - and no chance of commanding the confidence of a majority of the House. He was, however, PM between accepting the charge and requesting a dissolution of Parliament later that same month - and winning a landslide majority in the ensuing election.
A good precedent for the situation Theresa May would be in if she lost a vote of confidence but no other party was in a position to form a government before an election could be held is that of the vote of confidence of 26 January 1886. The Salisbury government was defeated, but remained in office until November because an election could not be held until the Reform Act provisions were in place.
Don't worry, I don't think you got banned. Was a Vanilla problem with their outbound bandwidth. http://status.vanillaforums.com
I thought it was down temporarily while Sean redesigned the format, putting his coat of arms at the head of each page.
I hate to think what Sean would have his coat of arms...I am going to guess it would include silhouettes of a gaggle of nubile busty female Corbynites.
SeanT may be a right-wing lunatic but he is not a bully.
There are others who are though and hopefully in time they will be weeded out.
If you say so but I don't know else you could interpret the comment below from SeanT to Beverley C last night:-
"Just Go? Can we agree you're not wanted? You don't want to be on here anymore, and we think you're - allegorically - a deluded, fecally vomiting old crone who should be euthanised?
What's the prob? You go, we stay, everyone is happy. Bye bye there. Bye bye"
We all say things we regret in the heat of the moment but their are a handful of posters who resort to abuse on a daily basis.
Only a few of them are generally funny. Sean and malc, for example.
I think perhaps we have a different definition of "funny".
I see no tanks? - Typical, one of the rare occasions I’ve had time to indulge and getting vanilla comments to load has been like getting blood out of a stone.
A good precedent for the situation Theresa May would be in if she lost a vote of confidence but no other party was in a position to form a government before an election could be held is that of the vote of confidence of 26 January 1886. The Salisbury government was defeated, but remained in office until November because an election could not be held until the Reform Act provisions were in place.
Wikipedia seems to say the opposite - that Salisbury took over from Gladstone after a no-confidence vote in June 1885, despite not having a majority and remained in office until November 1885 (for the reason you gave).
Yeah, it's not pleasant. Neither was last night looking back at it.
Agreed. I rarely post these days, a handful of unpleasant individuals seem to dominate most threads these days. Quite how SeanT regularly gets away with bullying and abusing posters and telling them to leave the site. Perhaps he does own half of it as he (seriously) claimed last night, it's the only logical explanation.
Imagine he was drunk as a skunk , he does get lots of leeway but Robert did emphatically state that he owned exactly 0% of the site , merely delusions of grandeur on his part.
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
Yeah, it's not pleasant. Neither was last night looking back at it.
Agreed. I rarely post these days, a handful of unpleasant individuals seem to dominate most threads these days. Quite how SeanT regularly gets away with bullying and abusing posters and telling them to leave the site. Perhaps he does own half of it as he (seriously) claimed last night, it's the only logical explanation.
Imagine he was drunk as a skunk , he does get lots of leeway but Robert did emphatically state that he owned exactly 0% of the site , merely delusions of grandeur on his part.
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
If there's a no confidence vote, we could even see Alex Salmond as PM for a bit.
Because Buckingham Palace (to their credit) will be desperate to avoid causing a constitutional crisis, they may feel obliged to offer any volunteers from Parliament a go at it (before formally losing no confidence votes), and the SNP have hardly been shy to play silly buggers in the past.
I don't think there's a crisis. The PM loses the vote of confidence, the Queen says OK, we'll wait 2 weeks, if it looks like anybody can form a government then let one my designated minion know and they'll tell me if it's serious, nobody can so nobody does. Once she does that all the news is going to be about the forthcoming election in any case; Nobody's going to be getting excited about whether Corbyn or someone else has a legitimate AirBNB booking for Number 10.
If somebody actually plausibly could form a government then that changes the conversation, but I think the position is simply that if they might be able to do it then they'd get a go; If nobody at The Palace knows how to evaluate the claim that Person X might plausibly win a confidence vote then they can ask Shadsy. However, this is all quite unlikely, because this PM would have to unite the left and peel off some Tories too, against the background of a likely election.
But it might be sufficient for Corbyn to 'try' to secure an Affirmative Confidence Vote - even if he knows he has not a hope in hell of being successful.I am sure he could form a Government just as he has manged to put together a Shadow Cabinet despite the refusal of most Labour MPs to serve. Moreover, the process of forming an Administration would take several days, and so take us well into the 14 day period.Time would then be found for an Affirmative Confidence Debate which might take a couple of days so that by the time he is defeated the time for Dissolution would pretty well have arrived. My own view is that we will not get this far, because it is not a road that Theresa May will choose to tread. She will not wish to test the Constitutional uncertainties involved.
A good precedent for the situation Theresa May would be in if she lost a vote of confidence but no other party was in a position to form a government before an election could be held is that of the vote of confidence of 26 January 1886. The Salisbury government was defeated, but remained in office until November because an election could not be held until the Reform Act provisions were in place.
Wikipedia seems to say the opposite - that Salisbury took over from Gladstone after a no-confidence vote in June 1885, despite not having a majority and remained in office until November 1885 (for the reason you gave).
Or am I misreading it?
Looking at it again, I think it's me that misread it.
Yeah, it's not pleasant. Neither was last night looking back at it.
Agreed. I rarely post these days, a handful of unpleasant individuals seem to dominate most threads these days. Quite how SeanT regularly gets away with bullying and abusing posters and telling them to leave the site. Perhaps he does own half of it as he (seriously) claimed last night, it's the only logical explanation.
Imagine he was drunk as a skunk , he does get lots of leeway but Robert did emphatically state that he owned exactly 0% of the site , merely delusions of grandeur on his part.
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
My own view is that we will not get this far, because it is not a road that Theresa May will choose to tread. She will not wish to test the Constitutional uncertainties involved.
Agreed. It may make May more open to the idea of repealing the Act after 2020 though
Yeah, it's not pleasant. Neither was last night looking back at it.
Agreed. I rarely post these days, a handful of unpleasant individuals seem to dominate most threads these days. Quite how SeanT regularly gets away with bullying and abusing posters and telling them to leave the site. Perhaps he does own half of it as he (seriously) claimed last night, it's the only logical explanation.
Imagine he was drunk as a skunk , he does get lots of leeway but Robert did emphatically state that he owned exactly 0% of the site , merely delusions of grandeur on his part.
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
SeanT loves his hyperbole. His writing makes him wealthy.
Yeah, it's not pleasant. Neither was last night looking back at it.
Agreed. I rarely post these days, a handful of unpleasant individuals seem to dominate most threads these days. Quite how SeanT regularly gets away with bullying and abusing posters and telling them to leave the site. Perhaps he does own half of it as he (seriously) claimed last night, it's the only logical explanation.
Imagine he was drunk as a skunk , he does get lots of leeway but Robert did emphatically state that he owned exactly 0% of the site , merely delusions of grandeur on his part.
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
SeanT loves his hyperbole. His writing makes him very wealthy.
Sometimes it just doesn't work though.
He'll be loving the fact everyone on here is talking about him though.
The latest Yougov figures are almost identical to the results of their surveys conducted in mid-January and early December.Very little change over the last four months – at least with this pollster.
Don't worry, I don't think you got banned. Was a Vanilla problem with their outbound bandwidth. http://status.vanillaforums.com
We had four cloud servers go offline this morning. I wonder if, by any chance, it could be related? I think we should be told
The "cloud" is a meaningless marketing phrase. It just means that the big noisy boxes with the flashing lights aren't in your basement but they are under the stairs of the house next door instead.
Don't worry, I don't think you got banned. Was a Vanilla problem with their outbound bandwidth. http://status.vanillaforums.com
We had four cloud servers go offline this morning. I wonder if, by any chance, it could be related? I think we should be told
The "cloud" is a meaningless marketing phrase. It just means that the big noisy boxes with the flashing lights aren't in your basement but they are under the stairs of the house next door instead.
Don't worry, I don't think you got banned. Was a Vanilla problem with their outbound bandwidth. http://status.vanillaforums.com
We had four cloud servers go offline this morning. I wonder if, by any chance, it could be related? I think we should be told
The "cloud" is a meaningless marketing phrase. It just means that the big noisy boxes with the flashing lights aren't in your basement but they are under the stairs of the house next door instead.
Don't worry, I don't think you got banned. Was a Vanilla problem with their outbound bandwidth. http://status.vanillaforums.com
We had four cloud servers go offline this morning. I wonder if, by any chance, it could be related? I think we should be told
The "cloud" is a meaningless marketing phrase. It just means that the big noisy boxes with the flashing lights aren't in your basement but they are under the stairs of the house next door instead.
You live next door to Google?
Perhaps instead of the 'cloud' it should have been dubbed the 'rock'. Sounds so much more solid and reassuring.
Yeah, it's not pleasant. Neither was last night looking back at it.
Agreed. I rarely post these days, a handful of unpleasant individuals seem to dominate most threads these days. Quite how SeanT regularly gets away with bullying and abusing posters and telling them to leave the site. Perhaps he does own half of it as he (seriously) claimed last night, it's the only logical explanation.
Imagine he was drunk as a skunk , he does get lots of leeway but Robert did emphatically state that he owned exactly 0% of the site , merely delusions of grandeur on his part.
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
SeanT loves his hyperbole. His writing makes him very wealthy.
Sometimes it just doesn't work though.
He'll be loving the fact everyone on here is talking about him though.
My own view is that we will not get this far, because it is not a road that Theresa May will choose to tread. She will not wish to test the Constitutional uncertainties involved.
Agreed. It may make May more open to the idea of repealing the Act after 2020 though
That may well be so - and the Act is due to be reviewed anyway post 2020.
Yeah, it's not pleasant. Neither was last night looking back at it.
Agreed. I rarely post these days, a handful of unpleasant individuals seem to dominate most threads these days. Quite how SeanT regularly gets away with bullying and abusing posters and telling them to leave the site. Perhaps he does own half of it as he (seriously) claimed last night, it's the only logical explanation.
Imagine he was drunk as a skunk , he does get lots of leeway but Robert did emphatically state that he owned exactly 0% of the site , merely delusions of grandeur on his part.
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
SeanT loves his hyperbole. His writing makes him very wealthy.
Sometimes it just doesn't work though.
He'll be loving the fact everyone on here is talking about him though.
People born in Devon are like that ...
Sadly Rob's comment is probably the nub of the matter. The only time I ever saw him run away from a conversation about himself was when another female contributor suggested that he might have 'length issues'. Which may well be the other nub of the matter.
Don't worry, I don't think you got banned. Was a Vanilla problem with their outbound bandwidth. http://status.vanillaforums.com
We had four cloud servers go offline this morning. I wonder if, by any chance, it could be related? I think we should be told
The "cloud" is a meaningless marketing phrase. It just means that the big noisy boxes with the flashing lights aren't in your basement but they are under the stairs of the house next door instead.
The way I describe it to people infected with marketing buzzwords, is that it means that all your company data is on someone else's server.
Comments
Corbyn would surely remain Leader of the Opposition just as his predecessor Thatcher did when in the same situation until an election was held unless he could demonstrate he held the confidence of the Commons required to become PM.
Callaghan lost a vote of confidence and went to the Queen asking for a dissolution and election, Mrs May can't do that. It's a bit of a mess in the scenario of a government with a small majority and a large polling lead, but it was designed explicitly to prevent the PM from going to the country at a time of their own choosing.
The alternative route provided for in the FTPA is that 2/3 of the Commons votes for an election. That needs only a couple of dozen Labour MPs to vote for it, assuming everyone else does. I think it would be hilarious to watch the Opposition vote against an election, it's the whole point of having an Official Opposition in the first place!
Can't wait for the month long GE campaign...
Of course that is only 8.4 for your money but mathematically it is better !
Mr. Urquhart, nonsense. As the polling clearly shows, Chairman Corbyn is ruthlessly gaining ground on the capitalist pigdog party!
After the loss of a vote of confidence there's a 14 day period to try and form a new government.
A change brought about due to short term circumstances which has neverhtheless had a positive impact for the medium and long term.
The Act remains bloody stupid, however.
REMAIN VOTERS
Labour 36%
Conservatives 28%
Lib Dems 20%
UKIP 1%
LEAVE VOTERS
Conservatives 57%
UKIP 20%
Labour 13%
Lib Dems 2%
Among the other people affected are a family of seven living in a flat in which damp and mould are present in all but one room, who have serious concerns about resulting ill-health. Bugler construction say s it has not been notified of any problems since 2010. Notting Hill told the Guardian it was aware of “both latent defects and maintenance and repairs issues” and was working to remedy them.
One recent case involving a new-build development highlights many of the same issues. Solomon’s Passage, in Peckham, south London, was completed in 2010 and owned and run by Wandle, who oversee 7,000 homes across nine London boroughs. Last year, it was announced that two blocks containing 48 homes were to be demolished, because of issues including water damage and faulty roofs and balconies. The entire development attracted £9.4m of public money.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/11/housing-associations-face-storm-of-complaints-over-new-build-homes
I think this is the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of PFI hospitals and schools that were built to appalling standards in the noughties.
Whatever happens is going to be new.
But I'll probably still be one of the 2% - it's a safe Tory seat, I might as well vote another way just to keep their majority from titanic to stonking levels.
The market lay odds add through to 27.75% for Fillon
Fillon/Melenchon @ 55
Fillon/Macron @ 11.5
Fillon/Le Pen @ 5.8
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.129066938
Which is an implied price to get through to the second round of 3.6. This seems far too short to me.
I've laid them all to equal reds.
Surely the Tories will lose all X seats (X to be determined). Will the voting public support a party who cheated their way to a 'win'?
The central question (for betting purposes) remains: does Theresa May continue in office until someone new commands the confidence of the House or is she replaced once she loses the confidence of the House by the next most likely person to be able to command the confidence of the House, even if they are unlikely in practice to do so?
The 2/3 of MPs route seems the right way to go about it - win the vote and we have an election, lose it and the Tories can call Labour (and probably the SNP) scared of the voters for the next couple of years.
Turkey referendum - in five days the referendum on making Supreme God-King Erdogan, thrice-praised be his name! the role of president more powerful takes place.
On Ladbrokes, it's 1.28 for Yes to win, 3.5 for No.
Given the forthright and proactive manner of Erdogan's approach to the media, one would've thought even those odds might be tempting. What does PB think?
The second question is who would that person be? In my mind the person most likely to command the Commons if Mrs May resigned would be Philip Hammond rather than Jeremy Corbyn. Does Hammond take over as PM and then lose his own vote of confidence, as the Tories play for time with the 14-day clock running down?
Could we even get a temporary custodian of No.10 from the Lords, as the Commons sorts the mess out and the election takes place? Lord Hague or Lord Howard would be two suitable candidates in that scenario (and probably backable at very long odds).
https://order-order.com/2017/04/11/youre-us-e-corbyn-names-shames-energy-firm-sponsored-labour-conference/
Because Buckingham Palace (to their credit) will be desperate to avoid causing a constitutional crisis, they may feel obliged to offer any volunteers from Parliament a go at it (before formally losing no confidence votes), and the SNP have hardly been shy to play silly buggers in the past.
How could Corbyn form a government if it's known he cannot command the confidence of the House?
If TMay cannot command the confidence, then it's even more certain that Corbyn cannot.
Con 42 Lab 25 LD 11 UKIP 11 Grn 3 Others 8.
Yet more reason for TMay to not play silly buggers, which I imagine was a factor in her decision.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/851766546825347076
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_successful_votes_of_no_confidence_in_British_governments#1885:_Second_Gladstone
If somebody actually plausibly could form a government then that changes the conversation, but I think the position is simply that if they might be able to do it then they'd get a go; If nobody at The Palace knows how to evaluate the claim that Person X might plausibly win a confidence vote then they can ask Shadsy. However, this is all quite unlikely, because this PM would have to unite the left and peel off some Tories too, against the background of a likely election.
See, this is the issue with the rules - the risk/reward is completely asymmetric... if you overspend and win then you're getting your ideological program implemented, making decisions over the economy. It's worth billions in terms of power over the UK.
You get caught out, and you'll get a fine of maybe £100k or so - and the election might have to be rerun... but when people are asked this question twice they are overwhemingly likely to give the same answer again. Absolute peanuts compared to the potential reward of winning the seat.
An appropriate censure would be to have to rerun the election, and any party deemed to have broken the rules be unallowed to stand again (And the individual former MP can't run again as an independent either). That might discourage the rule breaking in the first place, a two tiered disqualification of both individual and party.
http://status.vanillaforums.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39564174
He was, however, PM between accepting the charge and requesting a dissolution of Parliament later that same month - and winning a landslide majority in the ensuing election.
But, chaps, there are not many women on here. Being unpleasant to one of the few who does post here does no-one any credit.
It is possible to have a vigorous argument without being pointlessly horrible and rude.
And if anyone feels like taking me on, just don't. For your own sake.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yfAeMtcURg0/hqdefault.jpg
They'd be either mighty brave or mighty stupid
Or am I misreading it?
and he does nothing about someone who claims in all seriousness to own 50% of the site? Really, sorry there has to be more to it.
My own view is that we will not get this far, because it is not a road that Theresa May will choose to tread. She will not wish to test the Constitutional uncertainties involved.
SeanT loves his hyperbole. His writing makes him wealthy.
Sometimes it just doesn't work though.
You live next door to Google?
NEW THREAD