Presumably the possible delay to the Queen's Speech is caused by the DUP saying 'Oh, and just one more thing before we sign up...', multiple times.
Does the 1922 sit tonight?
The 1922 have already met. I suspect this is one of their red lines.
I think we've just become one step closer to Corbyn presenting a Queen's speech.
Corbyn doesn't have the numbers to present a QS either.
We have come a step closer to new elections though...
We can't go into new elections with May as leader so who would lead the Tories and what would their Brexit policy be? One more Brexit heave would be most likely to hand the keys to Corbyn.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
The EEA agreement includes EU legislation. Who governs EU legislation?
No. All interpretation of the EEA Agreement for EFTA members is made by the EFTA Court. They do not have to accept ECJ rulings in their decision making. The ECJ has no power to enforce their rulings upon EFTA members.
Supranational Court A determining our destiny = bad Supranational Court B determining our destiny = good
Good luck with that. If you are still on the head of the pin by then, that is.
This seems to be more to the point. How is the UK being obliged to follow EFTA Court determined case law more acceptable than being obliged to follow CJEU determined case law?
ECJ rulings are not bound by case law. They are bound by interpretation of the treaties.
No, but UK courts are bound by decisions reached by the ECJ. And in many areas national courts refer cases to the ECJ to determine how they should interpret aspects of European law. It happens all the time with trademarks, for example. It may well happen after we leave, too - that we submit to ongoing ECJ decisions relating to European laws passed before Brexit. This could be a point of compromise for both sides.
If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?
I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..
New elections anyone?
Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?
New elections the only possibility.
We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!
Can the Opposition force a vote on No Confidence? They should do it before DUP deal is sewn up if they want a new GE.
Parliament won't be sitting if no deal is sewn up, she can't guarantee passing a QS without it, hence trying to delay. No no confidence vote is possible until parliament meets and then the first vote is QS which is a de facto vote of confidence.
How can she stop Parliament from sitting after a GE? This is one aspect of the constitution that I didn't know about.
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Also, in an age where people seem to demand instant gratification, the youngsters who turned out to vote Corbyn might be a bit confused to see Theresa May still PM. Labour have to make it seem like they've won, else people might get bored of revolutionary politics
Because being condescending to younger voters has worked well so far. Keep it up
Presumably the possible delay to the Queen's Speech is caused by the DUP saying 'Oh, and just one more thing before we sign up...', multiple times.
Does the 1922 sit tonight?
The 1922 have already met. I suspect this is one of their red lines.
I think we've just become one step closer to Corbyn presenting a Queen's speech.
There was a NI expert on TV over the weekend saying the DUP were the best negotiators in the business. They always get what they want.
I watched a NI segment on newsnight 2 weeks before the election.
I was struggling to follow the exact disagreements. Buy by god there were disagreements. I can imagine anyone able to negotiate that sort of atmosphere would eat UK politicians up for breakfast....
The posh boys were generally good politicians (although I have my doubts about GO). Nicola is a good politician but a hopeless tactician. The Grey Mist is hopeless at both.
I quite like Tim Farron - he's enthusiastic, like an exuberant puppy. But he will keep doing doo-doos all over the house.
This is totally unacceptable if true. You cannot delay the QS. That is a direct subversion of our constitutional monarchy/democracy. HMQ has proclaimed the date, meet it or resign. I truly believe we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis as big as the run up to abdication.
Stay out imo. I've already cashed out of the next government markets to avoid keeping cash tied up for an unknown period, and this is worse. If May does resign then the next in line might be another Tory rather than Corbyn.
I wonder if now is a good time to bet on May still being Tory leader at the next election.
As much as people are talking like any replacement for her would be an improvement in electoral terms, this isn't at all obvious to me. Do people really think Hammond or Rudd or Gove would have more popular appeal?
It will be Boris. He is not as popular as the right wing press has led us to believe. The further north you go the more people laugh at him rather than with him. And beyond the UK he is, of course, actively damaging to UK interests.
If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?
I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..
New elections anyone?
Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?
New elections the only possibility.
We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!
Can the Opposition force a vote on No Confidence? They should do it before DUP deal is sewn up if they want a new GE.
Parliament won't be sitting if no deal is sewn up, she can't guarantee passing a QS without it, hence trying to delay. No no confidence vote is possible until parliament meets and then the first vote is QS which is a de facto vote of confidence.
How can she stop Parliament from sitting after a GE? This is one aspect of the constitution that I didn't know about.
Parliament opens with the QS. Until then it is not sitting. There is no other possible way for parliament to sit. It sits according to the provision of the QS if the vote passes.
How long, legally, could the government delay a Queen's speech?
Until it's necessary to pass legislation, and the main thing that governments need legislation to authorize is supply: the permission to tax and spend.
If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?
I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..
New elections anyone?
Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?
New elections the only possibility.
We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!
The Conservatives, whoever they are lead by, only require the DUP to agree not to vote against the Queen's Speech to get it through the Commons.
I know that May hasn't covered herself in glory in the competence stakes recently, but surely now that she does not have sole authority the Conservative leadership as a whole can manage to persuade the DUP not to vote against a Tory QS.
Stay out imo. I've already cashed out of the next government markets to avoid keeping cash tied up for an unknown period, and this is worse. If May does resign then the next in line might be another Tory rather than Corbyn.
Oh please let it be Hammond. Thanks to Meeks I would be rolling in cash.
If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?
I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..
New elections anyone?
Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?
New elections the only possibility.
We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!
Can the Opposition force a vote on No Confidence? They should do it before DUP deal is sewn up if they want a new GE.
Parliament won't be sitting if no deal is sewn up, she can't guarantee passing a QS without it, hence trying to delay. No no confidence vote is possible until parliament meets and then the first vote is QS which is a de facto vote of confidence.
How can she stop Parliament from sitting after a GE? This is one aspect of the constitution that I didn't know about.
Parliament opens with the QS. Until then it is not sitting. There is no other possible way for parliament to sit. It sits according to the provision of the QS if the vote passes.
So if Liz decided if she could do a better job herself than the peasants who rule in her name, could she just declare herself permanently unavailable to make the speech?
I wonder if now is a good time to bet on May still being Tory leader at the next election.
As much as people are talking like any replacement for her would be an improvement in electoral terms, this isn't at all obvious to me. Do people really think Hammond or Rudd or Gove would have more popular appeal?
It will be Boris. He is not as popular as the right wing press has led us to believe. The further north you go the more people laugh at him rather than with him. And beyond the UK he is, of course, actively damaging to UK interests.
He would show a lot more fight during an election campaign though. A new lesser known leader with Boris playing a more prominent campaign role would be ideal. Corbyn remains toxic to half the electorate, picking someone who has similar levels of toxicity to run against him may not be wise.
This is totally unacceptable if true. You cannot delay the QS. That is a direct subversion of our constitutional monarchy/democracy. HMQ has proclaimed the date, meet it or resign. I truly believe we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis as big as the run up to abdication.
Steady on now... I'm sure that won't happen. Remember the coaliation in 2010 took a little bit of time to sort out.
Presumably the possible delay to the Queen's Speech is caused by the DUP saying 'Oh, and just one more thing before we sign up...', multiple times.
Does the 1922 sit tonight?
The 1922 have already met. I suspect this is one of their red lines.
I think we've just become one step closer to Corbyn presenting a Queen's speech.
Corbyn doesn't have the numbers to present a QS either.
We have come a step closer to new elections though...
He can present it, right? It just won't get voted in. Will make a great launch for Labour's next manifesto, though
HMQ would have to be genuinely convinced he had the numbers to get QS through before he had the chance to present.
Correct, she will not allow herself to be used as a test kite for the smaller parliamentary party. The consequences of a QS being voted down would be very very far reaching. End of monarchy reaching possibly.
Stay out imo. I've already cashed out of the next government markets to avoid keeping cash tied up for an unknown period, and this is worse. If May does resign then the next in line might be another Tory rather than Corbyn.
Oh please let it be Hammond. Thanks to Meeks I would be rolling in cash.
That is indeed my fervent prayer also.
Come on Tories, you need a safe pair of hands. You know it.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Also, in an age where people seem to demand instant gratification, the youngsters who turned out to vote Corbyn might be a bit confused to see Theresa May still PM. Labour have to make it seem like they've won, else people might get bored of revolutionary politics
Because being condescending to younger voters has worked well so far. Keep it up
Haha, who cares. They just spend all their time twittering on their face books, then they sleep until 10.30pm on polling day and miss the election! Not like those strong, silent, steadfast pensioners. They're down at the polling station 7am sharp, every day of the year, come rain or shine, just in case there happens to be an election on that day.
Tories: Banff / High Peak Labour: Canterbury / Mansfield Lib Dem: Norfolk North / Hallam SNP: Perth & North Perthshire / Glasgow North East
Worst LD result is surely Fife NE!
Worst result has to be one that lost to the Tories and gave them an extra seat so it has to be Richmond Park or St Ives.
I'd say Richmond Park because it gave Zac a seat and it was an unnecessary loss. The Labour vote went up from 1,500 in the by election to 5,773 last Thursday. Just 1% of them voting tactically would have reduced the Tory seats by a critical one. I hope Labour voters have learned a lesson.
Extract from Sarah Olney's statement:
I wish Mr Goldsmith well in his resumed role as our MP, but I know I am not the only local resident who feels some disquiet at the overall result and its implications for the country. Many voters will have backed Mr Goldsmith because of the promise of "strong and stable leadership in the national interest" and because Mrs May was the most credible person to lead Britain into the Brexit negotiations. As a result of this unnecessary election, the country is now in disarray, and our hand in the fast-approaching negotiations has been weakened. Voters are entitled to feel cheated.
The proposed partnership with the DUP will also cause some concern . I hope that the partnership will not include any concessions on gay rights, action on climate change or the right to access abortions. But the real concern is for the Good Friday Agreement, under which the British Government is supposed to remain neutral. The collapse of the power-sharing agreement earlier this year was a setback for the province, especially in the light of the threat that Brexit represents to the 'soft' border, and a Government breach of the Agreement will further undermine efforts to restore stability to Northern Ireland.
But my greatest concern is for what the election result means for local people. Mr Goldsmith now has a very slim majority, in a Parliament that is extremely vulnerable to being dissolved. Will Mr Goldsmith stand up for local people, against the Government, as he promised? When the National Policy Statement on aviation comes before the Commons later this year, can Mr Goldsmith risk voting against the Government, knowing that any failure to get legislation passed might trigger a new General Election? Will he challenge them to produce the extra funding that our schools and hospitals need? Time will tell, and Mr Goldsmith can be sure that the Liberal Democrats will be watching closely.
Whether you agree with Olney's opinions or not, you must agree she is very articulate and writes a good statement.
I wonder if now is a good time to bet on May still being Tory leader at the next election.
As much as people are talking like any replacement for her would be an improvement in electoral terms, this isn't at all obvious to me. Do people really think Hammond or Rudd or Gove would have more popular appeal?
It will be Boris. He is not as popular as the right wing press has led us to believe. The further north you go the more people laugh at him rather than with him. And beyond the UK he is, of course, actively damaging to UK interests.
Boris twice won Labour London and it was Boris who made a crucial difference between Remain scraping home in the EU referendum and a narrow Leave win, if Corbyn gets in the UK will of course become Venezuela without the sunshine
This is totally unacceptable if true. You cannot delay the QS. That is a direct subversion of our constitutional monarchy/democracy. HMQ has proclaimed the date, meet it or resign. I truly believe we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis as big as the run up to abdication.
Queens Speech was delayed by about a week in 2010 wasn't it (although by this point in 2010 was basically knew the Con/Dem coalition was happening) ?
The other major problem with a DUP alliance aside from their appalling views on social matters is Arlene Foster. However they sell it, a woman who is not in parliament and nobody voted for holds balance of power. To a lesser extent as she's in the same party, Ruth's influence might become resented.
And might be toppled by Cash for Ash.
RHI needs to be spoon fed to the MSM I guess. At least the Orange Lodge and DUP aren't the same - Brother Simpson MP in action :
I'm pretty sure the only way out of this mess is another election. Wer'e in the dreaded ungovernable hung parliment territory we talked about in both 2010 and 2015 and just missed on.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?
I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..
New elections anyone?
Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?
New elections the only possibility.
We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!
Can the Opposition force a vote on No Confidence? They should do it before DUP deal is sewn up if they want a new GE.
Parliament won't be sitting if no deal is sewn up, she can't guarantee passing a QS without it, hence trying to delay. No no confidence vote is possible until parliament meets and then the first vote is QS which is a de facto vote of confidence.
How can she stop Parliament from sitting after a GE? This is one aspect of the constitution that I didn't know about.
Parliament opens with the QS. Until then it is not sitting. There is no other possible way for parliament to sit. It sits according to the provision of the QS if the vote passes.
So if Liz decided if she could do a better job herself than the peasants who rule in her name, could she just declare herself permanently unavailable to make the speech?
No because the Peasants are already in charge. The PM remains the PM, the Chancellor is still the Chancellor etc whether Parliament is sitting or not.
This is totally unacceptable if true. You cannot delay the QS. That is a direct subversion of our constitutional monarchy/democracy. HMQ has proclaimed the date, meet it or resign. I truly believe we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis as big as the run up to abdication.
Steady on now... I'm sure that won't happen. Remember the coaliation in 2010 took a little bit of time to sort out.
If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?
I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..
New elections anyone?
Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?
New elections the only possibility.
We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!
Can the Opposition force a vote on No Confidence? They should do it before DUP deal is sewn up if they want a new GE.
Parliament won't be sitting if no deal is sewn up, she can't guarantee passing a QS without it, hence trying to delay. No no confidence vote is possible until parliament meets and then the first vote is QS which is a de facto vote of confidence.
How can she stop Parliament from sitting after a GE? This is one aspect of the constitution that I didn't know about.
Parliament opens with the QS. Until then it is not sitting. There is no other possible way for parliament to sit. It sits according to the provision of the QS if the vote passes.
So if Liz decided if she could do a better job herself than the peasants who rule in her name, could she just declare herself permanently unavailable to make the speech?
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
If JC then gets a chance he'll just call elections anyway.
Presumably the possible delay to the Queen's Speech is caused by the DUP saying 'Oh, and just one more thing before we sign up...', multiple times.
Does the 1922 sit tonight?
Yes, shes facing 1922 this evening - I wonder whether that will be the end for Theresa?
She's a no show merchant. I think she'll resign this afternoon.
Her fate is no longer in her own hands, Moniker. She'll go when she's told. No guessing when that will be though.
It raises the obvious question of whether the DUP has told her to go, and that they will only deal with A N Other. Remember in 2010 when Gordon Brown offering to resign for the LibDems to support Labour.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
Yes, that thought occurred to me. But it would be a very, very high-risk option, and meanwhile the Article 50 clock is ticking.
I'm pretty sure the only way out of this mess is another election. Wer'e in the dreaded ungovernable hung parliment territory we talked about in both 2010 and 2015 and just missed on.
The numbers just don't add up.
And so the magnitude of the favour the LibDems did the country back in 2010 starts to become clearer....
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Also, in an age where people seem to demand instant gratification, the youngsters who turned out to vote Corbyn might be a bit confused to see Theresa May still PM. Labour have to make it seem like they've won, else people might get bored of revolutionary politics
Because being condescending to younger voters has worked well so far. Keep it up
Haha, who cares. They just spend all their time twittering on their face books, then they sleep until 10.30pm on polling day and miss the election! Not like those strong, silent, steadfast pensioners. They're down at the polling station 7am sharp, every day of the year, come rain or shine, just in case there happens to be an election on that day.
Yeah remember the hilarious anecdote from the PB Tory arguing with 8 Corbinystas down the pub only to find out 7 hadn't registered to vote. O how we laughed.
If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?
I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..
New elections anyone?
Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?
New elections the only possibility.
We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!
Can the Opposition force a vote on No Confidence? They should do it before DUP deal is sewn up if they want a new GE.
Parliament won't be sitting if no deal is sewn up, she can't guarantee passing a QS without it, hence trying to delay. No no confidence vote is possible until parliament meets and then the first vote is QS which is a de facto vote of confidence.
How can she stop Parliament from sitting after a GE? This is one aspect of the constitution that I didn't know about.
Parliament opens with the QS. Until then it is not sitting. There is no other possible way for parliament to sit. It sits according to the provision of the QS if the vote passes.
So if Liz decided if she could do a better job herself than the peasants who rule in her name, could she just declare herself permanently unavailable to make the speech?
No because the Peasants are already in charge. The PM remains the PM, the Chancellor is still the Chancellor etc whether Parliament is sitting or not.
But they can't pass any laws! Is anyone actually an MP yet, or does that only occur once Parliament is officially opened?
It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.
If May goes, it still doesn't solve the problem of passing a Queen's Speech. This is a right old mess.
If they don't sort it out, we're going straight back to the polls.
Fixed term parliament though. Labour would have a chance to form a government if they wanted to take it.
Is offering Labour the chance to form a government after all the Tory warnings a good ploy? Would Labour refusing be damaging? I suspect making Labour take their share of the blame for the current inertia is a wise idea.
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Also, in an age where people seem to demand instant gratification, the youngsters who turned out to vote Corbyn might be a bit confused to see Theresa May still PM. Labour have to make it seem like they've won, else people might get bored of revolutionary politics
Annoyingly, all the Corbynistas have gone a bit quiet on my Facebook feed. There are a few links to cartoons about May, but nothing substantial. For once, I really want to know what they're thinking.
This is totally unacceptable if true. You cannot delay the QS. That is a direct subversion of our constitutional monarchy/democracy. HMQ has proclaimed the date, meet it or resign. I truly believe we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis as big as the run up to abdication.
Queens Speech was delayed by about a week in 2010 wasn't it (although by this point in 2010 was basically knew the Con/Dem coalition was happening) ?
I thought it was put back by a week before the GE as HP looked likely and it would give time for negotiations?
Tories: Banff / High Peak Labour: Canterbury / Mansfield Lib Dem: Norfolk North / Hallam SNP: Perth & North Perthshire / Glasgow North East
Worst LD result is surely Fife NE!
Worst result has to be one that lost to the Tories and gave them an extra seat so it has to be Richmond Park or St Ives.
I'd say Richmond Park because it gave Zac a seat and it was an unnecessary loss. The Labour vote went up from 1,500 in the by election to 5,773 last Thursday. Just 1% of them voting tactically would have reduced the Tory seats by a critical one. I hope Labour voters have learned a lesson.
Extract from Sarah Olney's statement:
I wish Mr Goldsmith well in his resumed role as our MP, but I know I am not the only local resident who feels some disquiet at the overall result and its implications for the country. Many voters will have backed Mr Goldsmith because of the promise of "strong and stable leadership in the national interest" and because Mrs May was the most credible person to lead Britain into the Brexit negotiations. As a result of this unnecessary election, the country is now in disarray, and our hand in the fast-approaching negotiations has been weakened. Voters are entitled to feel cheated.
The proposed partnership with the DUP will also cause some concern . I hope that the partnership will not include any concessions on gay rights, action on climate change or the right to access abortions. But the real concern is for the Good Friday Agreement, under which the British Government is supposed to remain neutral. The collapse of the power-sharing agreement earlier this year was a setback for the province, especially in the light of the threat that Brexit represents to the 'soft' border, and a Government breach of the Agreement will further undermine efforts to restore stability to Northern Ireland.
But my greatest concern is for what the election result means for local people. Mr Goldsmith now has a very slim majority, in a Parliament that is extremely vulnerable to being dissolved. Will Mr Goldsmith stand up for local people, against the Government, as he promised? When the National Policy Statement on aviation comes before the Commons later this year, can Mr Goldsmith risk voting against the Government, knowing that any failure to get legislation passed might trigger a new General Election? Will he challenge them to produce the extra funding that our schools and hospitals need? Time will tell, and Mr Goldsmith can be sure that the Liberal Democrats will be watching closely.
Whether you agree with Olney's opinions or not, you must agree she is very articulate and writes a good statement.
I wonder if now is a good time to bet on May still being Tory leader at the next election.
As much as people are talking like any replacement for her would be an improvement in electoral terms, this isn't at all obvious to me. Do people really think Hammond or Rudd or Gove would have more popular appeal?
It will be Boris. He is not as popular as the right wing press has led us to believe. The further north you go the more people laugh at him rather than with him. And beyond the UK he is, of course, actively damaging to UK interests.
Boris twice won Labour London and it was Boris who made a crucial difference between Remain scraping home in the EU referendum and a narrow Leave win, if Corbyn gets in the UK will of course become Venezuela without the sunshine
Winning against Livingstone, certainly the second time, has similarities with winning against Corbyn.
On the EFTA Court and ECJ case law, the Wikipedia article is clear:
In order to secure a level playing field for individuals and economic operators in both pillars, special homogeneity provisions have been laid down in the EEA Agreement and in the Surveillance and Court Agreement. Under these rules, the EFTA Court shall follow the relevant case law of the ECJ on provisions of Union law that are identical in substance to provisions of EEA law rendered prior to the date of signature of the EEA Agreement (2 May 1992) and shall pay due account to the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice's relevant case law rendered after that date. The EFTA Court’s jurisprudence is in fact based on the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The politically important distinction between old and new ECJ case law has largely been qualified in practice. The EFTA Court also refers to the case law of the General Court of the European Union (EGC). All three EEA courts (ECJ, EGC, EFTA Court) have not only emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of EU and EEA law, but have actively seen to it that homogeneity is preserved.
This is totally unacceptable if true. You cannot delay the QS. That is a direct subversion of our constitutional monarchy/democracy. HMQ has proclaimed the date, meet it or resign. I truly believe we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis as big as the run up to abdication.
Steady on now... I'm sure that won't happen. Remember the coaliation in 2010 took a little bit of time to sort out.
The coalition presented a Queen's speech in just over a fortnight after Dave becoming PM.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
That's the 1923 option... The next year (1924) Tories went on to win a landslide.
However with Brexit countdown clock ticking I don't think it's viable.
If the Tories can't get a QS speech through it'll be a new election, IMO.
If May goes, it still doesn't solve the problem of passing a Queen's Speech. This is a right old mess.
If they don't sort it out, we're going straight back to the polls.
Fixed term parliament though. Labour would have a chance to form a government if they wanted to take it.
Is offering Labour the chance to form a government after all the Tory warnings a good ploy? Would Labour refusing be damaging? I suspect making Labour take their share of the blame for the current inertia is a wise idea.
Excuse me? Labour can be blamed for many things, but not this. This is all on May.
Tories: Banff / High Peak Labour: Canterbury / Mansfield Lib Dem: Norfolk North / Hallam SNP: Perth & North Perthshire / Glasgow North East
I think hanging on to Westmorland and Lonsdale was probably a better achievement for the Lib Dems than hanging on to North Norfolk. But it might have been better for them had Tim Farron lost.
Kensington for Labour, surely?
No, I think Pulpstar is right, Canterbury was a fantastic win for Labour. Had Labour won Chelsea and Fulham, now that would have trumped it.
Warwick and Leamington was the biggest shock Labour win for me. Canterbury was suggested beforehand. If W & L was I missed it.
Certainly not for me, I lived and campaigned in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 when it had a 5000 Labour majority ie even bigger than Thursday, Leamington is full of students and has a high ethnic minority population and does not even have 1 Tory councillor, Warwick is split between the Tories and Labour
I wonder if now is a good time to bet on May still being Tory leader at the next election.
As much as people are talking like any replacement for her would be an improvement in electoral terms, this isn't at all obvious to me. Do people really think Hammond or Rudd or Gove would have more popular appeal?
It will be Boris. He is not as popular as the right wing press has led us to believe. The further north you go the more people laugh at him rather than with him. And beyond the UK he is, of course, actively damaging to UK interests.
Boris twice won Labour London and it was Boris who made a crucial difference between Remain scraping home in the EU referendum and a narrow Leave win, if Corbyn gets in the UK will of course become Venezuela without the sunshine
Winning against Livingstone, certainly the second time, has similarities with winning against Corbyn.
Winning alone is not good enough. There are a few Tory candidates who I suspect would win against Corbyn, but they require a better majority than 2015 and I'm not sure Boris could deliver that given so many remainers would mobilise against him.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
That's the 1923 option... The next year (1924) Tories went on to win a landslide.
However with Brexit countdown clock ticking I don't think it's viable.
If the Tories can't get a QS speech through it'll be a new election, IMO.
Parliament is sovereign. If Corbyn formed an administration they could wait for chaos and introduce a bill to revoke Article 50, splitting the Labour party and setting themselves to win the subsequent election on a Remain platform.
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Also, in an age where people seem to demand instant gratification, the youngsters who turned out to vote Corbyn might be a bit confused to see Theresa May still PM. Labour have to make it seem like they've won, else people might get bored of revolutionary politics
Annoyingly, all the Corbynistas have gone a bit quiet on my Facebook feed. There are a few links to cartoons about May, but nothing substantial. For once, I really want to know what they're thinking.
I believe they are just sitting back patiently, watching May and the Tories struggle and doing themselves further damage ahead of the imminent forthcoming election which they believe they will win.
It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.
I think it genuinely depends what demands the DUP are making. It's not certain that an agreement will be reached.
On that note, I'm tempted by Jo Swinson at 3.5 to be next Lib Dem leader.
I think Cable's past it, and whilst I rate Lamb, he lost last time.
Thoughts?
Cable is past it, and I don't think he'll even stand.
I think Tom Brake may throw his hat into the ring too.
Lamb vs Brake vs Swinson?
As well as Jo Swinson I would cover Ed Davey, I think he would stand. I understand he was planning to in 2015 when he lost his seat. I'd then look to lay in contest.
Personally I think Tim Farron should stay in post. He's growing into the role and with the risk of another election in a matter of months, not convinced a leadership contest is a good use of energy at present.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?
We have written rules in the fixed-term Parliament act. If a confidence vote is lost there is a two-week period for an alternative government to gain the confidence of the House. Then there is a new election.
I don't know if the Act sets out a period following an election in which a Queen's Speech has to be passed.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
Yes, that thought occurred to me. But it would be a very, very high-risk option, and meanwhile the Article 50 clock is ticking.
It's not really high risk as the chance of a Labour majority at a second punishment election must be close to 100%.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
That's the 1923 option... The next year (1924) Tories went on to win a landslide.
However with Brexit countdown clock ticking I don't think it's viable.
If the Tories can't get a QS speech through it'll be a new election, IMO.
Parliament is sovereign. If Corbyn formed an administration they could wait for chaos and introduce a bill to revoke Article 50, splitting the Labour party and setting themselves to win the subsequent election on a Remain platform.
Why on Earth would the Tories want to revoke A50 when it would split and destroy them?
It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.
I wonder if now is a good time to bet on May still being Tory leader at the next election.
As much as people are talking like any replacement for her would be an improvement in electoral terms, this isn't at all obvious to me. Do people really think Hammond or Rudd or Gove would have more popular appeal?
It will be Boris. He is not as popular as the right wing press has led us to believe. The further north you go the more people laugh at him rather than with him. And beyond the UK he is, of course, actively damaging to UK interests.
Boris twice won Labour London and it was Boris who made a crucial difference between Remain scraping home in the EU referendum and a narrow Leave win, if Corbyn gets in the UK will of course become Venezuela without the sunshine
Winning against Livingstone, certainly the second time, has similarities with winning against Corbyn.
Indeed, Boris is the best candidate to take on Corbyn in my view
It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.
I think it genuinely depends what demands the DUP are making. It's not certain that an agreement will be reached.
See my first point. The DUP are not exactly my cup of tea, but they are rational. They will know the confines within which they are working.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
That's the 1923 option... The next year (1924) Tories went on to win a landslide.
However with Brexit countdown clock ticking I don't think it's viable.
If the Tories can't get a QS speech through it'll be a new election, IMO.
Parliament is sovereign. If Corbyn formed an administration they could wait for chaos and introduce a bill to revoke Article 50, splitting the Labour party and setting themselves to win the subsequent election on a Remain platform.
Why on Earth would the Tories want to revoke A50 when it would split and destroy them?
Brexit is splitting and destroying them already. At least putting themselves on the right side of the events that are about to unfold would offer them some future.
Slightly more on topic, one piece of analysis during the election that seemed correct was that it wasn't about Brexit nearly as much as May had hoped. But now everyone seems to be treating the result like it was the entire voting public conspiring to send an incredibly cryptic message on Brexit.
Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.
Also, in an age where people seem to demand instant gratification, the youngsters who turned out to vote Corbyn might be a bit confused to see Theresa May still PM. Labour have to make it seem like they've won, else people might get bored of revolutionary politics
Because being condescending to younger voters has worked well so far. Keep it up
That's extremely unfair.
There is always a lot of disillusion with new voters realising that politics is a long game - that's not condescending, that's just reality. What you want is to grab the new voters who are in it for the long haul, get engaged in politics, and have their tribal loyalties 'baked in' by an election blooding (particularly if they lose). This is a much smaller subset. Football fans have known that for years - you don't want 'glory supporters', the f**k off at the first sign of defeat.
The LibDems did this brilliantly during the Charles Kennedy / anti-war years. Tuition fees blew that out of the water, and Farron's 'Christian values' are continuing to put the youth off.
In that regard Labour - and Momentum - have played a blinder.
It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.
Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?
Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?
Slightly more on topic, one piece of analysis during the election that seemed correct was that it wasn't about Brexit nearly as much as May had hoped. But now everyone seems to be treating the result like it was the entire voting public conspiring to send an incredibly cryptic message on Brexit.
People vote for all sorts of reasons - just as many of the votes for Brexit probably had little to do with the EU.
Fact remains, the PM asked a specific question seeking a larger majority and mandate for her approach to Brexit, and the answer is no.
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
Yes, that thought occurred to me. But it would be a very, very high-risk option, and meanwhile the Article 50 clock is ticking.
It's not really high risk as the chance of a Labour majority at a second punishment election must be close to 100%.
They were a long way from a majority. Corbyn is no Blair, he is vulnerable. He would probably beat a wounded May but if the Tories picked a decent replacement with a short honeymoon period it would be 50/50 shot to see who's the biggest party.
This could be a Michael Dobbs novel or a low budget Hollywood plot.
Given the leadership and polarization of the two parties even a grand coalition of national unity is not possible. Can't see a Tory serving in a Corbyn cabinet or vice versa.
Think the LDs are going to come under pressure soon if the DUP is not working out. Could the Tories accept a 2nd referendum?
One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.
Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.
That's the 1923 option... The next year (1924) Tories went on to win a landslide.
However with Brexit countdown clock ticking I don't think it's viable.
If the Tories can't get a QS speech through it'll be a new election, IMO.
Parliament is sovereign. If Corbyn formed an administration they could wait for chaos and introduce a bill to revoke Article 50, splitting the Labour party and setting themselves to win the subsequent election on a Remain platform.
Why on Earth would the Tories want to revoke A50 when it would split and destroy them?
Why on Earth would the Tories call an EU referendum when it would split and destroy them?
Comments
I think Tom Brake may throw his hat into the ring too.
Lamb vs Brake vs Swinson?
If she can't "do" Womens Hour it's difficult to see her fronting up to the 1922...
I was struggling to follow the exact disagreements. Buy by god there were disagreements. I can imagine anyone able to negotiate that sort of atmosphere would eat UK politicians up for breakfast....
The posh boys were generally good politicians (although I have my doubts about GO). Nicola is a good politician but a hopeless tactician. The Grey Mist is hopeless at both.
I quite like Tim Farron - he's enthusiastic, like an exuberant puppy. But he will keep doing doo-doos all over the house.
I truly believe we are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis as big as the run up to abdication.
Edited extra bit: market*, of course.
I know that May hasn't covered herself in glory in the competence stakes recently, but surely now that she does not have sole authority the Conservative leadership as a whole can manage to persuade the DUP not to vote against a Tory QS.
If she looked herself in the mirror at this moment and decided she can't do this any more, nobody could force her to stay on against her wishes.
Come on Tories, you need a safe pair of hands. You know it.
If they don't sort it out, we're going straight back to the polls.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/874225837649928192
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2014/06/27/news/garvaghy-road-ban-to-remain-95375/
The numbers just don't add up.
She likes her podium. The 1922 will be tough on her tonight, and it cannot have been a comfortable cabinet meeting.
Jezzas Queens Speech should be exciting:
"My government will purge the Civil Service of counter revolutionaries, wreckers and Kulaks..."
AT BF on 3.2.
It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.
In order to secure a level playing field for individuals and economic operators in both pillars, special homogeneity provisions have been laid down in the EEA Agreement and in the Surveillance and Court Agreement. Under these rules, the EFTA Court shall follow the relevant case law of the ECJ on provisions of Union law that are identical in substance to provisions of EEA law rendered prior to the date of signature of the EEA Agreement (2 May 1992) and shall pay due account to the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice's relevant case law rendered after that date. The EFTA Court’s jurisprudence is in fact based on the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The politically important distinction between old and new ECJ case law has largely been qualified in practice. The EFTA Court also refers to the case law of the General Court of the European Union (EGC). All three EEA courts (ECJ, EGC, EFTA Court) have not only emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of EU and EEA law, but have actively seen to it that homogeneity is preserved.
However with Brexit countdown clock ticking I don't think it's viable.
If the Tories can't get a QS speech through it'll be a new election, IMO.
Certainly not for me, I lived and campaigned in Warwick and Leamington in 2001 when it had a 5000 Labour majority ie even bigger than Thursday, Leamington is full of students and has a high ethnic minority population and does not even have 1 Tory councillor, Warwick is split between the Tories and Labour
Personally I think Tim Farron should stay in post. He's growing into the role and with the risk of another election in a matter of months, not convinced a leadership contest is a good use of energy at present.
I don't know if the Act sets out a period following an election in which a Queen's Speech has to be passed.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/874228995113574400
There is always a lot of disillusion with new voters realising that politics is a long game - that's not condescending, that's just reality. What you want is to grab the new voters who are in it for the long haul, get engaged in politics, and have their tribal loyalties 'baked in' by an election blooding (particularly if they lose). This is a much smaller subset. Football fans have known that for years - you don't want 'glory supporters', the f**k off at the first sign of defeat.
The LibDems did this brilliantly during the Charles Kennedy / anti-war years. Tuition fees blew that out of the water, and Farron's 'Christian values' are continuing to put the youth off.
In that regard Labour - and Momentum - have played a blinder.
Fact remains, the PM asked a specific question seeking a larger majority and mandate for her approach to Brexit, and the answer is no.
Given the leadership and polarization of the two parties even a grand coalition of national unity is not possible. Can't see a Tory serving in a Corbyn cabinet or vice versa.
Think the LDs are going to come under pressure soon if the DUP is not working out. Could the Tories accept a 2nd referendum?