If the Tories for whatever reason could not get their QS through and Corbyn was given a ch?
Just to add, I am not saying they should, just wondering if it is technically possible.
I was pondering the same. If they defeated Labour on every single vote it would backfire: better to avoid the obvious trap votes Labour would put in an vote for sensible measures ("for the public good").
A Labour minority government would be as much a nightmare for Corbyn as the current situation is for May. Probably worse, as I'm unconvinced that he actually wants the job.
On today's HoC numbers any opposition could make any minority government's life a nightmare. This parliament is not going to last 5 years! There'll be huge fun and games with dramas and tears and queenie is going to have to dissolve it and call another GE soon enough.
I seem to remember plenty of leading lights here and elsewhere saying the same thing about the 2010 coalition. The media speculated about it lasting a few months.
A lot of people are underestimating the Tories and the DUP. They will hold together because they have to.
The alternative is Corbyn PM and this country goes off a cliff edge.
The 2010 coalition had ?363? seats when formed. The 2017 arrangement will have ?327?
It's got much more in common with 1996/7, and we all know how well that went for Major and the Conservatives. Major had 336 seats in 1992, and ended up in a terrible situation wrt votes as seats leached away in by-elections.
So they're starting from a lower position than in 1992.
Wilson had a majority of 4 in October 74, and lasted for nearly 5 years. The Tories + DUP will have an effective majority of 13.
This government will go the distance. It is their duty to keep Corbyn away from the levers of power!
This is not 1974.
Besides, think of what happened in the next elections after 1974 and 1992: both saw the government out and ushered in 10+ years of the opposition party. Small majorities are destructive to the governing party.
(And even 2010 was, if you think of the Lib Dems as a governing party back then).
It's not 1992 either. The Tories will go into the next election having delivered Brexit with a new leader and a less than atrocious campaign. The future's bright!
I think rather than repeal FTPA, they will probably seek to amend it. In any case it must be reviewed by parliament and recommendation made for amendment or repeal by November 2020 as part of the 2011 act.
If the Tories for whatever reason could not get their QS through and Corbyn was given a chanc,e would it be possible for the Tories to abstain on the Labour QS but then use their larger number of seats to vote down and defeat Labour on every single vote after the QS.
At what point would it be possible for Labour to call another election? Could the Tories effectively keep them in Government but unable to pass any legislation?
Just to add, I am not saying they should, just wondering if it is technically possible.
I was pondering the same. If they defeated Labour on every single vote it would backfire: better to avoid the obvious trap votes Labour would put in an vote for sensible measures ("for the public good").
A Labour minority government would be as much a nightmare for Corbyn as the current situation is for May. Probably worse, as I'm unconvinced that he actually wants the job.
On today's HoC numbers any opposition could make any minority government's life a nightmare. This parliament is not going to last 5 years! There'll be huge fun and games with dramas and tears and queenie is going to have to dissolve it and call another GE soon enough.
I seem to remember plenty of leading lights here and elsewhere saying the same thing about the 2010 coalition. The media speculated about it lasting a few months.
A lot of people are underestimating the Tories and the DUP. They will hold together because they have to.
The alternative is Corbyn PM and this country goes off a cliff edge.
The 2010 coalition had ?363? seats when formed. The 2017 arrangement will have ?327?
It's got much more in common with 1996/7, and we all know how well that went for Major and the Conservatives. Major had 336 seats in 1992, and ended up in a terrible situation wrt votes as seats leached away in by-elections.
So they're starting from a lower position than in 1992.
Wilson had a majority of 4 in October 74, and lasted for nearly 5 years. The Tories + DUP will have an effective majority of 13.
This government will go the distance. It is their duty to keep Corbyn away from the levers of power!
The key difference being that Wilson had an actual majority of MPs from his own party. Not a C&S deal with a bunch of regionalist bigots from a different party!
The key difference is that the Tories and the DUP do not compete with each other, whereas Labour and the Liberals did. The incentives are very different.
This sordid business is really all down to the right wingers in the Conservative Party and their obsession with Europe. They are to blame, no -one else. I know of colleagues who astonished me in the Referendum by voting Leave over immigration and a wish to give Cameron a kicking, and who are now saying they want to STAY. Things have changed. By the way they live in the Stoke area!!!
Yup, and I know of people who voted Remain because they were scared but would now vote Leave.
Surprise surprise, it isn't a one way street.
Vaniishingly few post-election I imagine...although it's a fair point.
Labour's perceived success at this election was a flash in the pan. The Tories will never run a campaign as dire as this one again, they'll have a more public friendly PM (hopefully), and Corbyn and McDonnell will go on being the far left extremists they have always been.
The Tory manifesto sunk the Tories, not Corbyn. The polling pre and post manifesto proves that conclusively. And I wonder how many people would have voted Labour if they thought seriously that Corbyn could have been PM.
All the reasons why the PLP tried to remove Corbyn will remain, indeed, they will be intensified, and professional worms like Cooper and Umuna will regret grovelling at his feet.
With all due respect you were dead wrong about pretty much everything in the run up to the election so why would anyone give your latest analysis any credence?
Most people acknowledge their errors rather than bang on with the same old cliches as if last Thursday never happened.
The FTPA process for calling an election outside the 2/3 is simple vote of NC in government and no vote of confidence passed on any new government within 14 days.
Yes, it's not exactly watertight legislation!
How do you mean? It does what it is intended to do.
If the Tories for whatever reason could not get their QS through and Corbyn was given a chanc,e would it be possible for the Tories to abstain on the Labour QS but then use their larger number of seats to vote down and defeat Labour on every single vote after the QS.
At what point would it be possible for Labour to call another election? Could the Tories effectively keep them in Government but unable to pass any legislation?
Just to add, I am not saying they should, just wondering if it is technically possible.
As I understand it, if the Conservatives lose a vote of confidence (which the QS is) then they must resign, and Corbyn gets the chance to form a government. If he loses a vote of confidence, there's a fresh election. Alternatively, two thirds of MPs can vote to call an election.
The Conservatives would be in a position to vote down a great deal of what Corbyn was putting forward. but if they voted down a Finance Bill, that would trigger a general election. And, governments also have considerable administrative powers.
Is that still the case under the FTPA?
I think that's how it works. I think it's now rather hard to actually get a general election, if there's no appetite for it in Parliament.
Labour would certainly want another quick general election, and perhaps the Lib Dems. The Conservatives, SNP, DUP, all have their own reasons for not wanting another general election soon.
If the Tories for whatever reason could not get their QS through and Corbyn was given a chanc,e would it be possible for the Tories to abstain on the Labour QS but then use their larger number of seats to vote down and defeat Labour on every single vote after the QS.
At what point would it be possible for Labour to call another election? Could the Tories effectively keep them in Government but unable to pass any legislation?
Just to add, I am not saying they should, just wondering if it is technically possible.
As I understand it, if the Conservatives lose a vote of confidence (which the QS is) then they must resign, and Corbyn gets the chance to form a government. If he loses a vote of confidence, there's a fresh election. Alternatively, two thirds of MPs can vote to call an election.
The Conservatives would be in a position to vote down a great deal of what Corbyn was putting forward. but if they voted down a Finance Bill, that would trigger a general election. And, governments also have considerable administrative powers.
Is that still the case under the FTPA?
I think that's how it works. I think it's now rather hard to actually get a general election, if there's no appetite for it in Parliament.
Labour would certainly want another quick general election, and perhaps the Lib Dems. The Conservatives, SNP, DUP, all have their own reasons for not wanting another general election soon.
SNP won't prop up the Tories. Ever.
True. But that doesn't mean they want an early GE.
If Corbyn was trapped as PM in the way described could he not call for an election and make the vote a confidence vote in the government thereby getting Labour out and leaving the Tories holding the ball?
I think that only the loss of a formal vote of confidence ( or a QS or Finance Bill) would automatically trigger an election.
You can't get around the FPTA by just calling a bill a vote of confidence.
I don't think a QS or Finance Bill failing automatically triggers an election either, my reading of FTPA is that it's only a motion specifically “that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.”
Both are de facto votes of confidence though.
But not de jure - they would need a motion in the specified form as well. Unless I'm misreading the act.
In which case, what happens if a QS or Finance Bill fails and a FTPA motion also fails - or is never proposed?
Labour's perceived success at this election was a flash in the pan. The Tories will never run a campaign as dire as this one again, they'll have a more public friendly PM (hopefully), and Corbyn and McDonnell will go on being the far left extremists they have always been.
The Tory manifesto sunk the Tories, not Corbyn. The polling pre and post manifesto proves that conclusively. And I wonder how many people would have voted Labour if they thought seriously that Corbyn could have been PM.
All the reasons why the PLP tried to remove Corbyn will remain, indeed, they will be intensified, and professional worms like Cooper and Umuna will regret grovelling at his feet.
With all due respect you were dead wrong about pretty much everything in the run up to the election so why would anyone give your latest analysis any credence?
They're just opinions, and I'm not seeking your affirmation, as you are undoubtedly not seeking mine.
If Corbyn was trapped as PM in the way described could he not call for an election and make the vote a confidence vote in the government thereby getting Labour out and leaving the Tories holding the ball?
I think that only the loss of a formal vote of confidence ( or a QS or Finance Bill) would automatically trigger an election.
You can't get around the FPTA by just calling a bill a vote of confidence.
I don't think a QS or Finance Bill failing automatically triggers an election either, my reading of FTPA is that it's only a motion specifically “that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.”
Both are de facto votes of confidence though.
But not de jure - they would need a motion in the specified form as well. Unless I'm misreading the act.
In which case, what happens if a QS or Finance Bill fails and a FTPA motion also fails - or is never proposed?
This confuses me too. Constitutionally the consequences of a QS failing are dire surely?
Just did a post election poll for the Conservatives/
They found one then .....
Jason is still commenting like nothing has changed.
No, I'm saying the Tories and the DUP will fight to the death rather than hand power over to Corbyn. As for Corbyn himself, his short term feel good 'victory', or whatever you want to call it, will last precisely as long as the PLP allow it to.
He will see the election as a legitimisation of his politics. We'll see how long the moderates can stomach that.
The fight to the death will end in their own . The longer they cling to power , the bigger will be the Labour victory at the next GE .
It is not 'clinging' to power, the Tories won both most seats and most votes and have every right to form the government
Not explicitly. But they are past masters at sophistry and I'm sure in the right circumstances they'd find a formula to explain why an abstention in a vote of confidence was really a bold blow for Scotland against the evil Tories. This is, after all, a party which claims it espouses the principle of not voting on England/Wales-only matters and which somehow managed to conclude from that principle that it should vote on fox-hunting in England and Wales.
If the Tories for whatever reason could not get their QS through and Corbyn was given a ch?
Just to add, I am not saying they should, just wondering if it is technically possible.
I was pondering the same. If they defeated Labour on every single vote it would backfire: better to avoid the obvious trap votes Labour would put in an vote for sensible measures ("for the public good").
A Labour minority government would be as much a nightmare for Corbyn as the current situation is for May. Probably worse, as I'm unconvinced that he actually wants the job.
On today's HoC numbers any opposition could make any minority government's life a nightmare. This parliament is not going to last 5 years! There'll be huge fun and games with dramas and tears and queenie is going to have to dissolve it and call another GE soon enough.
I seem to remember plenty of leading lights here and elsewhere saying the same thing about the 2010 coalition. The media speculated about it lasting a few months.
A lot of people are underestimating the Tories and the DUP. They will hold together because they have to.
The alternative is Corbyn PM and this country goes off a cliff edge.
The 2010 coalition had ?363? seats when formed. The 2017 arrangement will have ?327?
It's got much more in common with 1996/7, and we all know how well that went for Major and the Conservatives. Major had 336 seats in 1992, and ended up in a terrible situation wrt votes as seats leached away in by-elections.
So they're starting from a lower position than in 1992.
Wilson had a majority of 4 in October 74, and lasted for nearly 5 years. The Tories + DUP will have an effective majority of 13.
This government will go the distance. It is their duty to keep Corbyn away from the levers of power!
This is not 1974.
Besides, think of what happened in the next elections after 1974 and 1992: both saw the government out and ushered in 10+ years of the opposition party. Small majorities are destructive to the governing party.
(And even 2010 was, if you think of the Lib Dems as a governing party back then).
It's not 1992 either. The Tories will go into the next election having delivered Brexit with a new leader and a less than atrocious campaign. The future's bright!
The Tories will try and oust the FTPA or amend it to simple majority for an election and try and cut and run the moment Corbyn loses his lustre. I'd guess their aim is to get to a point of no return in the Brexit negotiations and try their luck under a new leader.
What will tell them that Corbyn has lost his lustre? The polls?
If the Tories for whatever reason could not get their QS through and Corbyn was given a chanc,e would it be possible for the Tories to abstain on the Labour QS but then use their larger number of seats to vote down and defeat Labour on every single vote after the QS.
At what point would it be possible for Labour to call another election? Could the Tories effectively keep them in Government but unable to pass any legislation?
Just to add, I am not saying they should, just wondering if it is technically possible.
As I understand it, if the Conservatives lose a vote of confidence (which the QS is) then they must resign, and Corbyn gets the chance to form a government. If he loses a vote of confidence, there's a fresh election. Alternatively, two thirds of MPs can vote to call an election.
The Conservatives would be in a position to vote down a great deal of what Corbyn was putting forward. but if they voted down a Finance Bill, that would trigger a general election. And, governments also have considerable administrative powers.
Is that still the case under the FTPA?
I think that's how it works. I think it's now rather hard to actually get a general election, if there's no appetite for it in Parliament.
Labour would certainly want another quick general election, and perhaps the Lib Dems. The Conservatives, SNP, DUP, all have their own reasons for not wanting another general election soon.
SNP won't prop up the Tories. Ever.
Not openly, but they won't want to engineer a situation in which they lose seats.
Not explicitly. But they are past masters at sophistry and I'm sure in the right circumstances they'd find a formula to explain why an abstention in a vote of confidence was really a bold blow for Scotland against the evil Tories. This is, after all, a party which claims it espouses the principle of not voting on England/Wales-only matters and which somehow managed to conclude from that principle that it should vote on fox-hunting in England and Wales.
Yes, the history of the SNP and vote of confidence is not one they like to be reminded of...
Can we get back to the main point. Theresa May is already a proven looser, totally inadequate as a Prime Minister and a poor to indifferent politician. She will not last.
Not explicitly. But they are past masters at sophistry and I'm sure in the right circumstances they'd find a formula to explain why an abstention in a vote of confidence was really a bold blow for Scotland against the evil Tories. This is, after all, a party which claims it espouses the principle of not voting on England/Wales-only matters and which somehow managed to conclude from that principle that it should vote on fox-hunting in England and Wales.
There is no way on earth that the SNP are going to cooperate in going to the polls any time soon. I expect that any tricky votes will be found to be England/Wales only matters that the SNP in all conscience can't participate in.
Can we get back to the main point. Theresa May is already a proven looser, totally inadequate as a Prime Minister and a poor to indifferent politician. She will not last.
Can we get back to the main point. Theresa May is already a proven looser, totally inadequate as a Prime Minister and a poor to indifferent politician. She will not last.
She will last until the Tories decide it's time to replace her. No idea when that will be.
The Tories will try and oust the FTPA or amend it to simple majority for an election and try and cut and run the moment Corbyn loses his lustre. I'd guess their aim is to get to a point of no return in the Brexit negotiations and try their luck under a new leader.
What will tell them that Corbyn has lost his lustre? The polls?
I'm getting word that Rev. William Mcrea is to receive a peerage, and become Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office.
McCrea was a member of the Shankill Defence Association and in 1971 he was convicted of riotous behaviour in Dungiven.[7][8] In 1975 he led a prayer service at the paramilitary funerals of Wesley Somerville and Harris Boyle. The two soldiers were part of the Glenanne gang which carried out the Miami Showband killings and were accidentally blown up when the bomb they were planting in the band's minibus went off prematurely, killing them instantly.[8] McCrea was the target of a parcel bomb to his home on 9 August 1988, when a package sent by the Irish People's Liberation Organisation was disarmed. McCrea had become suspicious when he noticed the package had a Dublin postmark.[9]
McCrea was criticised when he appeared on a platform at a Portadown rally in support of the senior Ulster loyalist paramilitary Billy Wright, who had been threatened by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) leadership, in September 1996.[10][11][12][13] Wright was the founder and leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (which had broken away from the UVF), and had been threatened after he broke the UVF ceasefire by ordering the death of Catholic civilian Michael McGoldrick.[14][15]
Call for British airstrikes against Irish towns[edit] A Northern Ireland Office memo released under the thirty-year rule in December 2014 revealed that McCrea had called for the Royal Air Force to carry out "strikes against Dundalk, Drogheda, Crossmaglen and Carrickmore" at the DUP's annual conference in April 1986.[16]
I'm getting word that Rev. William Mcrea is to receive a peerage, and become Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office.
9]
McCrea was criticised when he appeared on a platform at a Portadown rally in support of the senior Ulster loyalist paramilitary Billy Wright, who had been threatened by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) leadership, in September 1996.[10][11][12][13] Wright was the founder and leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (which had broken away from the UVF), and had been threatened after he broke the UVF ceasefire by ordering the death of Catholic civilian Michael McGoldrick.[14][15]
Call for British airstrikes against Irish towns[edit] A Northern Ireland Office memo released under the thirty-year rule in December 2014 revealed that McCrea had called for the Royal Air Force to carry out "strikes against Dundalk, Drogheda, Crossmaglen and Carrickmore" at the DUP's annual conference in April 1986.[16]
I'm getting word that Rev. William Mcrea is to receive a peerage, and become Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office.
McCrea was a member of the Shankill Defence Association and in 1971 he was convicted of riotous behaviour in Dungiven.[7][8] In 1975suspicious when he noticed the package had a Dublin postmark.[9]
McCrea was criticised when he appeared on a platform at a Portadown rally in support of the senior Ulster loyalist paramilitary Billy Wright, who had been threatened by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) leadership, in September 1996.[10][11][12][13] Wright was the founder and leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (which had broken away from the UVF), and had been threatened after he broke the UVF ceasefire by ordering the death of Catholic civilian Michael McGoldrick.[14][15]
Call for British airstrikes against Irish towns[edit] A Northern Ireland Office memo released under the thirty-year rule in December 2014 revealed that McCrea had called for the Royal Air Force to carry out "strikes against Dundalk, Drogheda, Crossmaglen and Carrickmore" at the DUP's annual conference in April 1986.[16]
I enjoyed this article. It's worrying (as someone who wants Labour to generally lose) how sensible most of the Labour supporters are being. Arrogance and going on as though they have won is the main risk to Labour continuing to move forward.
Whilst I understand your position and I don't want the so called 'Hard' Brexit either, the fact is that you and everyone else who voted Labour voted for a party that included what you refer to as a Hard Brexit in their election pledges. Parties are judged by their manifestoes and what they say during the campaign (as May is finding out to her cost) and for every person like you who claim they did not vote for a hard Brexit from Labour there an ex-UKIP supporter who specifically felt they were able to vote for Labour because of the commitment to leave the Single Market and impose border controls. You and I may not want it but that is what the parties campaigned for and it is what they will be judged on.
Yes that's why I said in my other post that I'm not sure how Labour will keep its voter coalition together.
But that's for the future - Labour aren't in a position to implement their manifesto anyway - so the immediate priority for me was to withhold assent from Mrs May's Brexit vision as effectively as possible.
Of course, if we had a PR voting system, I could have voted Lib Dem wherever I was in the country. It would be interesting to speculate how many Lab votes would have been Lib Dem votes in those circumstances.
(By the way, I know you have speculated that Mrs May's "secret" reason for calling for an increased majority was to give her the clout to implement a soft Brexit despite the wishes of some in her party. I'm not sure I can see that - she just seems too enthusiastic about hard Brexit. And if that was her thinking, I'm not sure how I was supposed to pick up the signal and vote for her!)
There is no way on earth that the SNP are going to cooperate in going to the polls any time soon. I expect that any tricky votes will be found to be England/Wales only matters that the SNP in all conscience can't participate in.
For that matter, the LibDems might not be over-keen to rock the boat. Theresa May's majority may be safer than it looks. For her to lose a confidence vote, all of the opposition parties have to simultaneously want an election.
The problem is likely to be more on ordinary day-to-day business, where she'll be at risk of an ambush.
PB Tories seem almost desperate not to learn from this GE - why? If a Corbyn government is your worst nightmare the first thing you should want to do is to learn how you can win in the next GE. The thing is, I don't think all is lost for the Tories - politics is incredibly unpredictable at this time and anything could happen in theory, despite the mess the Tories are in now. But requires the party to move on from the 'Corbyn is terrible ' message, and it seems as if some on here think that they can go into the next GE and rely on Corbyn's weaknesses to get over the line.
Very true , nothing positive as a reason to vote for them , just totally negative message on their opponents . I expect the Conservative government to stagger along from crisis to crisis well behind Labour in the polls until the next GE which they lose heavily and then scratch their heads and wonder why .
Not explicitly. But they are past masters at sophistry and I'm sure in the right circumstances they'd find a formula to explain why an abstention in a vote of confidence was really a bold blow for Scotland against the evil Tories. This is, after all, a party which claims it espouses the principle of not voting on England/Wales-only matters and which somehow managed to conclude from that principle that it should vote on fox-hunting in England and Wales.
I'm sure there was something in the SNP 2015 manifesto about the principle of pricking pompous old Tories.
Can you remember how many amendments the SNP brought to the 2016 Scotland Bill, and how many of those were voted down by English Tory MPs?
If Corbyn was trapped as PM in the way described could he not call for an election and make the vote a confidence vote in the government thereby getting Labour out and leaving the Tories holding the ball?
I think that only the loss of a formal vote of confidence ( or a QS or Finance Bill) would automatically trigger an election.
You can't get around the FPTA by just calling a bill a vote of confidence.
I don't think a QS or Finance Bill failing automatically triggers an election either, my reading of FTPA is that it's only a motion specifically “that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.”
Both are de facto votes of confidence though.
But not de jure - they would need a motion in the specified form as well. Unless I'm misreading the act.
In which case, what happens if a QS or Finance Bill fails and a FTPA motion also fails - or is never proposed?
This confuses me too. Constitutionally the consequences of a QS failing are dire surely?
Pre-FPTA, neither losing a QS vote or supply would trigger a dissolution directly, but would require the government to resign. The Queen (on the advice of the outgoing PM) would commission the LOTO or whoever else seemed to be likely to command the confidence of the House to form a new government. If the outgoing PM advised the Queen that no-one seems likely to be able to do that, or the person they advisd the Queen to summon failed to form a government or it too cannot get the House's confidence then the Queen would be advised to use her prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. That prerogative power was extinguished by the FPTA, and only the two procedures set out in it (a formal no-confidence vote with no following confidence vote within 2 weeks, or a vote of >= 2/3 of the membership of the House) can trigger an early dissolution now.
I don't see how the FTPA removes the necessity for the government to resign in the event of losing a QS vote or supply, but it could lead to the situation whereby the government has resigned but Parliament won't take either of the two routes to dissolve itself. We wouldn't be without a government though, the doctrine is that if the government resigns, the actual ministers carry on in a caretaker capacity until a new one is formed. We'd be Belgium basically.
There is no way on earth that the SNP are going to cooperate in going to the polls any time soon. I expect that any tricky votes will be found to be England/Wales only matters that the SNP in all conscience can't participate in.
For that matter, the LibDems might not be over-keen to rock the boat. Theresa May's majority may be safer than it looks. For her to lose a confidence vote, all of the opposition parties have to simultaneously want an election.
The problem is likely to be more on ordinary day-to-day business, where she'll be at risk of an ambush.
It's very, very hard to say as an opposition party that you don't want an election. Remember it wasn't long ago that Corbyn's Labour voted for an election despite certain electoral oblivion (ahem).
If May loses her majority through by-elections, defections, or a huge spat with the DUP, there will be no problem passing a vote of no confidence.
I don't agree about the incentives on the SNP and Lib Dems. Firstly, a vote of no confidence cannot be an England/Wales only matter by definition. It is exactly what it says on the tin - it's a vote of no confidence in HM Government per se, not in its handling of schools, or the NHS , or whatever specifically. It is incredibly hard for the SNP to duck out of even if the polls don't look great for them. As for the Lib Dems, they still only have 12 seats - it's barely a viable number, and they want as many elections as they can as quickly as possible, spinning the dice even if there's a downside risk too.
PB Tories seem almost desperate not to learn from this GE - why? If a Corbyn government is your worst nightmare the first thing you should want to do is to learn how you can win in the next GE. The thing is, I don't think all is lost for the Tories - politics is incredibly unpredictable at this time and anything could happen in theory, despite the mess the Tories are in now. But requires the party to move on from the 'Corbyn is terrible ' message, and it seems as if some on here think that they can go into the next GE and rely on Corbyn's weaknesses to get over the line.
When was the last time a LoTo fought an election, lost it , but still fought the next one and won ?
Not explicitly. But they are past masters at sophistry and I'm sure in the right circumstances they'd find a formula to explain why an abstention in a vote of confidence was really a bold blow for Scotland against the evil Tories. This is, after all, a party which claims it espouses the principle of not voting on England/Wales-only matters and which somehow managed to conclude from that principle that it should vote on fox-hunting in England and Wales.
The SNP never voted on fox hunting in England and Wales.
What a charming guy Macron is and what a contrast to the reptilian Johnson. If May wants to have any sort of successful Brexit her first move should be to sack Johnson.
There is no way on earth that the SNP are going to cooperate in going to the polls any time soon. I expect that any tricky votes will be found to be England/Wales only matters that the SNP in all conscience can't participate in.
For that matter, the LibDems might not be over-keen to rock the boat. Theresa May's majority may be safer than it looks. For her to lose a confidence vote, all of the opposition parties have to simultaneously want an election.
The problem is likely to be more on ordinary day-to-day business, where she'll be at risk of an ambush.
It's very, very hard to say as an opposition party that you don't want an election. Remember it wasn't long ago that Corbyn's Labour voted for an election despite certain electoral oblivion (ahem).
If May loses her majority through by-elections, defections, or a huge spat with the DUP, there will be no problem passing a vote of no confidence.
I don't agree about the incentives on the SNP and Lib Dems. Firstly, a vote of no confidence cannot be an England/Wales only matter by definition. It is exactly what it says on the tin - it's a vote of no confidence in HM Government per se, not in its handling of schools, or the NHS , or whatever specifically. It is incredibly hard for the SNP to duck out of even if the polls don't look great for them. As for the Lib Dems, they still only have 12 seats - it's barely a viable number, and they want as many elections as they can as quickly as possible, spinning the dice even if there's a downside risk too.
Comments
Given that you're playing all your home matches at Wembley next season, I'm sorely tempted to take the 1000/1 on you lot to get relegated
In which case, what happens if a QS or Finance Bill fails and a FTPA motion also fails - or is never proposed?
Are you suggesting Mr. Eagles isn't pro-May?
Also, welcome to pb.com.
Ditto a budget, a government could fail to pass a budget, and continue on as normal.
Both lost their majorities and continued on.
McCrea was criticised when he appeared on a platform at a Portadown rally in support of the senior Ulster loyalist paramilitary Billy Wright, who had been threatened by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) leadership, in September 1996.[10][11][12][13] Wright was the founder and leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (which had broken away from the UVF), and had been threatened after he broke the UVF ceasefire by ordering the death of Catholic civilian Michael McGoldrick.[14][15]
Call for British airstrikes against Irish towns[edit]
A Northern Ireland Office memo released under the thirty-year rule in December 2014 revealed that McCrea had called for the Royal Air Force to carry out "strikes against Dundalk, Drogheda, Crossmaglen and Carrickmore" at the DUP's annual conference in April 1986.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McCrea_(politician)
Didn't he want the RAF to bomb Dundalk?
I'd like to get back into this political writing/analysis lark
But that's for the future - Labour aren't in a position to implement their manifesto anyway - so the immediate priority for me was to withhold assent from Mrs May's Brexit vision as effectively as possible.
Of course, if we had a PR voting system, I could have voted Lib Dem wherever I was in the country. It would be interesting to speculate how many Lab votes would have been Lib Dem votes in those circumstances.
(By the way, I know you have speculated that Mrs May's "secret" reason for calling for an increased majority was to give her the clout to implement a soft Brexit despite the wishes of some in her party. I'm not sure I can see that - she just seems too enthusiastic about hard Brexit. And if that was her thinking, I'm not sure how I was supposed to pick up the signal and vote for her!)
A quick google search also tells me Reverend McCrea is also a supporter of homeopathy
The problem is likely to be more on ordinary day-to-day business, where she'll be at risk of an ambush.
Can you remember how many amendments the SNP brought to the 2016 Scotland Bill, and how many of those were voted down by English Tory MPs?
NEW THREAD
I don't see how the FTPA removes the necessity for the government to resign in the event of losing a QS vote or supply, but it could lead to the situation whereby the government has resigned but Parliament won't take either of the two routes to dissolve itself. We wouldn't be without a government though, the doctrine is that if the government resigns, the actual ministers carry on in a caretaker capacity until a new one is formed. We'd be Belgium basically.
If May loses her majority through by-elections, defections, or a huge spat with the DUP, there will be no problem passing a vote of no confidence.
I don't agree about the incentives on the SNP and Lib Dems. Firstly, a vote of no confidence cannot be an England/Wales only matter by definition. It is exactly what it says on the tin - it's a vote of no confidence in HM Government per se, not in its handling of schools, or the NHS , or whatever specifically. It is incredibly hard for the SNP to duck out of even if the polls don't look great for them. As for the Lib Dems, they still only have 12 seats - it's barely a viable number, and they want as many elections as they can as quickly as possible, spinning the dice even if there's a downside risk too.
Won in 70
Lost in 74 (twice)
Watch Free Movies Online