*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
Exciting as it might be for Cable to start his speech and then introduce all the Labour quitters one by one before announcing the launch of the New Party, I can't quite see it being that significant.
If Umunna is announced as the final joiner just as Cable finishes his resignation speech though it would be electric
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
Exciting as it might be for Cable to start his speech and then introduce all the Labour quitters one by one before announcing the launch of the New Party, I can't quite see it being that significant.
I could conceivably see Mike Gapes joining the Lib Dems. Most so-called Labour moderates are just going to hang onto their sinecures until the public sees fit to put them out of their misery.
'Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing' rings a bit hollow.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
Exciting as it might be for Cable to start his speech and then introduce all the Labour quitters one by one before announcing the launch of the New Party, I can't quite see it being that significant.
I could conceivably see Mike Gapes joining the Lib Dems. Most so-called Labour moderates are just going to hang onto their sinecures until the public sees fit to put them out of their misery.
'Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing' rings a bit hollow.
The first person to leave and join the LDs (or god forbid the Tories, though that looks very implausible) would feel like an important moment. Sure people have crossed the floor before, but in the current ruckus if people just go Indy it would probably be them saying 'I'm still Labour, it's just that Labour has been led down the wrong path', rather than making a clean break.
The fact that UKIP have collapsed (in every respect) is not a flaw in the polling. In any case it's central to the scenario I outlined below that the likes of Farage would be beneficial to the Remain campaign by rubbishing the actual Brexit deal that's on the table, so I don't see him or UKIP as an asset to any future Leave campaign where Leave means a long and tedious process.
You can't construct a hypothetical about the future by winding back the clock and replaying it.
IMO they would not fight on the proposed deal, they would fight the campaign on lying politicians. Videos of T May saying "Brexit means Brexit" and "We will control our borders, our laws, our etc" would be played non-stop. The videos would end with "LIARS."
EDIT: This is why May will never go for a second ref or peoples thingy, her political career would end.
Yes, any second referendum Leave campaign would start with videos of Cameron and May saying that they’ll implement the result and that Brexit means Brexit. It’ll be the original Leave campaign on steroids, while from the current evidence the Remain campaign will be based on the fact the that EU is Hotel California that we can never leave, and that Leave voters are a Basket of Deplorables.
In a hypothetical referendum campaign I would have thought the thrust of the Remain campaign would be to ask voters: “do you think the country has been going in a better direction since the last vote?”, illustrated with Mail headlines and the utterances of Leavers.
Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it.
It would largely comprise words from Londoners called Boris, Iain, Andrea, Liam and a northerner called David. And you’re right, it would be hilarious.
Leave are the incumbents now and given their staggering ineptness in power, they would make for easy targets. Indeed, it’s highly likely their own campaign material would reinforce the Remain campaign themes.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.
Right now, Leavers are talking about ideas and Remainers are talking about other people.
That's an interesting idea. But you are a terrible person.
It could do with most Tories + Labour Leave MPs like Stringer and Hoey and Field and Mann + the DUP voting for it. If the SNP abstain its passage would be guaranteed, it is not impossible Corbyn would abstain on a Deal or No Deal vote too
SNP wouldn't abstain, they'd vote for a remain option and against any such deal or no deal referendum that didn't give Scotland a veto on the final choice (which would never happen so they'd vote against any referendum).
It is impossible Corbyn would abstain on giving May a referendum she wants.
Even if both the SNP and the vast majority of the Labour Party vote against a Deal or No Deal referendum proposed by May it could still pass with the support of the vast majority of Tory MPs (the ERG would vote for it as it included a No Deal option) and the DUP and 5 or 6 Labour Leave MPs much like the vote to Leave the Customs Union passed the Commons
Currently the party is barely united on a notion of having a good potential deal but that is already fraying apart. The government has been winning votes with single-digit majorities it doesn't take many Remain-leaning Tory MPs to rebel to undo that wafer-thin majority. Once the rubicon of saying there will be no second referendum is crossed the Lords will have an overwhelming majority to put a Remain option in it. The Tory whips will not be able to prevent enough Tories rebelling at keeping that option. Afterall the Remain-backing Tory MPs will be saying its the public's choice and the PM will be the one giving the public the choice.
Its one thing being compelled to leave because the last referendum settled the matter, its another thing entirely re-opening the issue with a new vote and expecting people who want to remain to stay signed up to deal or no deal.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
The Ramsay MacDonald option.
It ended so well for Labour and MacDonald...
That's one of the examples I use.
Mrs May will learn from history, the other example I'm using is the Kadima route.
Hopefully with a better outlook for Mrs May than Ariel Sharon.
Boris or Farage or Mogg or Davis as Netanyahu ?
Of course it was Michael Collins who did the ultimate 'sell out' of the Treaty with the British to create the Free State but De Valera who refused to accept it and ended up leading Ireland for decades
Sandpit said "Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it".
I genuinely think you are underestimating the extent to which people are reaching their own conclusions about how Brexit is turning out compared to how it was sold. I know it's only anecdotal but the anti-Brexit second referendum folks were out in force again today in our town centre again today and people were signing up, taking stickers in numbers. I was chatting to a couple of the organisers and they were telling me that about 1 in 4 or 5 of those signing up were saying they voted leave first time around.
This period will go down, of course, as TMay's finest hour. A principled woman doing her duty following the referendum result whilst causing the least amount of damage to the economy and our way of life.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is no longer driven by Remainers versus Leavers but by Leave voters telling people that Brexit just won't work. There is no sign of Leavers actually changing their minds in great numbers so I basically agree with you.
I am certain however that Brexit will be a total clusterfuck. The only semi workable Brexit outcome is participation in the EU system on a do as you are told basis. i just don't see the UK accepting instruction from a body that it has rejected in a vote with effectively no influence or say over things that matter to it.
Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
No Brexit and free movement remaining the same as before the EU referendum is undeliverable too without a far right party surge
Maybe but that doesn't help make any particular outcome more deliverable.
It does confirm the Chequers Deal or a variant of it remains the best outcome
The variant of Chequers that MIGHT be acceptable to the EU is SM for goods + CU + EU VAT area + ECJ oversight + agreed preferential treatment of EU nationals. Even that's not certain. Why not go the whole hog?
As a work permits requirement for EU citizens on arrival and at least the opportunity to do pur own trade deals are non negotiable under May's red lines
The first should be possible and the second will be necessary under any Brexit scenario (and will lead to a worse set of trade arrangements than we had previously). Thin gruel indeed for a decade of disruption, losing our say and influence and a major economic hit along the way.
It could do with most Tories + Labour Leave MPs like Stringer and Hoey and Field and Mann + the DUP voting for it. If the SNP abstain its passage would be guaranteed, it is not impossible Corbyn would abstain on a Deal or No Deal vote too
SNP wouldn't abstain, they'd vote for a remain option and against any such deal or no deal referendum that didn't give Scotland a veto on the final choice (which would never happen so they'd vote against any referendum).
It is impossible Corbyn would abstain on giving May a referendum she wants.
Even if both the SNP and the vast majority of the Labour Party vote against a Deal or No Deal referendum proposed by May it could still pass with the support of the vast majority of Tory MPs (the ERG would vote for it as it included a No Deal option) and the DUP and 5 or 6 Labour Leave MPs much like the vote to Leave the Customs Union passed the Commons
Currently the party is barely united on a notion of having a good potential deal but that is already fraying apart. The government has been winning votes with single-digit majorities it doesn't take many Remain-leaning Tory MPs to rebel to undo that wafer-thin majority. Once the rubicon of saying there will be no second referendum is crossed the Lords will have an overwhelming majority to put a Remain option in it. The Tory whips will not be able to prevent enough Tories rebelling at keeping that option. Afterall the Remain-backing Tory MPs will be saying its the public's choice and the PM will be the one giving the public the choice.
Its one thing being compelled to leave because the last referendum settled the matter, its another thing entirely re-opening the issue with a new vote and expecting people who want to remain to stay signed up to deal or no deal.
The 2016 referendum offered the Remain option, the Remain option lost.
May can therefore validly say the only reason for another referendum would be to decide the nature of Leaving.
Even despite a handful of diehard Tory Remain MPs like Soubry and Clarke and Wollaston voting to stay in the Customs Union the Commons passed a vote to leave the Customs Union helped by Labour Leave MPs voting with the government. The same would apply to a Deal or No Deal referendum vote.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
There are two reasons. Firstly, it's a matter of timing. Barring an extension of article 50 (which is not solely within the UK's remit), there's not enough time left for us to complete the procedural steps necessary for a second referendum.
Secondly, we'd need the agreement of our EU counterparties that we could return to the status quo ante. If they were agreeable (and I mean on an official basis, rather than warm noises from people like Tusk), then that would dramatically increase the likelihood. However, if you look at the Commission's position, they're using Brexit as an opportunity to look at removing
Hopefully not too partisan for your taste.
The only purpose of a second referendum is where Leavers realise their Brexit vote was a mistake and are looking for an out. That context changes things because the debate is Brexit is undeliverable, yet SOMETHING has to be delivered. You don't get vacuums. Which is what makes the topic interesting, despite everything.
No Brexit and free movement remaining the same as before the EU referendum is undeliverable too without a far right party surge
Maybe but that doesn't help make any particular outcome more deliverable.
It does confirm the Chequers Deal or a variant of it remains the best outcome
The variant of Chequers that MIGHT be acceptable to the EU is SM for goods + CU + EU VAT area + ECJ oversight + agreed preferential treatment of EU nationals. Even that's not certain. Why not go the whole hog?
As a work permits requirement for EU citizens on arrival and at least the opportunity to do pur own trade deals are non negotiable under May's red lines
The first should be possible and the second will be necessary under any Brexit scenario (and will lead to a worse set of trade arrangements than we had previously). Thin gruel indeed for a decade of disruption, losing our say and influence and a major economic hit along the way.
Yet still respecting democracy unlike diehard Remainers and limiting the damage to our economy unlike diehard Leavers
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
The membership will vote for Layla Moran.
They would be very foolish to go with someone with so little political experience. She has been an MP for 14 months with a majority of under 1000 and prior to that she had never held elected office - so she can't even point to a track record of her time as a councillor.
She may have an interesting family heritage but that is hardly sufficient qualification to lead a national party that aspires to being in government.
The only possible second referendum is on the Noel Edmunds basis - deal or no deal. The minute that a hypothetical Deal or Remain referendum is proposed, the PM will be replaced by her own party.
You know I'm writing a thread for publication in next week which says she might be replaced as Tory Leader but remain PM.
You know a PM needs the support of a majority of MPs.
Say Mrs May proposes another referendum on Remain or Leave options, she's ousted as Tory Leader but 100 Tory MPs align with 200 Labour MPs and enough from the Lib Dems, Greens, and SNP to keep Mrs May as PM to ensure the legislation for the referendum is passed.
The Ramsay MacDonald option.
It ended so well for Labour and MacDonald...
That's one of the examples I use.
Mrs May will learn from history, the other example I'm using is the Kadima route.
Hopefully with a better outlook for Mrs May than Ariel Sharon.
Boris or Farage or Mogg or Davis as Netanyahu ?
Of course it was Michael Collins who did the ultimate 'sell out' of the Treaty with the British to create the Free State but De Valera who refused to accept it and ended up leading Ireland for decades
Only after De Valera split with his own IRA and accepted constitutional politics.
tbh, this hardly counts as news does it? I thought he resigned (for all practical purposes) a year ago.
'Minor party leader decides to stand down before the next election. Film at 11'.
I thought it had been effectively pre-announced when he became leader that he would only serve a couple of years, so even if that is jumped up somewhat it isn't by much.
Edit: Ah, so he is still planning to make 2 years, by saying he would fight in a 2019 election, but wants to sort out the rule changes first.
I know it is not unherd of in the world for party leaders not to be MPs, and the LDs are somewhat stifled for choice in that regard, but it still feels an awkward arrangement.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal
Not sure that she can sign anything without the HOC OK.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
50 people either frustrated to the point of exiting the party by the latest revelations, but not anything sooner, and/or the Brexit stance, but who are either too scared to have more than a couple leak the idea anonymously, or so disciplined they are all keeping super shtum about it until the moment it happens?
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
Parliament can vote to ask the government to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
That will be the same Theresa May who promised there would be no general election?
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
The Tories pulled that trick in 1963.
First, Cable was only ever going to be an interim leader - everyone in the party knows it now and knew it when he took over from Tim Farron. I think the "plan" was for Jo Swinson to take over at the end of her maternity leave but the Party members I talk to now want a contest and many would quite like Layla Moran to stand.
As for the mass membership idea, it's not a view that has any great support within the party. The idea of people becoming "registered supporters" without paying to join is one thing but no one is seriously suggesting such supporters could choose the new leader and nor is there any serious suggestion the leader shouldn't be an MP.
The report is a little bit of old-fashioned mischief-making in my view but I do think the notion of a "registered supporter" is one the party will take forward but such supporters would have limited rights.
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
The Tories pulled that trick in 1963.
Even more impressively, both of Macmillan's preferred successors were not MPs, although they were at least entitled to sit in Parliament.
I would be doubtful about the idea of a leader outside the Commons. Plaid tried something similar a few years ago and they nearly didn't survive it. Admittedly that may have been because their choice was Dafydd Iwan but it still left too many people squabbling at the top - Elfyn Llwyd at Westminster, Ieuan Wyn Jones in Cardiff and Iwan officially in charge overall.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
Parliament can vote to ask the government to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50.
But they can’t compel the government to ask for an extension.
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
Not really. The convention that the PM be a MP is simply that: a convention, not a necessity. As somebody else has pointed out, Alec Douglas Home is an example in living memory.
Although can somebody jog my memory: can the Leader of the Opposition be a non-MP?
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
The Tories pulled that trick in 1963.
As for the mass membership idea, it's not a view that has any great support within the party. The idea of people becoming "registered supporters" without paying to join is one thing but no one is seriously suggesting such supporters could choose the new leader
Worried Corbynites will swamp the process and get themselves a second party in the movement?
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which if validated by a referendum the HOC could then affirm.
A Deal may not get through the HOC due to the ERG, a Deal or No Deal referendum would get ERG support. If the referendum then endorses the Deal the HOC would have to approve it
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
He renounced his title 4 days after becoming PM and then stood for the by-election.
If he had lost, he could, I guess, have tried to find another seat to try. But in reality, he would have quit as he couldn't be PM without a seat in Parliament.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
50 people either frustrated to the point of exiting the party by the latest revelations, but not anything sooner, and/or the Brexit stance, but who are either too scared to have more than a couple leak the idea anonymously, or so disciplined they are all keeping super shtum about it until the moment it happens?
Anyone offering odds on a Labour split like that?
I do not expect anything pre Brexit from labour mps
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
Parliament can vote to ask the government to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50.
But they can’t compel the government to ask for an extension.
They can, a Sovereign Parliament can direct the government.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
The Tories pulled that trick in 1963.
As for the mass membership idea, it's not a view that has any great support within the party. The idea of people becoming "registered supporters" without paying to join is one thing but no one is seriously suggesting such supporters could choose the new leader
Worried Corbynites will swamp the process and get themselves a second party in the movement?
Or the far right or just anyone. Haven't they learnt from labour over open membership
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
Just writing that should ring alarm bells for you. The government will not have time to hang around waiting to invoke the Parliament Act.
They will as May would not call a Deal or No Deal referendum until she had signed the Deal with the EU.
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Can't happen, she's promised the HOC a meaningful vote on the deal.
Which in practice means deal or no deal. Parliament can’t compel the EU to negotiate.
Parliament can vote to ask the government to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50.
But they can’t compel the government to ask for an extension.
They can, a Sovereign Parliament can direct the government.
That's how Parliamentary democracy works.
They cannot direct the EU though.
The EU attitude will be there is the Deal, take it or Leave it!
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
I think it's a great idea. Cable is only leader because none of the other MPs wanted the job. If more people had been eligible to stand for the leadership then I'm sure we'd be in a better place than we've found ourselves in following the Cable coronation - and it appears that even Cable himself understands that. Hell... we were one man away from having nobody at all who was both eligible and willing to take on the role!!! I don't see any particular reason why the party leader has to be a member of the HOC. I'd like to choose from the best candidates possible. The person I would most prefer to be leader right now is an MP though, having said that (but that's besides the point).
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
"Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act."
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
Not really. The convention that the PM be a MP is simply that: a convention, not a necessity. As somebody else has pointed out, Alec Douglas Home is an example in living memory.
Although can somebody jog my memory: can the Leader of the Opposition be a non-MP?
I'm sure someone could call themselves it and not be an MP, but I don't think they could officially be said leader, since they are formally the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons, I believe (even though the leader in the Lords is subordinate, clearly) and I believe legislation dictates that the LoTo means a member of at least one of the Houses.
Not sure what the latest relevant statute might be but Erskine May makes reference to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 as setting the salary for the post, and that has been repealed and replaced, and the Ministerial and other salaries act 1975 defines LoTo as a member a House. Maybe something else more recent eclipses that?
2(1)In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/27
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
"Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act."
How would we notice?
He might notice the big drop in salary. He wouldn't be able to afford as many new jam jars.
We would notice when he wasn't sat on the front bench. We would notice when he wasn't called to ask six questions submitted by Brenda in Staines at PMQs.
He might claim to not need the trappings of status - but he would miss them.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
I was thinking it would be an elegant solution. Given that Corbyn cannot be removed as leader of the party, a workaround would be to make the post of "Leader of the Party" into a figurehead, with the power resting in the Leader of the PLP. Then the Leader of the PLP could do all the responsible bits and be future PM, and the Leader of the Party could bang on about principles and wotnot. Corbyn would be happy and we'd be relieved of the worry of a cray-cray with nukes.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
"Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act."
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
I was thinking it would be an elegant solution. Given that Corbyn cannot be removed as leader of the party, a workaround would be to make the post of "Leader of the Party" into a figurehead, with the power resting in the Leader of the PLP. Then the Leader of the PLP could do all the responsible bits and be future PM, and the Leader of the Party could bang on about principles and wotnot. Corbyn would be happy and we'd be relieved of the worry of a cray-cray with nukes.
It would require Labour to make those changes to their constitution. And given the current membership, can you see that happening?
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
Not really. The convention that the PM be a MP is simply that: a convention, not a necessity. As somebody else has pointed out, Alec Douglas Home is an example in living memory.
Although can somebody jog my memory: can the Leader of the Opposition be a non-MP?
I'm sure someone could call themselves it and not be an MP, but I don't think they could officially be said leader, since they are formally the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons, I believe (even though the leader in the Lords is subordinate, clearly) and I believe legislation dictates that the LoTo means a member of at least one of the Houses.
Not sure what the latest relevant statute might be but Erskine May makes reference to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 as setting the salary for the post, and that has been repealed and replaced, and the Ministerial and other salaries act 1975 defines LoTo as a member a House. Maybe something else more recent eclipses that?
2(1)In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/27
Ah, thank you. So the PM may not be a MP, but the LOTO must be a MP or a Lord.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
It would be up to the Speaker in theory, to decide who are the second and third parties in the HoC.
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
There is no constitutional requirement. Like much of the UK constitution, the PM being an MP is a convention that has evolved over time.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
I was thinking it would be an elegant solution. Given that Corbyn cannot be removed as leader of the party, a workaround would be to make the post of "Leader of the Party" into a figurehead, with the power resting in the Leader of the PLP. Then the Leader of the PLP could do all the responsible bits and be future PM, and the Leader of the Party could bang on about principles and wotnot. Corbyn would be happy and we'd be relieved of the worry of a cray-cray with nukes.
I would think that sort of arrangement would suit Corbyn very well, and he would be free to concentrate on the bits of the job he is good at, and it is something some other countries do I believe (Poland?), albeit with roles reversed (that is, party leader has the power, pm really just a figurehead).
Weren't there whispers that Corbyn wanted local parties to have elected leaders to tell local council groups what to do, or was that about having the members appoint group leaders on local councils?
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
It would be up to the Speaker in theory, to decide who are the second and third parties in the HoC.
It is based on numbers. The only time the Speaker would intervene would be in the event of a tie.
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
There is no constitutional requirement. Like much of the UK constitution, the PM being an MP is a convention that has evolved over time.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
Am I reading Cable right, a new leader of the liberals can be anyone even with no seat in the HOC
They are loopy
Not really. The convention that the PM be a MP is simply that: a convention, not a necessity. As somebody else has pointed out, Alec Douglas Home is an example in living memory.
Although can somebody jog my memory: can the Leader of the Opposition be a non-MP?
I'm sure someone could call themselves it and not be an MP, but I don't think they could officially be said leader, since they are formally the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons, I believe (even though the leader in the Lords is subordinate, clearly) and I believe legislation dictates that the LoTo means a member of at least one of the Houses.
Not sure what the latest relevant statute might be but Erskine May makes reference to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 as setting the salary for the post, and that has been repealed and replaced, and the Ministerial and other salaries act 1975 defines LoTo as a member a House. Maybe something else more recent eclipses that?
2(1)In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/27
Ah, thank you. So the PM may not be a MP, but the LOTO must be a MP or a Lord.
Pause.
So that actually fucks up Vince's plan, then.
*shrugs* I don't know, but at the least if they want to draw the opposition leader's salary they need to be an MP or Lord I think.
Not going to be an issue for a future LD leader though, in or out of the Commons.
Lord Halifax was a serious contender to succeed Chamberlain in May 1940 and would have been supported by the Labour Opposition. In the end, he ruled himself out but there was no constitutional barrier to him becoming PM as a Peer.
Lord Halifax was a serious contender to succeed Chamberlain in May 1940 and would have been supported by the Labour Opposition. In the end, he ruled himself out but there was no constitutional barrier to him becoming PM as a Peer.
I'm sure in recent years I recall an idea floated of a temporary PM from among the Peers to lead a national government or something, it's an interesting idea.
My best guess is we are just getting closer to crunch time and it is all becoming much more real, plus the government's dithering finally became impossible to ignore in the middle of this year, which hardly inspired confidence.
Lord Halifax was a serious contender to succeed Chamberlain in May 1940 and would have been supported by the Labour Opposition. In the end, he ruled himself out but there was no constitutional barrier to him becoming PM as a Peer.
I'm sure in recent years I recall an idea floated of a temporary PM from among the Peers to lead a national government or something, it's an interesting idea.
In the early 1980s Lord Carrington was mentioned as a possible successor to Thatcher.
*Checks diary for the 7th of September, Mike's midway through his holiday*
Let's see, that would be about 2.5 months since Swinson had her son I believe.
Could work.
You might be thinking too small. The timing fits with other political developments too.
If they're announcing a dozen Labour defectors, then I still think Swinson should head the new Alliance.
David Herdson was right this morning, a defection needs to be 50 MPs as a minimum, but ideally 150 that makes the Official Opposition.
Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act. He would lose his platform instantly. It would be delicious. If very unlikely to happen.
Is it legally necessary that the Leader of the Opposition has to be the Leader of the Labour Party (when the opposition is Labour)? Can't the PLP vote in their own Leader ("Leader of the Caucus of the PLP") and have him/her be LOTO?
I imagine it is convention rather than a legal process. LOTO is the leader of the second largest party in the Commons. And I think it is up to whichever party that is to determine who their leader is by way of their own rules and regulations. This wasn't something covered in my constitutional law tutorials - as no party would get itself into such a mess, surely?!
"Stripping Corbyn of his position as LOTO would be a really significant act."
How would we notice?
How would he notice?
Sky news wouldn't be outside his house every morning asking why he was an anti-semite?
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
There is no constitutional requirement. Like much of the UK constitution, the PM being an MP is a convention that has evolved over time.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
Having said that, we are in strange times.
Its certainly been suggested that, in the event of the PM resigning with immediate effect, Lord Hague or Lord Howard could be a caretaker PM until someone is elected to the post of party leader.
The big movement came in July and August suggesting some working class Leavers thought the Chequers Deal made too many compromises to make Brexit worthwhile but would back No Deal hard Brexit (the reverse is likely the case with most middle class voters for whom Chequers Deal Brexit would be better than No Deal hard Brexit).
Though even post Chequers Deal more working class voters still back Leave than Remain overall
This period will go down, of course, as TMay's finest hour. A principled woman doing her duty following the referendum result whilst causing the least amount of damage to the economy and our way of life.
Lol. Bit busy this evening, but When we have time we will explain to you what BINO is, and how it’s architects will be remembered. In the meantime, two words.
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
There is no constitutional requirement. Like much of the UK constitution, the PM being an MP is a convention that has evolved over time.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
Having said that, we are in strange times.
Its certainly been suggested that, in the event of the PM resigning with immediate effect, Lord Hague or Lord Howard could be a caretaker PM until someone is elected to the post of party leader.
One of the quirks of the British constitution is that there is always a PM.
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
There is no constitutional requirement. Like much of the UK constitution, the PM being an MP is a convention that has evolved over time.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
Having said that, we are in strange times.
Its certainly been suggested that, in the event of the PM resigning with immediate effect, Lord Hague or Lord Howard could be a caretaker PM until someone is elected to the post of party leader.
One of the quirks of the British constitution is that there is always a PM.
Not quite always, surely? This isn't a 'The king is dead; long live the king' situation, we are at least without a PM in the time between the monarch accepting a resignation/taking away the role and the arrival of the new person to accept the role from the monarch.
This period will go down, of course, as TMay's finest hour. A principled woman doing her duty following the referendum result whilst causing the least amount of damage to the economy and our way of life.
Lol. Bit busy this evening, but When we have time we will explain to you what BINO is, and how it’s architects will be remembered. In the meantime, two words.
Vassal.
State.
Chequers Deal still technically ends free movement and allows UK free trade deals while getting a Deal to protect the economy.
It is the best middle ground between diehard Remainers who want to reverse Brexit or stay in the single market with free movement (which really would be BINO) and diehard Leavers who want hard Brexit and No Deal with the EU at all
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
There is no constitutional requirement. Like much of the UK constitution, the PM being an MP is a convention that has evolved over time.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
Having said that, we are in strange times.
Its certainly been suggested that, in the event of the PM resigning with immediate effect, Lord Hague or Lord Howard could be a caretaker PM until someone is elected to the post of party leader.
Anyone know what would have happened if Alec Douglas-Home had lost the Kinross and Western Perthshire by-election?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
So far as I know, there is no actual constitutional requirement for Ministers including Prime Ministers to be members of Parliament. Wilson had a Foreign Secretary who was not an MP.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
There is no constitutional requirement. Like much of the UK constitution, the PM being an MP is a convention that has evolved over time.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
Having said that, we are in strange times.
Its certainly been suggested that, in the event of the PM resigning with immediate effect, Lord Hague or Lord Howard could be a caretaker PM until someone is elected to the post of party leader.
One of the quirks of the British constitution is that there is always a PM.
Not quite always, surely? This isn't a 'The king is dead; long live the king' situation, we are at least without a PM in the time between the monarch accepting a resignation/taking away the role and the arrival of the new person to accept the role from the monarch.
Endpedantmode>
Oooo there might be a political thriller in this...
Outgoing PM goes to the Palace to resign, incoming PM is killed in a car crash on their way to accept the Monarch's commission to form a new government.
Who rules? Quick, get Michael Dobbs to write it...
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/25/theresa-may-orders-space-race-brexit-sat-nav-system-rival-eus/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1535229197
Pause.
Oh.
I'll get me coat.
Its one thing being compelled to leave because the last referendum settled the matter, its another thing entirely re-opening the issue with a new vote and expecting people who want to remain to stay signed up to deal or no deal.
Sandpit said "Watching a bunch of Londoners who earn more than the national average monthly wage per day, try and lecture the rest of the country why they were wrong the first time around is going to be hillarious to watch. They should sell tickets to it".
I genuinely think you are underestimating the extent to which people are reaching their own conclusions about how Brexit is turning out compared to how it was sold. I know it's only anecdotal but the anti-Brexit second referendum folks were out in force again today in our town centre again today and people were signing up, taking stickers in numbers. I was chatting to a couple of the organisers and they were telling me that about 1 in 4 or 5 of those signing up were saying they voted leave first time around.
May can therefore validly say the only reason for another referendum would be to decide the nature of Leaving.
Even despite a handful of diehard Tory Remain MPs like Soubry and Clarke and Wollaston voting to stay in the Customs Union the Commons passed a vote to leave the Customs Union helped by Labour Leave MPs voting with the government. The same would apply to a Deal or No Deal referendum vote.
The Parliament Act ensures the Lords can be overruled.
1) Cable
or
2) AV and pineapple on pizza
Your call
She may have an interesting family heritage but that is hardly sufficient qualification to lead a national party that aspires to being in government.
'Minor party leader decides to stand down before the next election. Film at 11'.
Edit: Ah, so he is still planning to make 2 years, by saying he would fight in a 2019 election, but wants to sort out the rule changes first.
I know it is not unherd of in the world for party leaders not to be MPs, and the LDs are somewhat stifled for choice in that regard, but it still feels an awkward arrangement.
They are loopy
She would then say the only alternative to not backing the continuation of the Deal is now No Deal to ensure enough Remainers also get behind the Chequers Deal to win the referendum
Given that the SNP manage to have a Party leader and a Leader of the MPs in the HOC, it is not a totally ludicrous proposition...
Well actually it is - but it is something that another party has managed. Just.
David Miliband your hour has come.....
Actually - scrub that.
Ed Balls, your hour has come.....
Anyone offering odds on a Labour split like that?
Sucker!
As for the mass membership idea, it's not a view that has any great support within the party. The idea of people becoming "registered supporters" without paying to join is one thing but no one is seriously suggesting such supporters could choose the new leader and nor is there any serious suggestion the leader shouldn't be an MP.
The report is a little bit of old-fashioned mischief-making in my view but I do think the notion of a "registered supporter" is one the party will take forward but such supporters would have limited rights.
I would be doubtful about the idea of a leader outside the Commons. Plaid tried something similar a few years ago and they nearly didn't survive it. Admittedly that may have been because their choice was Dafydd Iwan but it still left too many people squabbling at the top - Elfyn Llwyd at Westminster, Ieuan Wyn Jones in Cardiff and Iwan officially in charge overall.
Although can somebody jog my memory: can the Leader of the Opposition be a non-MP?
End of his Premiership or would he continued on regardless?
A Deal may not get through the HOC due to the ERG, a Deal or No Deal referendum would get ERG support. If the referendum then endorses the Deal the HOC would have to approve it
He can keep his nose out of UK matters. Just adds anger unnecessarily
If he had lost, he could, I guess, have tried to find another seat to try. But in reality, he would have quit as he couldn't be PM without a seat in Parliament.
That's how Parliamentary democracy works.
However, in this particular case given he was facing a divided and rebellious PCP already deeply unhappy they had been told not one of them was up to being Prime Minister and a Labour Opposition tearing chunks out of the democratic process being subverted by a 14th Earl, I think Home would have had to resign.
Not that that was ever likely to happen with that seat at that time.
The EU attitude will be there is the Deal, take it or Leave it!
How would we notice?
Not sure what the latest relevant statute might be but Erskine May makes reference to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 as setting the salary for the post, and that has been repealed and replaced, and the Ministerial and other salaries act 1975 defines LoTo as a member a House. Maybe something else more recent eclipses that?
2(1)In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/27
We would notice when he wasn't sat on the front bench. We would notice when he wasn't called to ask six questions submitted by Brenda in Staines at PMQs.
He might claim to not need the trappings of status - but he would miss them.
There's more chance of entryism in the WI.
Pause.
So that actually fucks up Vince's plan, then.
It is not inconceivable that the Queen could ask a Lord to attempt to form a government through commanding the House, but seems very unlikely.
Having said that, we are in strange times.
Weren't there whispers that Corbyn wanted local parties to have elected leaders to tell local council groups what to do, or was that about having the members appoint group leaders on local councils?
Not going to be an issue for a future LD leader though, in or out of the Commons.
What’s caused such a move?
Though even post Chequers Deal more working class voters still back Leave than Remain overall
Vassal.
State.
Endpedantmode>
https://twitter.com/arobertwebb/status/1033444449353916416
It is the best middle ground between diehard Remainers who want to reverse Brexit or stay in the single market with free movement (which really would be BINO) and diehard Leavers who want hard Brexit and No Deal with the EU at all
“Exodus 1947. Can we learn about behaviour of the next Labour government by examining behaviour of a previous one?”
Outgoing PM goes to the Palace to resign, incoming PM is killed in a car crash on their way to accept the Monarch's commission to form a new government.
Who rules? Quick, get Michael Dobbs to write it...