The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
I'm expecting 13 column-yards of articles about the new wave of international leftism sweeping the Continent anytime now.
Waiting. Waiting... here we go. Oh, my mistake. We got 7 interviews with a far right leader framed about how we should hear all sides of the debate and reach out to racists instead.
It's something I'm thinking about writing about tonight. Unfortunately, I don't really have that much of an understanding about the reasons why it's going on (obviously, I can take a guess but it'd only be one based on headline polling figures, elections and instinct; nothing deeper), so it would be more about flagging up the phenomenon rather than interpreting it.
Not just the UK and US that appears to be having a problem with anti-Semitism
France warns of steep rise in anti-Semitism
On the 80th anniversary of the Nazi Kristallnacht attack on Germany's Jews, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe has revealed a 69% increase in anti-Semitic incidents this year.
"We have sadly almost become accustomed to the fact that every synagogue, Jewish school, kindergarten, restaurant and cemetery needs to be either guarded by police or given special protection," she said.
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
It’s ironic that making Joschka Fischer Foreign Minister was once controversial. Now the SPD is reduced to 14% while Schroeder continues to make a fool of himself.
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Thanks. So if everyone holds the line they can protest about their particular hobby horse (or customs process) and then back the govt in a VONC two weeks later?
I think the referendum was fair and legitimate. Furthermore people voted Leave in good faith for what they saw as the best outcome for the country. The premise behind Leave was an utterly false one however and so those people voted for what is undeliverable.
Quite so. The people voted for 2 plus 2 to equal 5 and it is up to the politicians who told people that this was a legitimate option to deliver on it.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
I have no issue with the IM lawyer's actions. What I can't understand is how HL's IT dept didn't have a block on that sort of material and/or the ability to track and report it.
I think the referendum was fair and legitimate. Furthermore people voted Leave in good faith for what they saw as the best outcome for the country. The premise behind Leave was an utterly false one however and so those people voted for what is undeliverable.
Quite so. The people voted for 2 plus 2 to equal 5 and it is up to the politicians who told people that this was a legitimate option to deliver on it.
Precisely so.
This is the part of the Brexiter "you were beaten by the slogan on a bus" comment that is so lacking awareness. It is more that Brexiters believed the slogan on the bus.
If there are degrees of who this reflects less well on, I'd say that Brexiters would come out looking worse.
The voting system didn't stop a steady march of fragmentation here. What reversed the trend was Brexit which has sharply divided the country into two political sides.
It's possible that, once Brexit has happened, fragmentation will resume. It depends whether a new settled status quo is established.
It seems to me that Brexit bisects party lines rather than Labour=In, Tories=Out
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
I'm expecting 13 column-yards of articles about the new wave of international leftism sweeping the Continent anytime now.
Waiting. Waiting... here we go. Oh, my mistake. We got 7 interviews with a far right leader framed about how we should hear all sides of the debate and reach out to racists instead.
It's something I'm thinking about writing about tonight. Unfortunately, I don't really have that much of an understanding about the reasons why it's going on (obviously, I can take a guess but it'd only be one based on headline polling figures, elections and instinct; nothing deeper), so it would be more about flagging up the phenomenon rather than interpreting it.
Any thoughts?
Literally zero. The green surge in Germany has completely flummoxed me.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
I have no issue with the IM lawyer's actions. What I can't understand is how HL's IT dept didn't have a block on that sort of material and/or the ability to track and report it.
What I cannot understand is why people watch porn at all.
Not just the UK and US that appears to be having a problem with anti-Semitism
France warns of steep rise in anti-Semitism
On the 80th anniversary of the Nazi Kristallnacht attack on Germany's Jews, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe has revealed a 69% increase in anti-Semitic incidents this year.
"We have sadly almost become accustomed to the fact that every synagogue, Jewish school, kindergarten, restaurant and cemetery needs to be either guarded by police or given special protection," she said.
Anti-semitism has long been a big problem in France. In fact, there was much more concern amongst Jews about France than about Germany before Hitler stirred up the hatred. And of course some French officials under Vichy were disturbingly enthusiastic in their implementation of Nazi genocidal policies; a few years ago I met an elderly Jewish couple who had fled France as a result (Ironically, the husband as a schoolboy had received a personal letter of congratulations from Pétain as a result of winning a nationwide essay-writing competition). In south-east France the Italians actually rescued Jews from French officials.
This latest wave, however, is probably more related to Islamic extremism.
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
I'm expecting 13 column-yards of articles about the new wave of international leftism sweeping the Continent anytime now.
Waiting. Waiting... here we go. Oh, my mistake. We got 7 interviews with a far right leader framed about how we should hear all sides of the debate and reach out to racists instead.
It's something I'm thinking about writing about tonight. Unfortunately, I don't really have that much of an understanding about the reasons why it's going on (obviously, I can take a guess but it'd only be one based on headline polling figures, elections and instinct; nothing deeper), so it would be more about flagging up the phenomenon rather than interpreting it.
Any thoughts?
Literally zero. The green surge in Germany has completely flummoxed me.
https://unherd.com/2018/11/the-growing-power-of-the-youtube-right/ has a couple of interesting insights within it on how news has become more "extreme" as it's been personalised. But I suspect the green surge is connected to a combination of 1) as we are well off we can do more for the environment at minimal cost to ourselves and 2) the ability for people to form online / find / join a community of like minded people with have similar views. Then in the absence of a general viewpoint pulling views back towards the middle ground these groups end up with an overall view that slow moves more and more extreme and away from the middle ground...
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
I have no issue with the IM lawyer's actions. What I can't understand is how HL's IT dept didn't have a block on that sort of material and/or the ability to track and report it.
What I cannot understand is why people watch porn at all.
Yes good point - I am with you there. It's mostly just bonkers imho!
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
I'm expecting 13 column-yards of articles about the new wave of international leftism sweeping the Continent anytime now.
Waiting. Waiting... here we go. Oh, my mistake. We got 7 interviews with a far right leader framed about how we should hear all sides of the debate and reach out to racists instead.
It's something I'm thinking about writing about tonight. Unfortunately, I don't really have that much of an understanding about the reasons why it's going on (obviously, I can take a guess but it'd only be one based on headline polling figures, elections and instinct; nothing deeper), so it would be more about flagging up the phenomenon rather than interpreting it.
Any thoughts?
Literally zero. The green surge in Germany has completely flummoxed me.
https://unherd.com/2018/11/the-growing-power-of-the-youtube-right/ has a couple of interesting insights within it on how news has become more "extreme" as it's been personalised. But I suspect the green surge is connected to a combination of 1) as we are well off we can do more for the environment at minimal cost to ourselves and 2) the ability for people to form online / find / join a community of like minded people with have similar views. Then in the absence of a general viewpoint pulling views back towards the middle ground these groups end up with an overall view that slow moves more and more extreme and away from the middle ground...
So you'd say Green = extreme?
I suspect 120 years ago proponents of votes for women were seen by many as extreme.
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
I'm expecting 13 column-yards of articles about the new wave of international leftism sweeping the Continent anytime now.
Waiting. Waiting... here we go. Oh, my mistake. We got 7 interviews with a far right leader framed about how we should hear all sides of the debate and reach out to racists instead.
It's something I'm thinking about writing about tonight. Unfortunately, I don't really have that much of an understanding about the reasons why it's going on (obviously, I can take a guess but it'd only be one based on headline polling figures, elections and instinct; nothing deeper), so it would be more about flagging up the phenomenon rather than interpreting it.
Any thoughts?
I think Dieselgate or more specifically air quality in German towns has played a part. There was an analysis of the Green vote being particularly high in the urban areas in the Bavarian election. I would also proposed that this has hit the SDP especially hard because they are so tightly linked to VAG, seats on board, etc. My second theory is that in National Elections voters vote for change in their own country. Then the politicians start spending a large amount of time addressing European issues which the voters take as ignoring them and hence move to the more nationally focused smaller parties. We can take the example of Macron. The two main parties made a mess of France, Macron's campaign was on sorting out France, he has done some stuff but his main message and efforts seem to have been to change the EU and get Merkel to agree and start an EU army. French voters who voted for jobs, education, social issues seem not to be impressed.
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
For the umpteenth time, under the FTPA the only possible VONC motion is "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", a PM can no longer make anything "a matter of confidence". Yes, May could say beforehand "If I lose this vote, then I'll resign as PM" but on doing so she would have to recommend to the Queen the person she thinks is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and if she fails to do so the Queen would most likely summon the next most senior member of the Government, i.e. the Chancellor.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
Not just the UK and US that appears to be having a problem with anti-Semitism
France warns of steep rise in anti-Semitism
On the 80th anniversary of the Nazi Kristallnacht attack on Germany's Jews, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe has revealed a 69% increase in anti-Semitic incidents this year.
"We have sadly almost become accustomed to the fact that every synagogue, Jewish school, kindergarten, restaurant and cemetery needs to be either guarded by police or given special protection," she said.
Anti-semitism has long been a big problem in France. In fact, there was much more concern amongst Jews about France than about Germany before Hitler stirred up the hatred. And of course some French officials under Vichy were disturbingly enthusiastic in their implementation of Nazi genocidal policies; a few years ago I met an elderly Jewish couple who had fled France as a result (Ironically, the husband as a schoolboy had received a personal letter of congratulations from Pétain as a result of winning a nationwide essay-writing competition). In south-east France the Italians actually rescued Jews from French officials.
This latest wave, however, is probably more related to Islamic extremism.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
I have no issue with the IM lawyer's actions. What I can't understand is how HL's IT dept didn't have a block on that sort of material and/or the ability to track and report it.
What I cannot understand is why people watch porn at all.
It's very unrealistic.
In real life, what electrician or plumber would turn up within a few minutes of you calling them?
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
For the umpteenth time, under the FTPA the only possible VONC motion is "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", a PM can no longer make anything "a matter of confidence". Yes, May could say beforehand "If I lose this vote, then I'll resign as PM" but on doing so she would have to recommend to the Queen the person she thinks is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and if she fails to do so the Queen would most likely summon the next most senior member of the Government, i.e. the Chancellor.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
Ok thanks - sorry I wasn't paying full attention on responses 0 to umpteen-1!
What then does happen if TMay's deal is rejected by the HoC? What are her options?
In the US today, statistically inevitable for someone, I guess.
It's a morbid version of the birthday problem. For any one individual, very unlikely. For one of all the individuals out there, the probability must be high that it would occur at least once.
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
It’s ironic that making Joschka Fischer Foreign Minister was once controversial. Now the SPD is reduced to 14% while Schroeder continues to make a fool of himself.
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
I'm expecting 13 column-yards of articles about the new wave of international leftism sweeping the Continent anytime now.
Waiting. Waiting... here we go. Oh, my mistake. We got 7 interviews with a far right leader framed about how we should hear all sides of the debate and reach out to racists instead.
It's something I'm thinking about writing about tonight. Unfortunately, I don't really have that much of an understanding about the reasons why it's going on (obviously, I can take a guess but it'd only be one based on headline polling figures, elections and instinct; nothing deeper), so it would be more about flagging up the phenomenon rather than interpreting it.
Any thoughts?
Literally zero. The green surge in Germany has completely flummoxed me.
https://unherd.com/2018/11/the-growing-power-of-the-youtube-right/ has a couple of interesting insights within it on how news has become more "extreme" as it's been personalised. But I suspect the green surge is connected to a combination of 1) as we are well off we can do more for the environment at minimal cost to ourselves and 2) the ability for people to form online / find / join a community of like minded people with have similar views. Then in the absence of a general viewpoint pulling views back towards the middle ground these groups end up with an overall view that slow moves more and more extreme and away from the middle ground...
So you'd say Green = extreme?
I suspect 120 years ago proponents of votes for women were seen by many as extreme.
extreme is probably not the best word for Green voters - it fits far better those moving further right towards AfD
However in a country where the Greens advocate an energy policy that doesn't provide a base line electricity supply based on nuclear / coal / gas based power it's not totally out of place...
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
I have no issue with the IM lawyer's actions. What I can't understand is how HL's IT dept didn't have a block on that sort of material and/or the ability to track and report it.
What I cannot understand is why people watch porn at all.
It's very unrealistic.
In real life, what electrician or plumber would turn up within a few minutes of you calling them?
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
For the umpteenth time, under the FTPA the only possible VONC motion is "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", a PM can no longer make anything "a matter of confidence". Yes, May could say beforehand "If I lose this vote, then I'll resign as PM" but on doing so she would have to recommend to the Queen the person she thinks is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and if she fails to do so the Queen would most likely summon the next most senior member of the Government, i.e. the Chancellor.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
I have no issue with the IM lawyer's actions. What I can't understand is how HL's IT dept didn't have a block on that sort of material and/or the ability to track and report it.
What I cannot understand is why people watch porn at all.
It's very unrealistic.
In real life, what electrician or plumber would turn up within a few minutes of you calling them?
If the electrician or plumber was aware of the reputation of the caller it's perfectly understandable why some may dropped the job they are working on to immediately start this new job...
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Not if it's just any old vote. In those circumstances, nothing much happens outside the immediate context of the vote.
If the govt loses a VoNC as under the FTPA, then *anyone* has two weeks in which to form a government, otherwise there's a GE. This might be the LotO (and precedent on when a government loses a confidence vote, has no majority and doesn't want to go to the country, is that the LotO gets first dibs at forming a new government), but it could equally be someone from the existing governing party, including the current PM. The only requirement is that the Commons passes a motion that "this House has confidence in HMG" (note that this implies that the government is *already* in office: it's not 'has confidence in X to form a government').
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
If I had a seat facing the window where when I looked up from my screen I saw the porn being viewed I suspect I would be a bit perturbed....
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
For the umpteenth time, under the FTPA the only possible VONC motion is "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", a PM can no longer make anything "a matter of confidence". Yes, May could say beforehand "If I lose this vote, then I'll resign as PM" but on doing so she would have to recommend to the Queen the person she thinks is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and if she fails to do so the Queen would most likely summon the next most senior member of the Government, i.e. the Chancellor.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
Ok thanks - sorry I wasn't paying full attention on responses 0 to umpteen-1!
What then does happen if TMay's deal is rejected by the HoC? What are her options?
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
For the umpteenth time, under the FTPA the only possible VONC motion is "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", a PM can no longer make anything "a matter of confidence". Yes, May could say beforehand "If I lose this vote, then I'll resign as PM" but on doing so she would have to recommend to the Queen the person she thinks is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and if she fails to do so the Queen would most likely summon the next most senior member of the Government, i.e. the Chancellor.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
I assumed the original poster meant a VoNC.
If the Government loses a VoNC, then an alternative 'government' has to pass a confidence vote within 14 days. I suppose it is possible to see a way in which an alternative Conservative government could emerge under a new emergency leader (likely to be Home Sec or Treasury) and win a vote, but in practice I think the ball would be passed to Jezza who would try and cobble something together (and almost certainly fail).
None of this seems likely.
If May loses on EU she will try again a few weeks later or call for a GE vote imho.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
If I had a seat facing the window where when I looked up from my screen I saw the porn being viewed I suspect I would be a bit perturbed....
I suppose it would depend on what was being viewed. I suppose I would complain if the man was watching scat.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
If I had a seat facing the window where when I looked up from my screen I saw the porn being viewed I suspect I would be a bit perturbed....
While I agree, I have to say my concern in this case was different. If the Irwin Mitchell lawyer could see porn on the Hogan Lovells' partner's screen, what confidential information might he also have been able to see?
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
For the umpteenth time, under the FTPA the only possible VONC motion is "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", a PM can no longer make anything "a matter of confidence". Yes, May could say beforehand "If I lose this vote, then I'll resign as PM" but on doing so she would have to recommend to the Queen the person she thinks is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and if she fails to do so the Queen would most likely summon the next most senior member of the Government, i.e. the Chancellor.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
Ok thanks - sorry I wasn't paying full attention on responses 0 to umpteen-1!
What then does happen if TMay's deal is rejected by the HoC? What are her options?
KBO.
Exactly.
I think what would happen then is Corbyn calls for a VoNC, arguing this Government cannot get a deal.
He would almsot certainly lose unless the ERG have finally gone insane, but he would want the bragging rights of taking the fight to the Tories.
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Only assuming Topping meant "loses a vote of no confidence" of course.
I just wondered what would happen if, say, Arlene helped to defeat the deal.
IANE but I think that depends on whether TMay makes the Deal vote a VoC. She'd surely be mad to because that would prevent any wavering Lab MPs supporting her deal and she'd probably still lose the support of the DUP and some ERG head-bangers.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
For the umpteenth time, under the FTPA the only possible VONC motion is "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", a PM can no longer make anything "a matter of confidence". Yes, May could say beforehand "If I lose this vote, then I'll resign as PM" but on doing so she would have to recommend to the Queen the person she thinks is most likely to command the confidence of the House, and if she fails to do so the Queen would most likely summon the next most senior member of the Government, i.e. the Chancellor.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
I assumed the original poster meant a VoNC.
Nope - I meant any vote eg the deal.
Edit: I just mean a run of the mill (ok vital to the UK's economic well-being) vote on this that or the other.
Not a VONC but just a vote next week on, say, the deal.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
Perhaps he was worried about the general reputation of his profession - clients won't get a good service if this bloke is spending all his time splattering his monitor.
Hmm. Leaving aside the frisky images/videos, having a computer screen in that position would also risk revealing work-related confidential information.
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Not if it's just any old vote. In those circumstances, nothing much happens outside the immediate context of the vote.
If the govt loses a VoNC as under the FTPA, then *anyone* has two weeks in which to form a government, otherwise there's a GE. This might be the LotO (and precedent on when a government loses a confidence vote, has no majority and doesn't want to go to the country, is that the LotO gets first dibs at forming a new government), but it could equally be someone from the existing governing party, including the current PM. The only requirement is that the Commons passes a motion that "this House has confidence in HMG" (note that this implies that the government is *already* in office: it's not 'has confidence in X to form a government').
Yep. I think the precedence would be an important factor, especially if the Queen gets dragged into it all. Jezza would be given a go unless it was clear that some wunderkid in the Tories could win a VoNC that May had lost.
Hmm. Leaving aside the frisky images/videos, having a computer screen in that position would also risk revealing work-related confidential information.
Perhaps the porn was a decoy for what was happening on his other screen?
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
If I had a seat facing the window where when I looked up from my screen I saw the porn being viewed I suspect I would be a bit perturbed....
While I agree, I have to say my concern in this case was different. If the Irwin Mitchell lawyer could see porn on the Hogan Lovells' partner's screen, what confidential information might he also have been able to see?
A very good point. The HL partner's failure to take elementary security precautions is probably more shocking than his watching porn at work. Probably more damaging to their business too.
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
Perhaps he was worried about the general reputation of his profession - clients won't get a good service if this bloke is spending all his time splattering his monitor.
Quite. Given the potential impact of a misplaced comma in a contract, sticky keys are a positive menace.
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Not if it's just any old vote. In those circumstances, nothing much happens outside the immediate context of the vote.
If the govt loses a VoNC as under the FTPA, then *anyone* has two weeks in which to form a government, otherwise there's a GE. This might be the LotO (and precedent on when a government loses a confidence vote, has no majority and doesn't want to go to the country, is that the LotO gets first dibs at forming a new government), but it could equally be someone from the existing governing party, including the current PM. The only requirement is that the Commons passes a motion that "this House has confidence in HMG" (note that this implies that the government is *already* in office: it's not 'has confidence in X to form a government').
Yep. I think the precedence would be an important factor, especially if the Queen gets dragged into it all. Jezza would be given a go unless it was clear that some wunderkid in the Tories could win a VoNC that May had lost.
I don't think that is how it would work. I believe that what would happen is the palace officials would take 'soundings', on the basis of which they would then advise Her Maj that X was likely to be able to command a majority. I'm sure that they wouldn't advise her to appoint someone as PM unless they were pretty convinced that that person would win a confidence vote. (Theresa May would remain PM in the meanwhile, of course).
On current numbers, Corbyn wouldn't get the gig, unless there were indications that Conservatives were willing to give him a go (eg by abstaining).
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
It’s ironic that making Joschka Fischer Foreign Minister was once controversial. Now the SPD is reduced to 14% while Schroeder continues to make a fool of himself.
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
ESTRAGON: I can't go on like this. VLADIMIR: That's what you think
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
In the case of the WA Deal, could the government ignore a HoC defeat and just sign it anyway?
Can someone please remind me, constitutional expert geek* as I am not, what in fact happens if the govt. loses a vote in the HoC.
*or rather, lacking even a basic understanding of how my country is governed.
The Opposition leader (or an other, but not likely in practice) has two weeks to win a vote of confidence iirc, and then if failed, there is a GE.
Not if it's just any old vote. In those circumstances, nothing much happens outside the immediate context of the vote.
If the govt loses a VoNC as under the FTPA, then *anyone* has two weeks in which to form a government, otherwise there's a GE. This might be the LotO (and precedent on when a government loses a confidence vote, has no majority and doesn't want to go to the country, is that the LotO gets first dibs at forming a new government), but it could equally be someone from the existing governing party, including the current PM. The only requirement is that the Commons passes a motion that "this House has confidence in HMG" (note that this implies that the government is *already* in office: it's not 'has confidence in X to form a government').
Yep. I think the precedence would be an important factor, especially if the Queen gets dragged into it all. Jezza would be given a go unless it was clear that some wunderkid in the Tories could win a VoNC that May had lost.
I don't think that is how it would work. I believe that what would happen is the palace officials would take 'soundings', on the basis of which they would then advise Her Maj that X was likely to be able to command a majority. I'm sure that they wouldn't advise her to appoint someone as PM unless they were pretty convinced that that person would win a confidence vote. (Theresa May would remain PM in the meanwhile, of course).
On current numbers, Corbyn wouldn't get the gig, unless there were indications that Conservatives were willing to give him a go (eg by abstaining).
Interesting. What are the odds on Hammond as next PM?
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
In the case of the WA Deal, could the government ignore a HoC defeat and just sign it anyway?
I forget if the Commons are required to ratify international treaties. I don’t think they are, but I could very well be wrong.
The SPD at 14%. That is pretty terrifying for them. They look as though they may well have been decisively eclipsed by the Greens now.
It’s ironic that making Joschka Fischer Foreign Minister was once controversial. Now the SPD is reduced to 14% while Schroeder continues to make a fool of himself.
How about a summit in Warsaw to sort out that new pact?
More likely the German Foreign Minister flying to Moscow to conclude it with the SovietRussian Foreign Minister.
The German and Russian Foreign Ministers getting together? That could make for an interesting cocktail.
Indeed it would. (Fun fact: the term was invented by the Finns, after "Molotov Breadbaskets" when Vyacheslav Mikhailovich claimed that the bombers sent against Finland at the start of the Winter War were merely dropping food supplies to the oppressed Finnish workers.)
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
In the case of the WA Deal, could the government ignore a HoC defeat and just sign it anyway?
I forget if the Commons are required to ratify international treaties. I don’t think they are, but I could very well be wrong.
They have the right to veto ratification within a two-week period.
Interesting. What are the odds on Hammond as next PM?
You can get 66/1, but I don't think that's particularly attractive. The next PM would have to be a consensus choice for Tory MPs, and that wouldn't be Hammond. He or she would also need the support of the DUP, of course.
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
In the case of the WA Deal, could the government ignore a HoC defeat and just sign it anyway?
I think at the time of Maastricht there was a suggestion that it could be ratified by Order in Council to avoid the risk of defeat in the Commons. But any such idea would be a political non-starter, an issue as important as Brexit could not possibly be ratified against the wishes of parliament. Especially since notions of parliamentary sovereignty were an important part of the Leave case.
Hogan Lovells has suspended a partner after he was caught using his work computer to look at porn.
The partner, who works in Hogan Lovell's London office, did not fall foul of his IT department. Instead he was dobbed in by a lawyer working for another firm across the street.
On Monday morning a lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, whose London office is separated from Hogan Lovells by a narrow lane, looked out of their window and straight into the partner's office. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Irwin Mitchell lawyer was shocked to see the Hogan Lovells partner watching porn at his desk, with his back to the window.
The IM lawyer filmed the absorbed partner on a mobile phone, sources told RollOnFriday, and sent the footage to Hogan Lovells lawyers. It then made its way to the firm's HR. The partner has now been suspended.
Mind you, a friend of mine who used to work for HMCTS (better not say where) once had to suspend half her staff for sharing dick picks on their work PCs.
Clearly the HL partner is an idiot
Am I the only person who’s a little uncomfortable with the behaviour of the IM lawyer?
No, you're not. Watching porn is not illegal (child porn excepted). It's a matter of workplace discipline, which should be of concern only to the man's employer.
If I had a seat facing the window where when I looked up from my screen I saw the porn being viewed I suspect I would be a bit perturbed....
While I agree, I have to say my concern in this case was different. If the Irwin Mitchell lawyer could see porn on the Hogan Lovells' partner's screen, what confidential information might he also have been able to see?
A very good point. The HL partner's failure to take elementary security precautions is probably more shocking than his watching porn at work. Probably more damaging to their business too.
Indeed. If I were a client, I'd be worried about someone reading my business documents over my lawyers shoulder. Basic infosec should be applied.
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
In the case of the WA Deal, could the government ignore a HoC defeat and just sign it anyway?
I think at the time of Maastricht there was a suggestion that it could be ratified by Order in Council to avoid the risk of defeat in the Commons. But any such idea would be a political non-starter, an issue as important as Brexit could not possibly be ratified against the wishes of parliament. Especially since notions of parliamentary sovereignty were an important part of the Leave case.
Perhaps they were referring to the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
extreme is probably not the best word for Green voters - it fits far better those moving further right towards AfD
However in a country where the Greens advocate an energy policy that doesn't provide a base line electricity supply based on nuclear / coal / gas based power it's not totally out of place...
The German system implies coalition. Their energy policy as stated, will be negotiated down. People know this. Therefore, it is not vote Green, get NO nuclear or fossil fuels, but rather get less reliance on them. Having said that, it is also important to recognise that the Greens have served in many Lander govts. They also led Baden-Wurtemburg for a while. In Hesse they were the Junior partner and then almost doubled their vote, completely bucking that trend. They are seen as a mainstream Party of government, therefore, unlike here. And have managed not to frighten any horses whilst doing so. The also oppose the Far Right without prevarication, speaking up for the rights of minorities, attracting young, urban, and, perhaps surprisingly, substantial business support. It helps, of course, that there is a Party in the Bundestag to the left of them.
Yep. I think the precedence would be an important factor, especially if the Queen gets dragged into it all. Jezza would be given a go unless it was clear that some wunderkid in the Tories could win a VoNC that May had lost.
I don't think that is how it would work. I believe that what would happen is the palace officials would take 'soundings', on the basis of which they would then advise Her Maj that X was likely to be able to command a majority. I'm sure that they wouldn't advise her to appoint someone as PM unless they were pretty convinced that that person would win a confidence vote. (Theresa May would remain PM in the meanwhile, of course).
On current numbers, Corbyn wouldn't get the gig, unless there were indications that Conservatives were willing to give him a go (eg by abstaining).
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
Yep. I think the precedence would be an important factor, especially if the Queen gets dragged into it all. Jezza would be given a go unless it was clear that some wunderkid in the Tories could win a VoNC that May had lost.
I don't think that is how it would work. I believe that what would happen is the palace officials would take 'soundings', on the basis of which they would then advise Her Maj that X was likely to be able to command a majority. I'm sure that they wouldn't advise her to appoint someone as PM unless they were pretty convinced that that person would win a confidence vote. (Theresa May would remain PM in the meanwhile, of course).
On current numbers, Corbyn wouldn't get the gig, unless there were indications that Conservatives were willing to give him a go (eg by abstaining).
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
So - what is the process which starts from a bill (AOB - any old Bill) being defeated?
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC? Or?
In the case of the WA Deal, could the government ignore a HoC defeat and just sign it anyway?
I don't think so. Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 states that
(1)The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if— ... (b)the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,
Note that this requires the withdrawal agreement AND the framework for the future relationship to have been agreed and laid before parliament.
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
On your second paragraph, some unifying figure (unifying amongst Tory MPs, that is, which together with support from the DUP is all that's needed) could assume the office of PM but not become leader, perhaps even from the Lords (Hague springs to mind). That would give time to hold a proper leadership contest.
Not just the UK and US that appears to be having a problem with anti-Semitism
France warns of steep rise in anti-Semitism
On the 80th anniversary of the Nazi Kristallnacht attack on Germany's Jews, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe has revealed a 69% increase in anti-Semitic incidents this year.
"We have sadly almost become accustomed to the fact that every synagogue, Jewish school, kindergarten, restaurant and cemetery needs to be either guarded by police or given special protection," she said.
Anti-semitism has long been a big problem in France. In fact, there was much more concern amongst Jews about France than about Germany before Hitler stirred up the hatred. And of course some French officials under Vichy were disturbingly enthusiastic in their implementation of Nazi genocidal policies; a few years ago I met an elderly Jewish couple who had fled France as a result (Ironically, the husband as a schoolboy had received a personal letter of congratulations from Pétain as a result of winning a nationwide essay-writing competition). In south-east France the Italians actually rescued Jews from French officials.
This latest wave, however, is probably more related to Islamic extremism.
I agree with Daniel Sugarman's anger. I also enjoyed the theory in his tweet stream that Paddington Bear is a deep cover Russian agent with Mr Gruber as his handler and Aunt Lucy as a dead letter drop.
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature. So Corbyn would only become PM in such circumstances if the (some?) Tories commit to abstain.
The precedents have never involved someone becoming PM merely to prove that they can't - there has always been the expectation that they have the short-term confidence required.
Yep. I think the precedence would be an important factor, especially if the Queen gets dragged into it all. Jezza would be given a go unless it was clear that some wunderkid in the Tories could win a VoNC that May had lost.
I don't think that is how it would work. I believe that what would happen is the palace officials would take 'soundings', on the basis of which they would then advise Her Maj that X was likely to be able to command a majority. I'm sure that they wouldn't advise her to appoint someone as PM unless they were pretty convinced that that person would win a confidence vote. (Theresa May would remain PM in the meanwhile, of course).
On current numbers, Corbyn wouldn't get the gig, unless there were indications that Conservatives were willing to give him a go (eg by abstaining).
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. .
I agree with that - though a technocratic government seems highly unlikely to me. In the absence of an immediate change of Tory leader the Palace would be dragged deeply into such a mess were it not to invite Corbyn.
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature. So Corbyn would only become PM in such circumstances if the (some?) Tories commit to abstain.
The precedents have never involved someone becoming PM merely to prove that they can't - there has always been the expectation that they have the short-term confidence required.
Yes, exactly right. And the same is I believe true in Commonwealth countries which have a similar parliamentary set-up.
I agree with that - though a technocratic government seems highly unlikely to me. In the absence of an immediate change of Tory leader the Palace would be dragged deeply into such a mess were it not to invite Corbyn.
They would invite Corbyn, but only in the sense of putting out feelers to see whether he thought he could put together a majority.
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature.
But that would surely be demonstrated by his success or failure in winning an affirmative Vote of Confidence?
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature. So Corbyn would only become PM in such circumstances if the (some?) Tories commit to abstain.
The precedents have never involved someone becoming PM merely to prove that they can't - there has always been the expectation that they have the short-term confidence required.
There is no precedent under FTPA though. Previously, if a VONC were lost, and no one else could plausibly form a govt, then an election would be called immediately. FTPA explicitly forbids this. Therefore FTPA specifically precludes precedent being followed.
I agree with that - though a technocratic government seems highly unlikely to me. In the absence of an immediate change of Tory leader the Palace would be dragged deeply into such a mess were it not to invite Corbyn.
They would invite Corbyn, but only in the sense of putting out feelers to see whether he thought he could put together a majority.
But only a subsequent Vote of Confidence would deliver an answer to that.
I disagree. If May lost a VoNC, Corbyn, Momentum and all the social media left would be jumping up and down and demanding the 'right' to form a government, citing various precedents and authorities (of which there are enough to make a plausible case). There is a much greater risk to the Palace's independence from not calling Corbyn than from calling him.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
I don't think the British state would allow someone to become Prime Minister (and thus acquire executive authority) who demonstrably wouldn't have the confidence of the present legislature.
But that would surely be demonstrated by his success or failure in winning an affirmative Vote of Confidence?
That is what soundings are for. In practice no new PM should ever lose a VoC - it would be an international humiliation for the country, and constitutionally very concerning that they had acquired executive powers.
I agree with that - though a technocratic government seems highly unlikely to me. In the absence of an immediate change of Tory leader the Palace would be dragged deeply into such a mess were it not to invite Corbyn.
They would invite Corbyn, but only in the sense of putting out feelers to see whether he thought he could put together a majority.
But only a subsequent Vote of Confidence would deliver an answer to that.
Well, where do you stop? They can't go through dozens of potential candidates, appointing each one PM and then waiting for a VONC.
The position is really no different to what happens in a hung parliament. Discussions take place behind the scenes to find out who appears to be able to put together a majority, and only then is it tested by a confidence vote (if necessary). Cameron wasn't automatically appointed PM in 2010, he had to establish first that the LibDems were likely to support him.
This is the part of the Brexiter "you were beaten by the slogan on a bus" comment that is so lacking awareness. It is more that Brexiters believed the slogan on the bus.
The NHS will be getting more than the bus-advertised £350m per week by the end of the parliament*, paid in no small part by EU-derived membership savings. The wider economic impact is a matter of conjecture, but I note the highest quarterly growth figures since 2016 were announced today.
*And perhaps more startlingly, NHS spending will have grown from 23% of government spending in 2000/01 to 38% by the end of the parliament.
Soon the government will be a health and social care service, with a few other things funded alongside.
Comments
This article kind of scratches the surface.
France warns of steep rise in anti-Semitism
On the 80th anniversary of the Nazi Kristallnacht attack on Germany's Jews, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe has revealed a 69% increase in anti-Semitic incidents this year.
"We have sadly almost become accustomed to the fact that every synagogue, Jewish school, kindergarten, restaurant and cemetery needs to be either guarded by police or given special protection," she said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-46150677
Mrs C, maybe. Maybe the Leave side will get Blair one
This is the part of the Brexiter "you were beaten by the slogan on a bus" comment that is so lacking awareness. It is more that Brexiters believed the slogan on the bus.
If there are degrees of who this reflects less well on, I'd say that Brexiters would come out looking worse.
Maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about could do a thread header on the potential outcomes?
This latest wave, however, is probably more related to Islamic extremism.
But I suspect the green surge is connected to a combination of
1) as we are well off we can do more for the environment at minimal cost to ourselves and
2) the ability for people to form online / find / join a community of like minded people with have similar views. Then in the absence of a general viewpoint pulling views back towards the middle ground these groups end up with an overall view that slow moves more and more extreme and away from the middle ground...
https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2018/11/08/telemachus-tel-orfanos-27-survived-mass-shooting-in-las-vegas-but-not-one-in-his-hometown-thousand-oaks/
I suspect 120 years ago proponents of votes for women were seen by many as extreme.
Blimey - how unlucky is that?
I would also proposed that this has hit the SDP especially hard because they are so tightly linked to VAG, seats on board, etc.
My second theory is that in National Elections voters vote for change in their own country. Then the politicians start spending a large amount of time addressing European issues which the voters take as ignoring them and hence move to the more nationally focused smaller parties.
We can take the example of Macron. The two main parties made a mess of France, Macron's campaign was on sorting out France, he has done some stuff but his main message and efforts seem to have been to change the EU and get Merkel to agree and start an EU army. French voters who voted for jobs, education, social issues seem not to be impressed.
I suppose May could advise the Queen to summon Corbyn, but I think HM would have good reason to reject that advice on the grounds that it's prima facie untrue that he could command the confidence of the House.
https://twitter.com/Daniel_Sugarman/status/1060895384661319686
In real life, what electrician or plumber would turn up within a few minutes of you calling them?
What then does happen if TMay's deal is rejected by the HoC? What are her options?
https://twitter.com/thorstenbenner/status/1060869120827232258?s=21
However in a country where the Greens advocate an energy policy that doesn't provide a base line electricity supply based on nuclear / coal / gas based power it's not totally out of place...
If the govt loses a VoNC as under the FTPA, then *anyone* has two weeks in which to form a government, otherwise there's a GE. This might be the LotO (and precedent on when a government loses a confidence vote, has no majority and doesn't want to go to the country, is that the LotO gets first dibs at forming a new government), but it could equally be someone from the existing governing party, including the current PM. The only requirement is that the Commons passes a motion that "this House has confidence in HMG" (note that this implies that the government is *already* in office: it's not 'has confidence in X to form a government').
None of this seems likely.
If May loses on EU she will try again a few weeks later or call for a GE vote imho.
Edited extra bit: 5 place grid penalty for Ricciardo. New turbocharger.
I think what would happen then is Corbyn calls for a VoNC, arguing this Government cannot get a deal.
He would almsot certainly lose unless the ERG have finally gone insane, but he would want the bragging rights of taking the fight to the Tories.
Edit: I just mean a run of the mill (ok vital to the UK's economic well-being) vote on this that or the other.
Not a VONC but just a vote next week on, say, the deal.
Or just possibly, it was the other way round.
On current numbers, Corbyn wouldn't get the gig, unless there were indications that Conservatives were willing to give him a go (eg by abstaining).
The government tries again with an amended bill and doesn't (need to) care about any constitutional government-changing events or processes? Or the LotO wails and gnashes his teeth to ultimately no good purpose because although they may have defeated that bill, they ain't going to vote against the govt in a VONC?
Or?
VLADIMIR: That's what you think
Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer aka AKK. Love it!
Edit: Correct, three weeks. And the Lords do too.
It's another Trump car crash press conference. He's said he wants a senate vote on Mueller!
https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1060756794023260160
extreme is probably not the best word for Green voters - it fits far better those moving further right towards AfD
However in a country where the Greens advocate an energy policy that doesn't provide a base line electricity supply based on nuclear / coal / gas based power it's not totally out of place...
The German system implies coalition. Their energy policy as stated, will be negotiated down. People know this. Therefore, it is not vote Green, get NO nuclear or fossil fuels, but rather get less reliance on them.
Having said that, it is also important to recognise that the Greens have served in many Lander govts. They also led Baden-Wurtemburg for a while. In Hesse they were the Junior partner and then almost doubled their vote, completely bucking that trend.
They are seen as a mainstream Party of government, therefore, unlike here. And have managed not to frighten any horses whilst doing so.
The also oppose the Far Right without prevarication, speaking up for the rights of minorities, attracting young, urban, and, perhaps surprisingly, substantial business support.
It helps, of course, that there is a Party in the Bundestag to the left of them.
My guess as to how things would play out are that within 24 hours of the VoNC, there is a good chance that May resigns or is forced out. If, within 3-4 days, it's clear that there is likely to be an uncontested Tory leadership election, the Palace will hold off inviting anyone else until the new Tory leader has had the chance to test the Commons (as leader of the largest party, and who could put together a sufficiently large confidence base to win a vote). If the Tory election is contested - and hence would take longer than 14 days - or if May didn't resign, then Corbyn would then be invited to form a government. Similarly, if the new Tory leader failed to win a vote, Corbyn would then go to the Palace.
What happens then is interesting. Chances are that Corbyn too would fail to win a VoC, leading to an election. The question is whether the incumbent PM - Corbyn - would continue in office for the election campaign despite having failed to gain the support of the Commons, or whether he too would be obliged to resign, in which case we could be looking at a technocratic government for the election period. While that is wholly outside recent British political experience, it could be the least-controversial option. I still have a 250/1 betting slip on Gus O'Donnell as next PM for that very reason (although other neutral candidates would probably now be ahead of him as options).
And @AlastairMeeks I'll take your Estragon and Vladimir and raise you Winnie's revolver...
What if he simply refused?
(1)The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
...
(b)the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,
Note that this requires the withdrawal agreement AND the framework for the future relationship to have been agreed and laid before parliament.
The precedents have never involved someone becoming PM merely to prove that they can't - there has always been the expectation that they have the short-term confidence required.
Therefore FTPA specifically precludes precedent being followed.
Is it not time UN observers were sent in to ensure free and fair elections in the US?
The position is really no different to what happens in a hung parliament. Discussions take place behind the scenes to find out who appears to be able to put together a majority, and only then is it tested by a confidence vote (if necessary). Cameron wasn't automatically appointed PM in 2010, he had to establish first that the LibDems were likely to support him.
*And perhaps more startlingly, NHS spending will have grown from 23% of government spending in 2000/01 to 38% by the end of the parliament.
Soon the government will be a health and social care service, with a few other things funded alongside.