If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
He needs about 80 MPs, and they're all Conservatives.
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
Would you support such a Conservative leader set on a default?
The legal default has been there since the overwhelming majority of MPs (including most Labour MPs) voted to authorise the PM to trigger A50, and, implicitly, since the referendum itself was authorised.
For myself, I wouldn't support actively embracing No Deal but I do think that it has to be on the table as a possible outcome. You always have to be willing to walk away from a negotiation.
Overall, the WA is pretty good but the NI situation really is a problem. The EU's position is that Britain has to choose between its own subjugation in being an indefinite rule-taker, or its internal division and the transfer of one region to the EU's sovereignty for many purposes. Neither should be acceptable. The EU's inflexibility on this point is leading the process to breakdown.
FWIW, I would back the WA as it stands, very flawed though it is, but given the choice between indefinite extension and No Deal, I would reluctantly have to opt for the latter. The referendum result needs to be respected.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
Really???????
what co-operation i much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
but not the major policy ones or formation of regulations. Thats w will do as it is told.
Quite. However we had some decision maki London. Or were until a period starting June 2016.
I suspect being out will become one of Londons biggest advantages
Suspicion and conviction are very different kettles of fish.
certainly yet your suspicion we will be worse off out drives you, you have no more factually based evidence that I have, were both just going off gut instinct and preference, The facts all lie in the future.
The removal of payments for solar panels is one of the stupider things this government has done. Bringing attention to it and demanding a reversal would be a useful thing to have done. I have solar panels here and in the Lake District where they also heat our water. We are benefiting from the previous schemes. But now there is little financial inventive to having them which seems daft.
In my side of my street in London, virtually every house has a south-facing flat roof. Some are unused. Some are used as roof terraces. One is used as both a roof terrace, for planting and for solar panels - mine. None of the others have solar panels or green roofs. That is such a waste. Governments ought to be incentivising people to make use of this sort of space in this way - and there is lots of it all over our cities. Bringing this to peoples’ attention - to the government’s attention - would have been a good use of last week’s protests or, indeed, of MPs’ time.
The protest did indirectly draw attention to this, but it was a protest, not a manifesto. The takeaway for most people was simply "A lot of people seem very worried about climate change, perhaps we ought to do more." That makes it easier to do things like support solar panels and pout up with people like Malcolm and me who think they aren't very pretty. But it's up to Ministers and MPs to work out the most effective details (or, better, draw on the numerous existing reports which make recommendations) - you can't really expect a demo to come up with that.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it. d.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
ht.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
Really???????
what co-operation i much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
but not the major policy ones or formation of regulations. Thats w will do as it is told.
Or were until a period starting June 2016.
I suspect being out will become one of Londons biggest advantages
Suspicion and conviction are very different kettles of fish.
certainly yet your suspicion we will be worse off out drives you, you have no more factually based evidence that I have, were both just going off gut instinct and preference, The facts all lie in the future.
I don't dispute that. However, I was told years ago that making a mistake generally requires ten equal but opposite actions to return one to the place where one started. Which suggests that Leaving...... if it was a mistake that we got so involved........ will produce hardship in the short to medium term and a lot more work than has so far been done.. However Remaining will simply mean that we have to put our efforts to making things better.
Happened to check the F1 Twitter account, and was surprised to learn only one chap has more than one podium finish in Azerbaijan, and even more surprised it's Perez: https://twitter.com/F1/status/1120740191134789639
Of course, he should've ****ing won it, or come 2nd, when he and Ocon had a needless clash. I'm reasonably sure I'd backed both of them. At enormous odds.
*sighs*
Anyway, if Perez gets on the podium, I shall forgive him his past transgression.
I think Farage has played a blinder by recruiting Ann Widdecombe. The voters he's after will either a) appreciate her authoritarian streak or b) know her from various TV shows and think that rather groovy. ChUK made a mistake in rejecting Richard Dawkins in my view. He's a non-identity-politics liberal Remain intellectual - a niche that was crying out to be filled.
Yes I’d have liked to see Dawkins, he is as marmite as Farage though, and has a few quotes in his past that people would claim are islamaphobic
Agreed, me too. I know what you mean about the Islam stuff but I think he is really all-religion-phobic –including Islam. He's not a particularly tolerant guy, but he has his niche as you rightly imply.
Yes, he made the point in one of his shows that what westerners don’t get about Muslims is that more of them tend to actually mean it, rather than our kind of nod to an old fashioned tradition. So maybe he thinks that their religion is more dangerous because of that, but not inherently any better or worse.
Trying to articulate that in an election campaign would just be seen as islamsphovic though.
Fair point. Reminds me of the old saw: 'we're not religious, we are CoE'.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a sui
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
but not the major policy ones or formation of regulations. Thats what head offices do and if your head office is elsewhere you're simply an operating unit that will do as it is told.
Quite. However we had 16.
I suspect being out will become one of Londons biggest advantages
One of the great ironies of Brexit is that places like London and the university cities with their agile, knowledge and creative industries are the ones that will be least damaged. The British rustbelt and Saxon shore, much more so.
Personally I will do quite well as there will be staff shortages in the NHS and a boost in incomes for sturdy British yeomen like myself. Indeed that was the point, wasn't it?
In favour. But as I say I am struggling with it. Not so much the principle, more the practicalities. The cut off, for example. Whatever you go for, somebody is going to cry foul. Even if you set it at 103, there will be a person who reaches that age, still compos mentis and soundus corpus, who has articulate friends and relatives arguing their case to stay a while longer, cue the smart alec lawyers, the big court case, and it will be impossible not to make an exception. Then one exception becomes several and before you know it - slippery slope - you have thousands of 103 year old types digging their heels in (as it were). No, I'm not there on this yet. But I do intend to be if at all possible. It's a stain on my credentials.
Am I the only one who feels a bit for Mercer, given he joined the laudable aims of Crucial Academy, which trains military veterans and aims to find them employment?
I know he should have done his DD a bit better but the sketchy nature of Surge/LCF was not well known.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
I have no sympathy with people with multiple properties , travelling all the time in a more polluting petrol car and no doubt flying off on holiday often as well, rich and hypocrite come to mind.
I don’t fly on holiday. Tend now to spend mine in the Lakes. But like pretty much everyone I have my fair share of hypocrisy. Ultimately I intend leaving London altogether and if only the bloody builders would get on with it the date for that wouldn’t keep being put off. But that is another story.......
All these comments about how individuals may be hypocritical if they drive a particular type of car or where they go on holidays is missing the point. If you don't like Extinction Rebellion then take notice of David Attenborough, more has to be done about Climate Change than is being done currently. Although we can and should take actions to preserve the planet for our offspring, it is really up to the government to make the big decisions that need to be made. Individually we cannot decide where and what sort of power stations are needed, whether to roll out charging points for electric cars or what sort of incentives to give for energy saving or production - to name just a few. Our present government has made some recent decisions that indicate they are not taking the problem seriously - Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon and dropping the solar feed in tariff to name two.
Neither of those decisions are in of themselves wrong, but if you’re going to save money on those two, then you should be spending it on the UK’s most cost-effective renewable, wind power. Swansea Bay’s cost would almost pay for our share of the Dogger Bank project.
This parliament has made it clear it won't accept no deal, if they are offered a Tory leader going for no-deal, it will either end up as one of Corbyn, a compromise caretaker (Letwin, Clarke, Boles, Benn, Cooper) or a further extension followed by general election. Exactly how that happens is less clear, but the last few months should have taught us that parliament has more power than the political class realised. Back in December it wasn't clear what all the moves were to stop no-deal then, and it may not be clear now, but that is what they will do.
For no deal to happen it either needs to win a referendum or a general election. I think the possibility of those wins is currently underestimated, but the possibility of no deal without one happening hugely overestimated.
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
Churchill became Prime Minister at a time when the Commons majority was not in doubt. The only relevant precedents since the Second World War are 1974, 1976, 2010 and 2017.
And I disagree with your reading of the words. The role for other Parliamentary parties is clearly stated.
Am I the only one who feels a bit for Mercer, given he joined the laudable aims of Crucial Academy, which trains military veterans and aims to find them employment?
I know he should have done his DD a bit better but the sketchy nature of Surge/LCF was not well known.
A smart politician would have immediately committed to paying back his outsize salary for what was ostensibly a laudable project, rather than trying to say it was nothing to do with him.
I have a degree of sympathy for him - but his future prospects are dished.
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
There is, however, a clear conflict of interest in the process similar to the Macmillan/Douglas-Home succession, where a PM may not be impartial and can't be relied upon to act impartially - especially if there is a risk of an MP from another party being appointed and frustrating key political priorities of the outgoing PM.
While the outgoing PM certainly has the right (and, perhaps, duty) to give advice, the responsibility for calling the new PM lies solely with the sovereign, who would do well to take advice from several sources, including from outside the political system.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
He needs about 80 MPs, and they're all Conservatives.
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
So who do you think will be called to form a government when May formally resigns then?
A Con leader who is committed to leaving on Oct 31 with or without a deal - though the likely policy on election would be to renegotiate the WA, not to embrace No Deal outright - will almost certainly be appointed PM. The DUP will go along with that, as will Con MPs. For the time being, that'd be enough. Labour might well table a VoNC immediately but I'd expect the new PM to survive that while (doomed) attempts to renegotiate took place.
In any case, suppose the leadership election result is announced mid-Sept. The Commons won't sit again until after the Con conference, by which time it's far too late to form a different government before Oct 31 other than from the existing House, which means TIG (and virtually everyone else outside the Conservatives) having to support Corbyn.
No Deal in October remains quite a likely outcome.
Given the choice between - say - Boris and Corbyn, TIG might well go for the latter on the basis of having much more leverage on him given the Parliamentary arithmetic.
One of the great ironies of Brexit is that places like London and the university cities with their agile, knowledge and creative industries are the ones that will be least damaged. The British rustbelt and Saxon shore, much more so.
Personally I will do quite well as there will be staff shortages in the NHS and a boost in incomes for sturdy British yeomen like myself. Indeed that was the point, wasn't it?
Quite. The Brexit tragedy is that it doesn't fix the problems it sets out to solve. Globalisation will continue regardless. The deregulated Singapore-on-Thames mentally of the hardline Brexiteers would make the negative impact worse on poorer communities.
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
There is, however, a clear conflict of interest in the process similar to the Macmillan/Douglas-Home succession, where a PM may not be impartial and can't be relied upon to act impartially - especially if there is a risk of an MP from another party being appointed and frustrating key political priorities of the outgoing PM.
While the outgoing PM certainly has the right (and, perhaps, duty) to give advice, the responsibility for calling the new PM lies solely with the sovereign, who would do well to take advice from several sources, including from outside the political system.
That's why there is wriggle room, but the most important things is for HM to steer clear of politics.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
So who do you think will be called to form a government when May formally resigns then?
A Con leader who is committed to leaving on Oct 31 with or without a deal - though the likely policy on election would be to renegotiate the WA, not to embrace No Deal outright - will almost certainly be appointed PM. The DUP will go along with that, as will Con MPs. For the time being, that'd be enough. Labour might well table a VoNC immediately but I'd expect the new PM to survive that while (doomed) attempts to renegotiate took place.
In any case, suppose the leadership election result is announced mid-Sept. The Commons won't sit again until after the Con conference, by which time it's far too late to form a different government before Oct 31 other than from the existing House, which means TIG (and virtually everyone else outside the Conservatives) having to support Corbyn.
No Deal in October remains quite a likely outcome.
Theresa May stays in harness until a reasonably sure replacement is found. No obvious replacement, no resignation (cf Gordon Brown in 2010). It is an irony that, having long outstayed her usefulness in Number 10, her last duty might be to stay in office.
Unlike Labour's processes, which certainly kept Brown in power in 2008-10 (and, subsequently, Corbyn in 2016), there are various mechanisms that can eject a Tory leader who has lost the confidence of his or her Party and/or MPs. Also unlike Labour's rules, they don't require an alternative leader to be identified in advance.
If we're talking tricks, fans of the Thor films might be amused to learn that Sleipnir, Odin's horse, was given birth by Loki. Loki is the mother of Odin's horse.
According to myth, the gods wanted a great wall and a giant offered to build one. But he wanted a huge price, including, I think, Freyja. The gods agreed, persuaded by Loki on condition the whole thing was done in a few days. It seemed impossible, but the giant was very industrious and aided by his massive horse.
The gods were pissed at Loki. The trickster god then turned himself into a lovely female horse to tempt the giant's trusty helper, who duly chased after Loki-mare, (the giant vainly trying to get his horse to come back). The wall was built, and the price was not paid.
Except if you count Loki getting shagged by the giant's horse and then giving birth to the six-legged Sleipnir.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
The Cabinet manual is though a recent creation - having been drawn up before the 2010 election - and it is far from obvious that it carries constitutional weight. It really amounts to advice on a way forward under particular circumstances - but has no statutory force at all. I do agree,however, that the Monarch is not restricted to seeking advice from the departing PM.
In favour. But as I say I am struggling with it. Not so much the principle, more the practicalities. The cut off, for example. Whatever you go for, somebody is going to cry foul. Even if you set it at 103, there will be a person who reaches that age, still compos mentis and soundus corpus, who has articulate friends and relatives arguing their case to stay a while longer, cue the smart alec lawyers, the big court case, and it will be impossible not to make an exception. Then one exception becomes several and before you know it - slippery slope - you have thousands of 103 year old types digging their heels in (as it were). No, I'm not there on this yet. But I do intend to be if at all possible. It's a stain on my credentials.
Seriously? I didn't know anyone was arguing for involuntary euthanasia. As for voluntary I would love the thought that a benevolent doctor would slip me a Brompton cocktail when he thought I wasn't having much fun and was unlikely to have any in future, but as a general proposition I don't think it would work. Too much risk of grasping relatives egging the elderly on.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
I have no sympathy with people with multiple properties , travelling all the time in a more polluting petrol car and no doubt flying off on holiday often as well, rich and hypocrite come to mind.
All these comments about how individuals may be hypocritical if they drive a particular type of car or where they go on holidays is missing the point. If you don't like Extinction Rebellion then take notice of David Attenborough, more has to be done about Climate Change than is being done currently. Although we can and should take actions to preserve the planet for our offspring, it is really up to the government to make the big decisions that need to be made. Individually we cannot decide where and what sort of power stations are needed, whether to roll out charging points for electric cars or what sort of incentives to give for energy saving or production - to name just a few. Our present government has made some recent decisions that indicate they are not taking the problem seriously - Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon and dropping the solar feed in tariff to name two.
Neither of those decisions are in of themselves wrong, but if you’re going to save money on those two, then you should be spending it on the UK’s most cost-effective renewable, wind power. Swansea Bay’s cost would almost pay for our share of the Dogger Bank project.
We should certainly do the Dogger Bank. In fact we should do both - and if there was something wrong with Swansea Bay then fix it. Tidal is predictable not dependent on wind blowing or sun shining so would help to even out the peaks and troughs.
In favour. But as I say I am struggling with it. Not so much the principle, more the practicalities. The cut off, for example. Whatever you go for, somebody is going to cry foul. Even if you set it at 103, there will be a person who reaches that age, still compos mentis and soundus corpus, who has articulate friends and relatives arguing their case to stay a while longer, cue the smart alec lawyers, the big court case, and it will be impossible not to make an exception. Then one exception becomes several and before you know it - slippery slope - you have thousands of 103 year old types digging their heels in (as it were). No, I'm not there on this yet. But I do intend to be if at all possible. It's a stain on my credentials.
The woke position is in favour of INvoluntary euthanasia? Are you sure about that?
Interesting that TM is now considered the worst Tory Minister (not just PM) ever by ConHome, and the BEST Minister according to the same survey is...drumbeat...Andrea Leadsom.
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
If the PM makes a recommendation on their successor to HMQ I think it's now impossible for HMQ not to act on it - on what basis would they appoint someone else as PM?
Of course it would be very shoddy work from a resigning PM if the successor they recommended to HMQ immediately proved not to have the Confidence of the House.
So, if Boris is elected leader of the Conservatives and enough Conservative MPs make it known that they do not have confidence in him as PM - to the extent of being willing to vote against him in a Confidence motion - then what does May do? It would be a dereliction of her duty to recommend Boris to HMQ as the next PM knowing he could not command the Confidence of the House.
The safest course for HMQ would be to go for dissolution and a general election, with May still caretaker PM until the GE, and any subsequent negotiations, clarifies the situation, but the FTPA means that would require a Commons vote anyway. It puts HMQ into a terrible position of appointing a PM just so they can fail.
Interesting that TM is now considered the worst Tory Minister (not just PM) ever by ConHome, and the BEST Minister according to the same survey is...drumbeat...Andrea Leadsom.
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
There is, however, a clear conflict of interest in the process similar to the Macmillan/Douglas-Home succession, where a PM may not be impartial and can't be relied upon to act impartially - especially if there is a risk of an MP from another party being appointed and frustrating key political priorities of the outgoing PM.
While the outgoing PM certainly has the right (and, perhaps, duty) to give advice, the responsibility for calling the new PM lies solely with the sovereign, who would do well to take advice from several sources, including from outside the political system.
That's why there is wriggle room, but the most important things is for HM to steer clear of politics.
Indeed. And in the context of a PM having been deposed by his or her own party, the almost inevitable outcome would be to invite the new leader of that party to form a government; the assumption being that party numbers being what they were before, and parliament not having acted against the government in general, that person remains best-placed to form a government.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
So who do you think will be called to form a government when May formally resigns then?
A Con leader who is committed to leaving on Oct 31 with or without a deal - though the likely policy on election would be to renegotiate the WA, not to embrace No Deal outright - will almost certainly be appointed PM. The DUP will go along with that, as will Con MPs. For the time being, that'd be enough. Labour might well table a VoNC immediately but I'd expect the new PM to survive that while (doomed) attempts to renegotiate took place.
In any case, suppose the leadership election result is announced mid-Sept. The Commons won't sit again until after the Con conference, by which time it's far too late to form a different government before Oct 31 other than from the existing House, which means TIG (and virtually everyone else outside the Conservatives) having to support Corbyn.
No Deal in October remains quite a likely outcome.
Theresa May stays in harness until a reasonably sure replacement is found. No obvious replacement, no resignation (cf Gordon Brown in 2010). It is an irony that, having long outstayed her usefulness in Number 10, her last duty might be to stay in office.
Unlike Labour's processes, which certainly kept Brown in power in 2008-10 (and, subsequently, Corbyn in 2016), there are various mechanisms that can eject a Tory leader who has lost the confidence of his or her Party and/or MPs. Also unlike Labour's rules, they don't require an alternative leader to be identified in advance.
As party leader, yes. But the Prime Ministership is not theirs to gift.
Why the GDPR might be a dead letter, and the real special relationship with the US....
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/24/ireland-data-privacy-1270123 Interviews with scores of privacy experts, data watchdogs, academics and regulators in other countries reveal increasing concern that the landmark General Data Protection Regulation, the product of years of wrangling with data companies, is vulnerable because of the one provision on which the tech companies prevailed: That the lead regulator be in the country in which the tech firms have their “data controller” – in most cases, Ireland.
To be fair we do have a number of Royal regiments, The Royal Engineers, Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Army Medical Corps etc.
The New Model Army was a force to be reckoned with though. As Cromwell said:
"I had rather have a plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that you call a Gentleman and is nothing else.”
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered thion."
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
But when Chamberlain recommended Churchill to George VI in May 1940, it was known that he had the backing of the Opposition parties and able to command a majority in the Commons.
Am I the only one who feels a bit for Mercer, given he joined the laudable aims of Crucial Academy, which trains military veterans and aims to find them employment?
I know he should have done his DD a bit better but the sketchy nature of Surge/LCF was not well known.
A smart politician would have immediately committed to paying back his outsize salary for what was ostensibly a laudable project, rather than trying to say it was nothing to do with him.
I have a degree of sympathy for him - but his future prospects are dished.
Partially agreed, although any MP accepting £85k for half a day a week deserves little sympathy. Why do they have time for an extra half day a week beyond their full time job? Why do they think someone is paying them that if it is not to buy their influence and connections? Why after earning that on top of an MPs salary do you need to overclaim dubious expenses?
Am I the only one who feels a bit for Mercer, given he joined the laudable aims of Crucial Academy, which trains military veterans and aims to find them employment?
I know he should have done his DD a bit better but the sketchy nature of Surge/LCF was not well known.
The Royal Artillery don't exactly get the pick of the litter from Sandbags...
This parliament has made it clear it won't accept no deal, if they are offered a Tory leader going for no-deal, it will either end up as one of Corbyn, a compromise caretaker (Letwin, Clarke, Boles, Benn, Cooper) or a further extension followed by general election. Exactly how that happens is less clear, but the last few months should have taught us that parliament has more power than the political class realised. Back in December it wasn't clear what all the moves were to stop no-deal then, and it may not be clear now, but that is what they will do.
For no deal to happen it either needs to win a referendum or a general election. I think the possibility of those wins is currently underestimated, but the possibility of no deal without one happening hugely overestimated.
I agree. No Deal will not be allowed by this parliament and therefore cannot happen this side of a GE. I would go further. Brexit of any kind is not happening this side of a GE. Neither is Ref2. A GE is the sine qua non. And the SQN for a GE is a change of Tory leader. So if we want this thing progressed we had better hope that they do not waste the window of opportunity to get it done this summer recess.
In favour. But as I say I am struggling with it. Not so much the principle, more the practicalities. The cut off, for example. Whatever you go for, somebody is going to cry foul. Even if you set it at 103, there will be a person who reaches that age, still compos mentis and soundus corpus, who has articulate friends and relatives arguing their case to stay a while longer, cue the smart alec lawyers, the big court case, and it will be impossible not to make an exception. Then one exception becomes several and before you know it - slippery slope - you have thousands of 103 year old types digging their heels in (as it were). No, I'm not there on this yet. But I do intend to be if at all possible. It's a stain on my credentials.
The woke position is in favour of INvoluntary euthanasia? Are you sure about that?
In the last century the biggest enthusiasts for involuntary euthanasia were the far right, indeed Gita Serenys book on how Stangl started with euthanasia of the mentally handicapped and terminally ill before moving on to Treblinka is a classic work on the subject.
To be fair we do have a number of Royal regiments, The Royal Engineers, Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Army Medical Corps etc.
The New Model Army was a force to be reckoned with though. As Cromwell said:
"I had rather have a plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that you call a Gentleman and is nothing else.”
But the real question is: would Cromwell have been a Leaver or Remainer?
In favour. But as I say I am struggling with it. Not so much the principle, more the practicalities. The cut off, for example. Whatever you go for, somebody is going to cry foul. Even if you set it at 103, there will be a person who reaches that age, still compos mentis and soundus corpus, who has articulate friends and relatives arguing their case to stay a while longer, cue the smart alec lawyers, the big court case, and it will be impossible not to make an exception. Then one exception becomes several and before you know it - slippery slope - you have thousands of 103 year old types digging their heels in (as it were). No, I'm not there on this yet. But I do intend to be if at all possible. It's a stain on my credentials.
Seriously? I didn't know anyone was arguing for involuntary euthanasia. As for voluntary I would love the thought that a benevolent doctor would slip me a Brompton cocktail when he thought I wasn't having much fun and was unlikely to have any in future, but as a general proposition I don't think it would work. Too much risk of grasping relatives egging the elderly on.
It's an on-going concern for pharmacists, whether euthanasia is being considered. See Gosport Hospital, although, AIUI, there wasn't adequate control there. When it came out I thought back to my time as pharmacist in a similar unit and wondered......
Given Boris and Raab both comfortably beat Hunt, Javid and Gove in the runoff polls yesterday Boris is now Tory members favourite to succeed May as Tory leader but with Raab snapping at his heels and having an excellent chance of becoming Tory leader if he rather than Boris makes the final 2 sent to the membership
Always said Johnny Mercer had really poor judgment.
[Sunil whistles innocently]
TheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,455 November 2017 edited November 2017
I've always said Johnny Mercer is awesome, more proof:
"Theresa May is jeopardising the 'integrity and credibility' of our party, senior MP says in blistering attack.
"Johnny Mercer has been to war and can recognise chaos when he sees it. The Conservative MP, tipped as a future leader, believes a state of ‘anarchy’ is in danger of engulfing his party.
"In an interview with the Telegraph today, the former Army captain, who served with distinction in Afghanistan, fires a warning shot in Theresa May’s direction that she needs to urgently get a grip on a ‘depressing’ series of events. If she doesn’t, he says, the nation will be wrecked by the “existential threat’ posed by the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street and John McDonnell living next door.
"Mr Mercer’s comments will fuel the crisis overwhelming Mrs May. The disastrous election, the resignation within a week of two Cabinet ministers and the ongoing Westminster sex scandal has led Mr Mercer to conclude that Mrs May’s premiership has reached a ‘critical point’. "
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
Ah yes. But note first that this is not exclusively for the Prime Minister,"if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons" and also 2.10
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered thion."
The text is thoroughly hedged to give HM flexibility to deal with various situations, but in reality the convention is pretty clear. The PM (and the Cabinet) would recommend a successor and the Queen would act upon that recommendation.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
But when Chamberlain recommended Churchill to George VI in May 1940, it was known that he had the backing of the Opposition parties and able to command a majority in the Commons.
I wonder what would have happened had Edward VIII still been on the throne!
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
So who do you think will be called to form a government when May formally resigns then?
A Con leader who is committed to leaving on Oct 31 with or without a deal - though the likely policy on election would be to renegotiate the WA, not to embrace No Deal outright - will almost certainly be appointed PM. The DUP will go along with that, as will Con MPs. For the time being, that'd be enough. Labour might well table a VoNC immediately but I'd expect the new PM to survive that while (doomed) attempts to renegotiate took place.
In any case, suppose the leadership election result is announced mid-Sept. The Commons won't sit again until after the Con conference, by which time it's far too late to form a different government before Oct 31 other than from the existing House, which means TIG (and virtually everyone else outside the Conservatives) having to support Corbyn.
No Deal in October remains quite a likely outcome.
Theresa May stays in harness until a reasonably sure replacement is found. No obvious replacement, no resignation (cf Gordon Brown in 2010). It is an irony that, having long outstayed her usefulness in Number 10, her last duty might be to stay in office.
Unlike Labour's processes, which certainly kept Brown in power in 2008-10 (and, subsequently, Corbyn in 2016), there are various mechanisms that can eject a Tory leader who has lost the confidence of his or her Party and/or MPs. Also unlike Labour's rules, they don't require an alternative leader to be identified in advance.
As party leader, yes. But the Prime Ministership is not theirs to gift.
Hard brexiteers still simply do not seem to realise it is a hung parliament.
To be fair we do have a number of Royal regiments, The Royal Engineers, Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Army Medical Corps etc.
The New Model Army was a force to be reckoned with though. As Cromwell said:
"I had rather have a plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that you call a Gentleman and is nothing else.”
But the real question is: would Cromwell have been a Leaver or Remainer?
Started off with the Treaty of Rome, so probably a Leaver. Sad thought.
Although he had excellent relations with Protestant States in the Low Countries and Germany so maybe........
What does it matter who leads the Conservative Party? Nothing changes:
1. Parliament will not allow no deal 2. Parliament will not pass a deal except perhaps a customs union 3. Any Tory leader who proposes a customs union will no longer be Tory leader 4. The only way to break the impasse is a General Election. Which Tory/CHUK MPs will not vote for
Ergo, continued stalemate until the Fixed Term Parliaments Act forces a general election in summer 2022. Our MEPs will serve out their full term...
Anyone watch Billions? Chuck Rhoades swam against the tide when faced by being exposed to ridicule. Maybe more people should do it? (I don’t know what this person is meant to have done)
To be fair we do have a number of Royal regiments, The Royal Engineers, Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Army Medical Corps etc.
The New Model Army was a force to be reckoned with though. As Cromwell said:
"I had rather have a plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that you call a Gentleman and is nothing else.”
But the real question is: would Cromwell have been a Leaver or Remainer?
Given what he did in Ireland, he would have invaded Europe and subjugated it. So an extreme Remainer then...
Seriously? I didn't know anyone was arguing for involuntary euthanasia. As for voluntary I would love the thought that a benevolent doctor would slip me a Brompton cocktail when he thought I wasn't having much fun and was unlikely to have any in future, but as a general proposition I don't think it would work. Too much risk of grasping relatives egging the elderly on.
There are some serious (practical and moral) issues to resolve before we embrace voluntary euthanasia but it's one of those developments that I think is inevitable. The net economic upside is pretty compelling. If viewed as a project, stacking up cost versus benefit, it would knock almost any other proposal you could name into a cocked hat.
Compulsory euthanasia is much more difficult. I was only joking there. The economic fundamentals would be even more benign, although it depends on where you make the 'cut', but it runs into the intractable problem that it is premeditated murder. It would be like bringing back capital punishment, only worse, since the only crime the victims would have committed would be that they have lived too long.
Mr. Fire, those in favour of man-made global warming as a theory also predicted an end to snow in the UK, a few years before we had the worst winter in a century. And then another very bad winter the year after. It doesn't persuade me of their predictive prowess.
I’ll-informed bloke off internet muddles up weather and climate. Again.
What's the difference, well-informed bloke off t'internet?
What’s the weather this afternoon? - sensible question.
What’s the climate this afternoon? - not a sensible question.
Always said Johnny Mercer had really poor judgment.
[Sunil whistles innocently]
TheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,455 November 2017 edited November 2017
I've always said Johnny Mercer is awesome, more proof:
"Theresa May is jeopardising the 'integrity and credibility' of our party, senior MP says in blistering attack.
"Johnny Mercer has been to war and can recognise chaos when he sees it. The Conservative MP, tipped as a future leader, believes a state of ‘anarchy’ is in danger of engulfing his party.
"In an interview with the Telegraph today, the former Army captain, who served with distinction in Afghanistan, fires a warning shot in Theresa May’s direction that she needs to urgently get a grip on a ‘depressing’ series of events. If she doesn’t, he says, the nation will be wrecked by the “existential threat’ posed by the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street and John McDonnell living next door.
"Mr Mercer’s comments will fuel the crisis overwhelming Mrs May. The disastrous election, the resignation within a week of two Cabinet ministers and the ongoing Westminster sex scandal has led Mr Mercer to conclude that Mrs May’s premiership has reached a ‘critical point’. "
So a quarter of European Parliament elections voters, probably more, will be 'vile bigots' in your eyes? Diehard Remainers still wonder why they lost
The quarter aren’t supporting leaving the EU , those Eurosceptic parties after seeing the shambles in the UK have decided to not make the same mistake . As for vile bigots I stand by my comments , Widdecombe is a loathsome creature and will fit in nicely with Farage .
The Brexit Party candidates are a broad church from Widdecombe to a former revolutionary Communist party member, the main thing that unites them is Brexit
A broad church with all of the centre pews completely empty
Quite.
I suspect that the Brexit Party candidates are united by favouring "feels" over "facts". I don't think evidence-based policy will get much of a look-in.
They might vary a little in their support for genocide, from Claire Fox's "been there, done that" to Farage's "give me ten years or so". For Widdecombe it would have to be advocated by the pope (or Ratizinger at least), but it's not like that's never happened before...
Comments
"As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a
recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place."
For myself, I wouldn't support actively embracing No Deal but I do think that it has to be on the table as a possible outcome. You always have to be willing to walk away from a negotiation.
Overall, the WA is pretty good but the NI situation really is a problem. The EU's position is that Britain has to choose between its own subjugation in being an indefinite rule-taker, or its internal division and the transfer of one region to the EU's sovereignty for many purposes. Neither should be acceptable. The EU's inflexibility on this point is leading the process to breakdown.
FWIW, I would back the WA as it stands, very flawed though it is, but given the choice between indefinite extension and No Deal, I would reluctantly have to opt for the latter. The referendum result needs to be respected.
"The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government.
Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention."
https://twitter.com/F1/status/1120740191134789639
Of course, he should've ****ing won it, or come 2nd, when he and Ocon had a needless clash. I'm reasonably sure I'd backed both of them. At enormous odds.
*sighs*
Anyway, if Perez gets on the podium, I shall forgive him his past transgression.
For example, if a sitting PM were to die then the cabinet would nominate a successor and communicate that to HM. It's essentially the mechanism through which Churchill became PM.
Personally I will do quite well as there will be staff shortages in the NHS and a boost in incomes for sturdy British yeomen like myself. Indeed that was the point, wasn't it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47884273
Taking it well I see TSE...
I know he should have done his DD a bit better but the sketchy nature of Surge/LCF was not well known.
For no deal to happen it either needs to win a referendum or a general election. I think the possibility of those wins is currently underestimated, but the possibility of no deal without one happening hugely overestimated.
And I disagree with your reading of the words. The role for other Parliamentary parties is clearly stated.
I have a degree of sympathy for him - but his future prospects are dished.
While the outgoing PM certainly has the right (and, perhaps, duty) to give advice, the responsibility for calling the new PM lies solely with the sovereign, who would do well to take advice from several sources, including from outside the political system.
I mean we have the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines but not the Royal Army?
What has the Army done to piss off the Royals?
https://twitter.com/dnmerren/status/1121003874658279424?s=21
According to myth, the gods wanted a great wall and a giant offered to build one. But he wanted a huge price, including, I think, Freyja. The gods agreed, persuaded by Loki on condition the whole thing was done in a few days. It seemed impossible, but the giant was very industrious and aided by his massive horse.
The gods were pissed at Loki. The trickster god then turned himself into a lovely female horse to tempt the giant's trusty helper, who duly chased after Loki-mare, (the giant vainly trying to get his horse to come back). The wall was built, and the price was not paid.
Except if you count Loki getting shagged by the giant's horse and then giving birth to the six-legged Sleipnir.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/04/may-breaks-the-record-for-most-unpopular-conservative-minister-ever-in-our-cabinet-league-table.html
Yes, ConHome surveys are infected with Kipper sympathisers, but really even from a Kipper viewpoint, the right seem to be somewhat losing the plot.
Why not just get rid of PMQs? It's a pile of steaming horseshit, embarrassing frankly.
Of course it would be very shoddy work from a resigning PM if the successor they recommended to HMQ immediately proved not to have the Confidence of the House.
So, if Boris is elected leader of the Conservatives and enough Conservative MPs make it known that they do not have confidence in him as PM - to the extent of being willing to vote against him in a Confidence motion - then what does May do? It would be a dereliction of her duty to recommend Boris to HMQ as the next PM knowing he could not command the Confidence of the House.
The safest course for HMQ would be to go for dissolution and a general election, with May still caretaker PM until the GE, and any subsequent negotiations, clarifies the situation, but the FTPA means that would require a Commons vote anyway. It puts HMQ into a terrible position of appointing a PM just so they can fail.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/24/ireland-data-privacy-1270123
Interviews with scores of privacy experts, data watchdogs, academics and regulators in other countries reveal increasing concern that the landmark General Data Protection Regulation, the product of years of wrangling with data companies, is vulnerable because of the one provision on which the tech companies prevailed: That the lead regulator be in the country in which the tech firms have their “data controller” – in most cases, Ireland.
The New Model Army was a force to be reckoned with though. As Cromwell said:
"I had rather have a plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that you call a Gentleman and is nothing else.”
Why after earning that on top of an MPs salary do you need to overclaim dubious expenses?
When it came out I thought back to my time as pharmacist in a similar unit and wondered......
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/04/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-9-johnson-46-per-cent-raab-37-per-cent.html
Given Boris and Raab both comfortably beat Hunt, Javid and Gove in the runoff polls yesterday Boris is now Tory members favourite to succeed May as Tory leader but with Raab snapping at his heels and having an excellent chance of becoming Tory leader if he rather than Boris makes the final 2 sent to the membership
TheScreamingEagles Posts: 73,455
November 2017 edited November 2017
I've always said Johnny Mercer is awesome, more proof:
"Theresa May is jeopardising the 'integrity and credibility' of our party, senior MP says in blistering attack.
"Johnny Mercer has been to war and can recognise chaos when he sees it. The Conservative MP, tipped as a future leader, believes a state of ‘anarchy’ is in danger of engulfing his party.
"In an interview with the Telegraph today, the former Army captain, who served with distinction in Afghanistan, fires a warning shot in Theresa May’s direction that she needs to urgently get a grip on a ‘depressing’ series of events. If she doesn’t, he says, the nation will be wrecked by the “existential threat’ posed by the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street and John McDonnell living next door.
"Mr Mercer’s comments will fuel the crisis overwhelming Mrs May. The disastrous election, the resignation within a week of two Cabinet ministers and the ongoing Westminster sex scandal has led Mr Mercer to conclude that Mrs May’s premiership has reached a ‘critical point’. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/12/theresa-may-jeopardising-integrity-credibility-party-senior/
http://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/post/quote/5651/Comment_1770563
Although he had excellent relations with Protestant States in the Low Countries and Germany so maybe........
1. Parliament will not allow no deal
2. Parliament will not pass a deal except perhaps a customs union
3. Any Tory leader who proposes a customs union will no longer be Tory leader
4. The only way to break the impasse is a General Election. Which Tory/CHUK MPs will not vote for
Ergo, continued stalemate until the Fixed Term Parliaments Act forces a general election in summer 2022. Our MEPs will serve out their full term...
NEW THREAD
Compulsory euthanasia is much more difficult. I was only joking there. The economic fundamentals would be even more benign, although it depends on where you make the 'cut', but it runs into the intractable problem that it is premeditated murder. It would be like bringing back capital punishment, only worse, since the only crime the victims would have committed would be that they have lived too long.
But can one view voluntary versus compulsory euthanasia as similar to the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome?
Again, maybe not.
What’s the climate this afternoon? - not a sensible question.
I suspect that the Brexit Party candidates are united by favouring "feels" over "facts". I don't think evidence-based policy will get much of a look-in.
They might vary a little in their support for genocide, from Claire Fox's "been there, done that" to Farage's "give me ten years or so". For Widdecombe it would have to be advocated by the pope (or Ratizinger at least), but it's not like that's never happened before...