She sounds like something out of Viz meets the Daily Mash.
KUWAITI ACADEMIC CLAIMS GAY MEN HAVE AN 'ANAL WORM' THAT 'FEEDS ON SEMEN' Mariam Al-Sohel argued the anal worm makes gay men attracted to other men
An academic in Kuwait has claimed she has a ‘cure’ for homosexuality saying gay men have an ‘anal worm’ that ‘feeds on semen’.
Mariam Al-Sohel claimed on Scope TV that she believes there are four genders – male, female, feminine gay men and butch lesbians – and she explained how she has found a cure for being gay based on Islamic prophecy.
She said: “I discovered therapeutic suppositories that curb the sexual urges of boys of the third gender.
“As well as the fourth gender, which is butch lesbians. This is all science, so there’s nothing to be ashamed of.
In what subject is her PhD and where did she she get it?
Piss poor due diligence is the cause of this. I am not surprised.
Due diligence on employees is usually one of banks' - and I expect other employers as well - weakest spots. The stories I could tell!
People simply don't take this stuff seriously enough. And given the very tight timetable which CUK gave themselves I'm not surprised they are finding all sorts of stuff now which ought to have been picked up sooner.
To be fair, the rushed timescales of an unexpected election does make for a candidate unsuitability crisis for nearly every party.
Until we get a bit more tolerant of past social media anyway...
The past social media stuff. I always try to take it as a whole ie was it one or two tweets or was this week in week out stuff and also how recent and since then do they appear to still hold the same views.
Jarad o'mara for instance. The problem for me wasnt he made some bad tweets years ago, it was that his real life actions (including very recently) showed a similar outlook. His social media posts just added weight to peoples complaints about their in person interactions.
Mayor Pete is in potential big trouble now. Bernie is advocating votes for terrorists (Jezza up your game son). Media have gone cold on no policies Beto.
Could Creepy Uncle Joe just get it as he is the most sensible sounding credible of all of them?
Could Clinton be made nominee by a contested convention? Is that possible under the complex rules?
One rule to remember about US party conventions: the convention floor itself is sovereign. In other words, no matter what the complex rules elsewhere, if there develops a will to do something, there is a way to do it.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
I think band members change the words these days iirc?
Reminds me of the famous Fawlty Towers episode, the Fire Drill or Germans if you prefer. It's the only one I now cringe at and not because of Basil, but the Major.
Bizarrely, the Daily Telegraph (for I think it was they) recently claimed that our love for Fawlty meant we still support Brexit.
Stupid sods.
It was damned good comedy for all kinds of reasons and in case they'd forgotten it, included one episode with a broadside of Americans and another on psychiatrists. All, of course, deliciously intended to show up Basil's own bombast.
"Those, like you, who think that the new Con leader wouldn't be PM need to answer two questions:
1. Who would be appointed PM in that situation? 2. How a parliamentary consensus would come about among many disparate and competing parties, to consolidate 320+ MPs around support for the person identified in (1), in sufficient time and with sufficient solidity to prompt the Queen to invite them, and not the new Con leader, to become PM?"
1. Corbyn, Clarke, Letwin, Boles, Cooper, Benn seem most likely in your scenario. 2. Any candidate bar Corbyn in this scenario would have to agree to be a caretaker and call a general election within a year, probably less, with a mandate only to extend not decide on the Brexit path. They would be selected by and need the support of the core group who took over parliament in March, and informally lobby MPs across the house for support vs a Tory no dealer.
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...
Or until 31 October when the French say: "Non".
Why do you think the French would cause no deal? It is clearly bad for them and they already have struggles of their own? Do you actually think it is going to happen, or expressing concern that it might and no deal happens by accident?
I think the risk of the EU getting fed up with continued faffing about from Britain with no sign of any breakthrough, either in getting the WA passed or some other political development, is much higher than people are assuming. It may also depend on what is happening within the European Parliament and whether other EU countries feel that they can better manage the risks of no deal than us and that the risks of continuing in this limbo state are worse than the risks of no deal. We are assuming - once again - that Britain is more important to the EU than it is, especially if it continues to behave in the way it has been, seemingly unable either to make up its mind or to find a way to make up its mind.
And the risk of an accidental no deal is probably also higher than is being assumed.
It could well be that the EU tries to force our hand by saying no to a further extension and tells us either to leave with no deal or revoke, assuming that we will choose the latter, and being wrong about that.
Plus I think that there is a non-negligible risk of the French just wanting us out because, however damaging it may be to France in the short-term, they think that Britain out of the EU will give them considerable competitive advantages in both the short and long-terms.
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? - a sensible question.
What’s the climate this afternoon? - not a sensible question.
Sensible when chattin' about the political climate!
Yay, he's going to get expelled from the Tory Party.
Haven't you voted LibDem in the past?
As part of a vote swap with a Lib Dem which helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
Both of us were in seats where our parties weren't going to win so we utilised our votes to help our parties for the best.
When you are sat there with a bright light in your face and Steve Baker cracking his knuckles, do you really think that mitigation is going to keep you safe?
She sounds like something out of Viz meets the Daily Mash.
KUWAITI ACADEMIC CLAIMS GAY MEN HAVE AN 'ANAL WORM' THAT 'FEEDS ON SEMEN' Mariam Al-Sohel argued the anal worm makes gay men attracted to other men
An academic in Kuwait has claimed she has a ‘cure’ for homosexuality saying gay men have an ‘anal worm’ that ‘feeds on semen’.
Mariam Al-Sohel claimed on Scope TV that she believes there are four genders – male, female, feminine gay men and butch lesbians – and she explained how she has found a cure for being gay based on Islamic prophecy.
She said: “I discovered therapeutic suppositories that curb the sexual urges of boys of the third gender.
“As well as the fourth gender, which is butch lesbians. This is all science, so there’s nothing to be ashamed of.
In what subject is her PhD and where did she she get it?
Piss poor due diligence is the cause of this. I am not surprised.
Due diligence on employees is usually one of banks' - and I expect other employers as well - weakest spots. The stories I could tell!
People simply don't take this stuff seriously enough. And given the very tight timetable which CUK gave themselves I'm not surprised they are finding all sorts of stuff now which ought to have been picked up sooner.
I have to admit, the best due diligence is doing doing credit searches on your potential employees, tells you so much.
That is by no means enough. Believe me. You need to follow up every single thing.
Trouble is most employers just view the process as collecting information. They forget to read the damn stuff.
I'm fairly sure that I've never said anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic on Twitter. I had no idea I was so well qualified to be an MEP.
I have a feeling in 10 years the limited pool of talent that want to become an elected official will be tiny after we disqualify all those who have made a dodgy tweet or two in their lifetime.
Yes. It will be down to me, my brother and my husband. In 10 years time PMQs could end up being like a version of Gardeners' Question Time! Still, you could all do worse.
Never tweeted, so I could be leader of the opposition.
She sounds like something out of Viz meets the Daily Mash.
KUWAITI ACADEMIC CLAIMS GAY MEN HAVE AN 'ANAL WORM' THAT 'FEEDS ON SEMEN' Mariam Al-Sohel argued the anal worm makes gay men attracted to other men
An academic in Kuwait has claimed she has a ‘cure’ for homosexuality saying gay men have an ‘anal worm’ that ‘feeds on semen’.
Mariam Al-Sohel claimed on Scope TV that she believes there are four genders – male, female, feminine gay men and butch lesbians – and she explained how she has found a cure for being gay based on Islamic prophecy.
She said: “I discovered therapeutic suppositories that curb the sexual urges of boys of the third gender.
“As well as the fourth gender, which is butch lesbians. This is all science, so there’s nothing to be ashamed of.
In what subject is her PhD and where did she she get it?
Piss poor due diligence is the cause of this. I am not surprised.
Due diligence on employees is usually one of banks' - and I expect other employers as well - weakest spots. The stories I could tell!
People simply don't take this stuff seriously enough. And given the very tight timetable which CUK gave themselves I'm not surprised they are finding all sorts of stuff now which ought to have been picked up sooner.
umm, I think TSE posted this as a general interest story. The suggestion that she is standing in the euro elections is a frivolous one.
I was responding to the points raised about some potential CUK MEPs not having been vetted well enough.
"Those, like you, who think that the new Con leader wouldn't be PM need to answer two questions:
1. Who would be appointed PM in that situation? 2. How a parliamentary consensus would come about among many disparate and competing parties, to consolidate 320+ MPs around support for the person identified in (1), in sufficient time and with sufficient solidity to prompt the Queen to invite them, and not the new Con leader, to become PM?"
1. Corbyn, Clarke, Letwin, Boles, Cooper, Benn seem most likely in your scenario. 2. Any candidate bar Corbyn in this scenario would have to agree to be a caretaker and call a general election within a year, probably less, with a mandate only to extend not decide on the Brexit path. They would be selected by and need the support of the core group who took over parliament in March, and informally lobby MPs across the house for support vs a Tory no dealer.
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? - a sensible question.
What’s the climate this afternoon? - not a sensible question.
Sensible when chattin' about the political climate!
She sounds like something out of Viz meets the Daily Mash.
KUWAITI ACADEMIC CLAIMS GAY MEN HAVE AN 'ANAL WORM' THAT 'FEEDS ON SEMEN' Mariam Al-Sohel argued the anal worm makes gay men attracted to other men
An academic in Kuwait has claimed she has a ‘cure’ for homosexuality saying gay men have an ‘anal worm’ that ‘feeds on semen’.
Mariam Al-Sohel claimed on Scope TV that she believes there are four genders – male, female, feminine gay men and butch lesbians – and she explained how she has found a cure for being gay based on Islamic prophecy.
She said: “I discovered therapeutic suppositories that curb the sexual urges of boys of the third gender.
“As well as the fourth gender, which is butch lesbians. This is all science, so there’s nothing to be ashamed of.
In what subject is her PhD and where did she she get it?
Piss poor due diligence is the cause of this. I am not surprised.
Due diligence on employees is usually one of banks' - and I expect other employers as well - weakest spots. The stories I could tell!
People simply don't take this stuff seriously enough. And given the very tight timetable which CUK gave themselves I'm not surprised they are finding all sorts of stuff now which ought to have been picked up sooner.
To be fair, the rushed timescales of an unexpected election does make for a candidate unsuitability crisis for nearly every party.
Until we get a bit more tolerant of past social media anyway...
The past social media stuff. I always try to take it as a whole ie was it one or two tweets or was this week in week out stuff and also how recent and since then do they appear to still hold the same views.
Jarad o'mara for instance. The problem for me wasnt he made some bad tweets years ago, it was that his real life actions (including very recently) showed a similar outlook. His social media posts just added weight to peoples complaints about their in person interactions.
Yes, that is fair. An off colour one off "joke" is one thing, but when it is a systematic pattern and also in fleshworld it is different.
She sounds like something out of Viz meets the Daily Mash.
KUWAITI ACADEMIC CLAIMS GAY MEN HAVE AN 'ANAL WORM' THAT 'FEEDS ON SEMEN' Mariam Al-Sohel argued the anal worm makes gay men attracted to other men
An academic in Kuwait has claimed she has a ‘cure’ for homosexuality saying gay men have an ‘anal worm’ that ‘feeds on semen’.
Mariam Al-Sohel claimed on Scope TV that she believes there are four genders – male, female, feminine gay men and butch lesbians – and she explained how she has found a cure for being gay based on Islamic prophecy.
She said: “I discovered therapeutic suppositories that curb the sexual urges of boys of the third gender.
“As well as the fourth gender, which is butch lesbians. This is all science, so there’s nothing to be ashamed of.
In what subject is her PhD and where did she she get it?
Piss poor due diligence is the cause of this. I am not surprised.
Due diligence on employees is usually one of banks' - and I expect other employers as well - weakest spots. The stories I could tell!
People simply don't take this stuff seriously enough. And given the very tight timetable which CUK gave themselves I'm not surprised they are finding all sorts of stuff now which ought to have been picked up sooner.
I have to admit, the best due diligence is doing doing credit searches on your potential employees, tells you so much.
That is by no means enough. Believe me. You need to follow up every single thing.
Trouble is most employers just view the process as collecting information. They forget to read the damn stuff.
Yup. Reading the credit searches was the highlight of my job.
I was raised by a mother who views debt, apart from a mortgage, as the eighth deadliest sin.
I'm fairly sure that I've never said anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic on Twitter. I had no idea I was so well qualified to be an MEP.
I have a feeling in 10 years the limited pool of talent that want to become an elected official will be tiny after we disqualify all those who have made a dodgy tweet or two in their lifetime.
Yes. It will be down to me, my brother and my husband. In 10 years time PMQs could end up being like a version of Gardeners' Question Time! Still, you could all do worse.
Never tweeted, so I could be leader of the opposition.
Asking searching questions about chocolate.
I somehow managed to avoid "Labour candidate advocates extinction of humankind" headlines. I guess if I was standing for the European Parliament there might be a bit more of a focus on my online presence. Best I'm not standing!
Yay, he's going to get expelled from the Tory Party.
Haven't you voted LibDem in the past?
As part of a vote swap with a Lib Dem which helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
Both of us were in seats where our parties weren't going to win so we utilised our votes to help our parties for the best.
When you are sat there with a bright light in your face and Steve Baker cracking his knuckles, do you really think that mitigation is going to keep you safe?
Yes. I’m from Yorkshire, Steve Baker doesn’t scare me.
Only a man with erectile dysfunction calls themselves a hard man.
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...
Or until 31 October when the French say: "Non".
Why do you think the French would cause no deal? It is clearly bad for them and they already have struggles of their own? Do you actually think it is going to happen, or expressing concern that it might and no deal happens by accident?
I think the risk of the EU getting fed up with continued faffing about from Britain with no sign of any breakthrough, either in getting the WA passed or some other political development, is much higher than people are assuming. It may also depend on what is happening within the European Parliament and whether other EU countries feel that they can better manage the risks of no deal than us and that the risks of continuing in this limbo state are worse than the risks of no deal. We are assuming - once again - that Britain is more important to the EU than it is, especially if it continues to behave in the way it has been, seemingly unable either to make up its mind or to find a way to make up its mind.
And the risk of an accidental no deal is probably also higher than is being assumed.
It could well be that the EU tries to force our hand by saying no to a further extension and tells us either to leave with no deal or revoke, assuming that we will choose the latter, and being wrong about that.
Plus I think that there is a non-negligible risk of the French just wanting us out because, however damaging it may be to France in the short-term, they think that Britain out of the EU will give them considerable competitive advantages in both the short and long-terms.
Whilst I agree the EU are fed up, their actions so far have all been rational rather than emotional, I don't see this changing. I think they are relatively content with delay and further extension, this is costing them very little economically or politically.
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’. "
I'm fairly sure that I've never said anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic on Twitter. I had no idea I was so well qualified to be an MEP.
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.
Those, like you, who think that the new Con leader wouldn't be PM need to answer two questions:
1. Who would be appointed PM in that situation? 2. How a parliamentary consensus would come about among many disparate and competing parties, to consolidate 320+ MPs around support for the person identified in (1), in sufficient time and with sufficient solidity to prompt the Queen to invite them, and not the new Con leader, to become PM?
1) Theresa May would remain Prime Minister until a clear replacement emerged. It would be her duty not to resign in those circumstances.
2) There would then be a period of horsetrading. If the new Conservative leader transparently did not command a majority (a racing certainty for a no-dealer), they would have no priority. I’d see as most likely a one item government to be formed under a safe and respected elder statesman - very possibly Ken Clarke - or just possibly Philip Hammond. But it would be very volatile and several other possible governments would also be in the mix.
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’. "
"Those, like you, who think that the new Con leader wouldn't be PM need to answer two questions:
1. Who would be appointed PM in that situation? 2. How a parliamentary consensus would come about among many disparate and competing parties, to consolidate 320+ MPs around support for the person identified in (1), in sufficient time and with sufficient solidity to prompt the Queen to invite them, and not the new Con leader, to become PM?"
1. Corbyn, Clarke, Letwin, Boles, Cooper, Benn seem most likely in your scenario. 2. Any candidate bar Corbyn in this scenario would have to agree to be a caretaker and call a general election within a year, probably less, with a mandate only to extend not decide on the Brexit path. They would be selected by and need the support of the core group who took over parliament in March, and informally lobby MPs across the house for support vs a Tory no dealer.
That seems a little fanciful, if I may say so.
In December it would have been extremely fanciful to imagine Letwin installing himself as the "jobbing prime minister". If (and only if) it is the only way to stop no-deal one of that group will do it more formally next time and command the confidence of the house. They will pick other alternative actions first so I agree it is unlikely but if that is the only way forward it would happen.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
What’s the weather this afternoon? - a sensible question.
What’s the climate this afternoon? - not a sensible question.
And also, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows but you DO need a good understanding of physics and chemistry and biology and mathematics, plus a sophisticated modelling algorithm and lashings of computer power, in order to opine with any authority on how the climate is likely to change over time, the reasons for that, and what might feasibly be done about it. Well, unless you're Nigel Lawson or Peter Alliss.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
I see. I thought it was Philip Larkin's poem about winning a Conservative majority, which begins with the verse:-
"Prison for strikers, Bring back the cat, Throw out the ni**ers, How about that?"
The Dems need to winnow down this field ASAP. At the moment even a debate is going to turn into a farce. The long and increasingly bitter battle with Sanders did Clinton no good whatsoever. The Dems cannot risk a repeat.
Beating an incumbent President is hard. Beating one as reckless as Trump is going to be even harder. I doubt a sitting President has put as much pressure on the Fed since FDR in the early 30s and for far less reason. His constant pressure for lower interest rates and looser money will have some effect as will the reckless deficit spending. Add a likely trade deal with China and the Dems need to be focused and united. At the moment they look the exact opposite.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
Apparently bigotry from individual rally attendees mean the Brexit Party is awful, but Anti-Semitism at the highest levels of the Labour Party should not impugn them.
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.
Those, like you, who think that the new Con leader wouldn't be PM need to answer two questions:
1. Who would be appointed PM in that situation? 2. How a parliamentary consensus would come about among many disparate and competing parties, to consolidate 320+ MPs around support for the person identified in (1), in sufficient time and with sufficient solidity to prompt the Queen to invite them, and not the new Con leader, to become PM?
1) Theresa May would remain Prime Minister until a clear replacement emerged. It would be her duty not to resign in those circumstances.
2) There would then be a period of horsetrading. If the new Conservative leader transparently did not command a majority (a racing certainty for a no-dealer), they would have no priority. I’d see as most likely a one item government to be formed under a safe and respected elder statesman - very possibly Ken Clarke - or just possibly Philip Hammond. But it would be very volatile and several other possible governments would also be in the mix.
I'm sorry but this is fantasy. Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM. Theresa May won't stay on once the Tory leadership election result is announced, she will resign in the (correct) assumption that the Palace will act in accordance with precedent and invite her successor as Con leader to become PM. The only possible exception to that is if it's already clear that there is a majority supporting an alternative PM - which as your post makes clear, there wouldn't be.
The Palace would want to stay above politics and their position would be that it would be for the Commons to demonstrate that it had no confidence in the new PM, given that it did have confidence in the previous Con leader.
I actually had pizza for dinner last night (first time in ages) and I must admit I did not even consider putting pineapple on it. It does seem an odd thing to do.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
Yay, he's going to get expelled from the Tory Party.
Along with over half the membership and almost half the councillors?
Yes. That way those who remain in the party are Tories who actually vote Tory. Or is voting Tory now some sort of optional extra for Tory party members?
Funnily enough as far as I can see from the Tory Party rule book, voting for another party is not grounds for being thrown out. Only Standing against the Tory party is grounds for that. Although I suppose they could use the catch-all of 'bringing the party into disrepute'. But on those grounds they might as well expel May as well.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
Yay, he's going to get expelled from the Tory Party.
Along with over half the membership and almost half the councillors?
Yes. That way those who remain in the party are Tories who actually vote Tory. Or is voting Tory now some sort of optional extra for Tory party members?
Funnily enough as far as I can see from the Tory Party rule book, voting for another party is not grounds for being thrown out. Only Standing against the Tory party is grounds for that. Although I suppose they could use the catch-all of 'bringing the party into disrepute'. But on those grounds they might as well expel May as well.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
Which track was that?
If that's Isam's quote it's from In the Flesh on The Wall album.
An album beautifully summarised by David Gilmour as 'a bit of a whinge.'
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
"I'm sorry but this is fantasy. Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM. Theresa May won't stay on once the Tory leadership election result is announced, she will resign in the (correct) assumption that the Palace will act in accordance with precedent and invite her successor as Con leader to become PM. The only possible exception to that is if it's already clear that there is a majority supporting an alternative PM - which as your post makes clear, there wouldn't be.
The Palace would want to stay above politics and their position would be that it would be for the Commons to demonstrate that it had no confidence in the new PM, given that it did have confidence in the previous Con leader."
Boris is favourite, lets say he wins and promises no deal. I would expect around a dozen tory MPs to resign the whip (numerous journalists have said cabinet ministers are included in that group), if that happened do you still think the Queen will be asked to make someone PM who will lose an immediate confidence vote?
Maybe the pro European, anti Boris MPs would bottle it and stay, but that does not seem the current mood of parliament, nor are they likely to feel at all welcome in that Conservative party.
"And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a COON Who let all of this riffraff into the room? There's one smoking a joint, and that one's got SPOTS If I had my way I'D HAVE ALL OF YOU SHOT!"
Excerpts from Farage's forthcoming rally speech
Is that Philip Larkin?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
Yay, he's going to get expelled from the Tory Party.
Haven't you voted LibDem in the past?
As part of a vote swap with a Lib Dem which helped the Tories gain a seat from Labour.
Both of us were in seats where our parties weren't going to win so we utilised our votes to help our parties for the best.
When you are sat there with a bright light in your face and Steve Baker cracking his knuckles, do you really think that mitigation is going to keep you safe?
Yes. I’m from Yorkshire, Steve Baker doesn’t scare me.
Only a man with erectile dysfunction calls themselves a hard man.
She sounds like something out of Viz meets the Daily Mash.
KUWAITI ACADEMIC CLAIMS GAY MEN HAVE AN 'ANAL WORM' THAT 'FEEDS ON SEMEN' Mariam Al-Sohel argued the anal worm makes gay men attracted to other men
An academic in Kuwait has claimed she has a ‘cure’ for homosexuality saying gay men have an ‘anal worm’ that ‘feeds on semen’.
Mariam Al-Sohel claimed on Scope TV that she believes there are four genders – male, female, feminine gay men and butch lesbians – and she explained how she has found a cure for being gay based on Islamic prophecy.
She said: “I discovered therapeutic suppositories that curb the sexual urges of boys of the third gender.
“As well as the fourth gender, which is butch lesbians. This is all science, so there’s nothing to be ashamed of.
In what subject is her PhD and where did she she get it?
Piss poor due diligence is the cause of this. I am not surprised.
Due diligence on employees is usually one of banks' - and I expect other employers as well - weakest spots. The stories I could tell!
People simply don't take this stuff seriously enough. And given the very tight timetable which CUK gave themselves I'm not surprised they are finding all sorts of stuff now which ought to have been picked up sooner.
umm, I think TSE posted this as a general interest story. The suggestion that she is standing in the euro elections is a frivolous one.
I was responding to the points raised about some potential CUK MEPs not having been vetted well enough.
The role of Guv of the Bank of England has gone out to headhunters.
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.
Those, like you, who think that the new Con leader wouldn't be PM need to answer two questions:
1. Who would be appointed PM in that situation? 2. How a parliamentary consensus would come about among many disparate and competing parties, to consolidate 320+ MPs around support for the person identified in (1), in sufficient time and with sufficient solidity to prompt the Queen to invite them, and not the new Con leader, to become PM?
1) Theresa May would remain Prime Minister until a clear replacement emerged. It would be her duty not to resign in those circumstances.
2) There would then be a period of horsetrading. If the new Conservative leader transparently did not command a majority (a racing certainty for a no-dealer), they would have no priority. I’d see as most likely a one item government to be formed under a safe and respected elder statesman - very possibly Ken Clarke - or just possibly Philip Hammond. But it would be very volatile and several other possible governments would also be in the mix.
I'm sorry but this is fantasy. Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM. Theresa May won't stay on once the Tory leadership election result is announced, she will resign in the (correct) assumption that the Palace will act in accordance with precedent and invite her successor as Con leader to become PM. The only possible exception to that is if it's already clear that there is a majority supporting an alternative PM - which as your post makes clear, there wouldn't be.
The Palace would want to stay above politics and their position would be that it would be for the Commons to demonstrate that it had no confidence in the new PM, given that it did have confidence in the previous Con leader.
The Conservatives do not have a right to replace Prime Ministers. If it were apparent that a Conservative leader would not command the confidence of Parliament (and if it were a no-dealer it would be), he would not be called. I am at a loss to understand why you think he would be.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
The safest option is to go with the new governing party leader, which kicks the question of confidence to the Commons, which is where the Palace would say it belongs.
The only exception to this is if the Commons has already - somehow - found a majority for either the LotO or a third candidate. In reality, I don't see any possibility of either of these scenarios. Corbyn wouldn't accept any other PM, should the ball land outside the Tories' grasp, and I don't see TIG or the DUP or (ex-)Con rebels putting Corbyn into No 10.
So the likely outcome would be a VoNC in the new PM, no alternative govt being formed (which would validate the Palace's decision to not actively oust the sitting party), and a general election. However, by the time the election could be held, October 31 would have come and gone.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
The safest option is to go with the new governing party leader, which kicks the question of confidence to the Commons, which is where the Palace would say it belongs.
The only exception to this is if the Commons has already - somehow - found a majority for either the LotO or a third candidate. In reality, I don't see any possibility of either of these scenarios. Corbyn wouldn't accept any other PM, should the ball land outside the Tories' grasp, and I don't see TIG or the DUP or (ex-)Con rebels putting Corbyn into No 10.
So the likely outcome would be a VoNC in the new PM, no alternative govt being formed (which would validate the Palace's decision to not actively oust the sitting party), and a general election. However, by the time the election could be held, October 31 would have come and gone.
In your scenario what would happen if say just before the result of the contest to succeed May 20 Tory MPs publicly announced they would resign the whip if Boris or a No Dealer were to win.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
Apparently bigotry from individual rally attendees mean the Brexit Party is awful, but Anti-Semitism at the highest levels of the Labour Party should not impugn them.
Yes, a riddle of the first order. Then again, the way that certain people are intensely relaxed about racism except when it manifests as antisemitism in the Labour Party, at which point they become the doughtiest of battlers for progressive enlightenment, this too is one of the great mysteries of our times.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
Because May would have already resigned, in the expectation that her successor as party leader will be called upon to be appointed PM. That is what happens when you are ousted as party leader.
What odds would you have got on the Brexit party banning two candidates for being racist idiots on the first day after they are announced? And on the CUK party?
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
The safest option is to go with the new governing party leader, which kicks the question of confidence to the Commons, which is where the Palace would say it belongs.
The only exception to this is if the Commons has already - somehow - found a majority for either the LotO or a third candidate. In reality, I don't see any possibility of either of these scenarios. Corbyn wouldn't accept any other PM, should the ball land outside the Tories' grasp, and I don't see TIG or the DUP or (ex-)Con rebels putting Corbyn into No 10.
So the likely outcome would be a VoNC in the new PM, no alternative govt being formed (which would validate the Palace's decision to not actively oust the sitting party), and a general election. However, by the time the election could be held, October 31 would have come and gone.
In your scenario what would happen if say just before the result of the contest to succeed May 20 Tory MPs publicly announced they would resign the whip if Boris or a No Dealer were to win.
That was the last paragraph in the comment you replied to. The exception would be if those 20 MPs were willing to support Corbyn as PM, in which case he'd become PM for long enough to gain a further extension. His government, however, surely couldn't last long in this parliament.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
Because May would have already resigned, in the expectation that her successor as party leader will be called upon to be appointed PM. That is what happens when you are ousted as party leader.
Cameron didn't formally resign as Prime Minister until there was a replacement PM.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
So rebel Tories unwilling to back Raab or Boris or whoever would have a choice between supporting them or going into a General Election having voted against the Tory leader as PM.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
So rebel Tories unwilling to back Raab or Boris or whoever would have a choice between supporting them or going into a General Election having voted against the Tory leader as PM.
Mr Meeks, as I understand it, the incumbent government has the right to remain in office (and de facto appoint the PM), unless it can be demonstrated there is an alternative that commands a majority. It is possible that if an ardent Leaver is elected there will be those Tory MPs who refuse to give that support, but it would be tantamount to resigning the whip.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
So rebel Tories unwilling to back Raab or Boris or whoever would have a choice between supporting them or going into a General Election having voted against the Tory leader as PM.
... and being deselected
Don't rule out the possibility that the new Tory leader could collude in this, allowing the party to be simultaneously in government and in opposition.
Apparently bigotry from individual rally attendees mean the Brexit Party is awful, but Anti-Semitism at the highest levels of the Labour Party should not impugn them.
Yes, a riddle of the first order. Then again, the way that certain people are intensely relaxed about racism except when it manifests as antisemitism in the Labour Party, at which point they become the doughtiest of battlers for progressive enlightenment, this too is one of the great mysteries of our times.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
So rebel Tories unwilling to back Raab or Boris or whoever would have a choice between supporting them or going into a General Election having voted against the Tory leader as PM.
... and being deselected
Don't rule out the possibility that the new Tory leader could collude in this, allowing the party to be simultaneously in government and in opposition.
How long would the Scottish independence negotiations take.....can't see them going any more smoothly than Brexit.
I honestly think they would be at least an order of magnitude more complex to negotiate. They would make Brexit look about as simple as boiling an egg.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
Because May would have already resigned, in the expectation that her successor as party leader will be called upon to be appointed PM. That is what happens when you are ousted as party leader.
But could she not carry on in a caretaker capacity until a General Election occurs which hopefully changes the parliamentary arithmetic and breaks the deadlock?
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
Because May would have already resigned, in the expectation that her successor as party leader will be called upon to be appointed PM. That is what happens when you are ousted as party leader.
It will be interesting to see which of the two main UK "fake grievance parties", the SNP or the Brexit Nationalist Party manage to con enough of the electorate to achieve their aims.
How long would the Scottish independence negotiations take.....can't see them going any more smoothly than Brexit.
I honestly think they would be at least an order of magnitude more complex to negotiate. They would make Brexit look about as simple as boiling an egg.
No worries, we have been assured that what the rUK tries to do is irrelevant when the Scots vote for independence, its totally different to the EU being vital to untangling ourselves from the EU. Somehow.
I'm sorry but this is fantasy. Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM. Theresa May won't stay on once the Tory leadership election result is announced, she will resign in the (correct) assumption that the Palace will act in accordance with precedent and invite her successor as Con leader to become PM. The only possible exception to that is if it's already clear that there is a majority supporting an alternative PM - which as your post makes clear, there wouldn't be.
The Palace would want to stay above politics and their position would be that it would be for the Commons to demonstrate that it had no confidence in the new PM, given that it did have confidence in the previous Con leader.
The Conservatives do not have a right to replace Prime Ministers. If it were apparent that a Conservative leader would not command the confidence of Parliament (and if it were a no-dealer it would be), he would not be called. I am at a loss to understand why you think he would be.
Surely, convention would be to invite the (new) leader of the largest party to form a government and seek the confidence of the house? And I'm not as sure as Alistair that it wouldn't be given.. much as the whole Tory party backed TM a short while after narrowly failing to oust her as party leader. If the consequence is pretty much automatic deselection, and given the collective timidity of the current House when it comes to the crunch, I could see even BoJo getting through a VOC, with the voting down being left to votes on the issue at hand - ie the same impasse we have now.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
Because May would have already resigned, in the expectation that her successor as party leader will be called upon to be appointed PM. That is what happens when you are ousted as party leader.
It will be interesting to see which of the two main UK "fake grievance parties", the SNP or the Brexit Nationalist Party manage to con enough of the electorate to achieve their aims.
Leaving aside the characterisation of either, the SNP are far more likely to achieve their aims.
And the DUP would be very upset, though arent they always, at not being recognised as a main UK fake grievance party.
Note - fake grievance parties can also have legitimate grievances, but like porn vs art I think we can mostly tell the difference.
Once a governing party has elected a new leader, that person will be invited to become PM.
{snip}
The Palace would want to stay above politics...
If enough members of the governing party make it clear they do not support that person as PM, the path of least resistance for the Palace wouldn't be to invite that person to form a government.
The Palace still has to invite someone and has only three options: - The new governing party leader; - The LotO; - Someone else.
Why? The existing PM would remain until someone else emerges with the confidence of the HoC, or until the HoC decides to call an election or the parliamentary term expires. Impasses can continue for a long time.
Because May would have already resigned, in the expectation that her successor as party leader will be called upon to be appointed PM. That is what happens when you are ousted as party leader.
But could she not carry on in a caretaker capacity until a General Election occurs which hopefully changes the parliamentary arithmetic and breaks the deadlock?
Why would she do that?
We're getting far too distracted by the detail of procedure here. The idea that a PM, with virtually no political authority, could continue to squat in No 10, after a successor as party leader had been elected is for the birds. The public outcry would be immense and she probably wouldn't even be able to maintain a government herself. Indeed, she'd probably be at risk of being expelled from her party.
If the new leader couldn't gain the confidence of the House, that would be his or her problem. There is no constitutional requirement for a PM to have to demonstrate that they *already* have the House's confidence when they are appointed. Cameron didn't in 2010, nor Wilson in March 1974.
Comments
Jarad o'mara for instance. The problem for me wasnt he made some bad tweets years ago, it was that his real life actions (including very recently) showed a similar outlook. His social media posts just added weight to peoples complaints about their in person interactions.
However, while it could, it won't.
Reminds me of the famous Fawlty Towers episode, the Fire Drill or Germans if you prefer. It's the only one I now cringe at and not because of Basil, but the Major.
Bizarrely, the Daily Telegraph (for I think it was they) recently claimed that our love for Fawlty meant we still support Brexit.
Stupid sods.
It was damned good comedy for all kinds of reasons and in case they'd forgotten it, included one episode with a broadside of Americans and another on psychiatrists. All, of course, deliciously intended to show up Basil's own bombast.
1. Who would be appointed PM in that situation?
2. How a parliamentary consensus would come about among many disparate and competing parties, to consolidate 320+ MPs around support for the person identified in (1), in sufficient time and with sufficient solidity to prompt the Queen to invite them, and not the new Con leader, to become PM?"
1. Corbyn, Clarke, Letwin, Boles, Cooper, Benn seem most likely in your scenario.
2. Any candidate bar Corbyn in this scenario would have to agree to be a caretaker and call a general election within a year, probably less, with a mandate only to extend not decide on the Brexit path. They would be selected by and need the support of the core group who took over parliament in March, and informally lobby MPs across the house for support vs a Tory no dealer.
And the risk of an accidental no deal is probably also higher than is being assumed.
It could well be that the EU tries to force our hand by saying no to a further extension and tells us either to leave with no deal or revoke, assuming that we will choose the latter, and being wrong about that.
Plus I think that there is a non-negligible risk of the French just wanting us out because, however damaging it may be to France in the short-term, they think that Britain out of the EU will give them considerable competitive advantages in both the short and long-terms.
https://twitter.com/FawltyTowersFan/status/1093419252483325952
Useful advice for Joe Biden?
Trouble is most employers just view the process as collecting information. They forget to read the damn stuff.
Asking searching questions about chocolate.
I was responding to the points raised about some potential CUK MEPs not having been vetted well enough.
I was raised by a mother who views debt, apart from a mortgage, as the eighth deadliest sin.
Only a man with erectile dysfunction calls themselves a hard man.
2) There would then be a period of horsetrading. If the new Conservative leader transparently did not command a majority (a racing certainty for a no-dealer), they would have no priority. I’d see as most likely a one item government to be formed under a safe and respected elder statesman - very possibly Ken Clarke - or just possibly Philip Hammond. But it would be very volatile and several other possible governments would also be in the mix.
Even more squeaky bum time for the Cons numbers if this goes to a by-election
https://order-order.com/2019/04/24/bercow-initiates-recall-petition-tory-mp-chris-davies/
There. I’ve said it. Have I summoned it?
The character of Pink in The Wall by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd
"Prison for strikers,
Bring back the cat,
Throw out the ni**ers,
How about that?"
Nor was Larkin joking.
Beating an incumbent President is hard. Beating one as reckless as Trump is going to be even harder. I doubt a sitting President has put as much pressure on the Fed since FDR in the early 30s and for far less reason. His constant pressure for lower interest rates and looser money will have some effect as will the reckless deficit spending. Add a likely trade deal with China and the Dems need to be focused and united. At the moment they look the exact opposite.
The Palace would want to stay above politics and their position would be that it would be for the Commons to demonstrate that it had no confidence in the new PM, given that it did have confidence in the previous Con leader.
Huge moment in British politics
Looked it up, ‘In the flesh’
https://www.politicalpartydb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/UK_CONSERVATIVE_PARTY_CONSTITUTION_2009.pdf
An album beautifully summarised by David Gilmour as 'a bit of a whinge.'
The Palace would want to stay above politics and their position would be that it would be for the Commons to demonstrate that it had no confidence in the new PM, given that it did have confidence in the previous Con leader."
Boris is favourite, lets say he wins and promises no deal. I would expect around a dozen tory MPs to resign the whip (numerous journalists have said cabinet ministers are included in that group), if that happened do you still think the Queen will be asked to make someone PM who will lose an immediate confidence vote?
Maybe the pro European, anti Boris MPs would bottle it and stay, but that does not seem the current mood of parliament, nor are they likely to feel at all welcome in that Conservative party.
Word is they would like a woman.
CV up to date?
VONC in May's Gov't is still looming on the horizon.
- The new governing party leader;
- The LotO;
- Someone else.
The safest option is to go with the new governing party leader, which kicks the question of confidence to the Commons, which is where the Palace would say it belongs.
The only exception to this is if the Commons has already - somehow - found a majority for either the LotO or a third candidate. In reality, I don't see any possibility of either of these scenarios. Corbyn wouldn't accept any other PM, should the ball land outside the Tories' grasp, and I don't see TIG or the DUP or (ex-)Con rebels putting Corbyn into No 10.
So the likely outcome would be a VoNC in the new PM, no alternative govt being formed (which would validate the Palace's decision to not actively oust the sitting party), and a general election. However, by the time the election could be held, October 31 would have come and gone.
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1121023834453364737
Mr Meeks, as I understand it, the incumbent government has the right to remain in office (and de facto appoint the PM), unless it can be demonstrated there is an alternative that commands a majority. It is possible that if an ardent Leaver is elected there will be those Tory MPs who refuse to give that support, but it would be tantamount to resigning the whip.
And the DUP would be very upset, though arent they always, at not being recognised as a main UK fake grievance party.
Note - fake grievance parties can also have legitimate grievances, but like porn vs art I think we can mostly tell the difference.
Fair play to her.
We're getting far too distracted by the detail of procedure here. The idea that a PM, with virtually no political authority, could continue to squat in No 10, after a successor as party leader had been elected is for the birds. The public outcry would be immense and she probably wouldn't even be able to maintain a government herself. Indeed, she'd probably be at risk of being expelled from her party.
If the new leader couldn't gain the confidence of the House, that would be his or her problem. There is no constitutional requirement for a PM to have to demonstrate that they *already* have the House's confidence when they are appointed. Cameron didn't in 2010, nor Wilson in March 1974.