The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
I see like your fellow SCons that you're accommodating the new reality. Disappointing.
Perhaps the ott eulogising of Boris is directly responsible for the over the top nonsense. I don't think I've seen such top notch arslikhan since the first flowering of Ruthiemania.
Still the new PM will still have to win a vote of confidence in the HOC, as decided by MPs including one in whose election he had a say, that is arrant nonsense in a representative democracy.
And what about McMillan in 1957, Douglas-Hume in 1963, Callaghan in 1976, Major in 1990, Brown in 2007 and May in 2016? Changing PM is the course of a parliament is a common feature of our democracy.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Indeed, but iSam seems to be using the word to mean "submit to".
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Indeed, but iSam seems to be using the word to mean "submit to".
I took it from this, where he seems to think we shouldn’t have the POTUS foisted on us. Didn’t actually say ‘recognise’ though I admit
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
As a republican I accept the Queen is head of state. I do not accept her right to be head of state. They are different statements, Pullman is saying he does not view the process as legitimate, plenty of people on the right said the same about Brown taking over. I don't agree with Pullman about the process (would agree about Boris' fitness for the office) but it is not an anti democratic or controversial position.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
As a republican I accept the Queen is head of state. I do not accept her right to be head of state. They are different statements, Pullman is saying he does not view the process as legitimate, plenty of people on the right said the same about Brown taking over. I don't agree with Pullman about the process (would agree about Boris' fitness for the office) but it is not an anti democratic or controversial position.
Even though she is essentially head of state due to democratic mandate in the North?
I couldnt care less about either and doubt most people do. Taking cocaine and actively creating stricter drug enforcement is pretty low though.
That’s nonsense. If he had got caught speeding when he was 20 would it be wrong for him to introduce stricter speed limits 20 years later. Or can he not introduce new environmental rules now because he didn’t do he recycling in the 1990s?
No idea but leaving aside the merits of the issue, Michael Gove is 51 so 20 years ago he was 31. This is not like David Cameron having the odd smoke at school, at half that age, when the term youthful indiscretion might have been appropriate.
So nobody changes between 30s and 50s?
How come Labour won the 2017 election as far as those in their 30s voted but those in the 50s voted Tory?
31 year olds are closer to 18 year olds both numerically and by voting than they are to 51 year olds.
Stop knee-jerking and read what I said, which was merely to point out that whatever Gove did get up to, it was hardly a youthful indiscretion as the propagandists would have it.
31 is youthful. Especially relative to 51.
Where do you draw the line on youthful?
That would depend on whether you ask Smithson Jnr. , Smithson Snr. ,
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
As a republican I accept the Queen is head of state. I do not accept her right to be head of state. They are different statements, Pullman is saying he does not view the process as legitimate, plenty of people on the right said the same about Brown taking over. I don't agree with Pullman about the process (would agree about Boris' fitness for the office) but it is not an anti democratic or controversial position.
The Queen is Head of State because of statute. If you accept the right of Parliament to make laws on taxes, etc, then it seems weird not to accept the right of Parliament to make laws on the Head of State.
It's been 331 years since the Monarchists lost that battle.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Indeed, but iSam seems to be using the word to mean "submit to".
I took it from this, where he seems to think we shouldn’t have the POTUS foisted on us. Didn’t actually say ‘recognise’ though I admit
Foreign heads of State visit the UK all the time. The US is our principal trading partner and most important military ally. The idea that we should not invite their Head of State is for the birds.
Still the new PM will still have to win a vote of confidence in the HOC, as decided by MPs including one in whose election he had a say, that is arrant nonsense in a representative democracy.
And what about McMillan in 1957, Douglas-Hume in 1963, Callaghan in 1976, Major in 1990, Brown in 2007 and May in 2016? Changing PM is the course of a parliament is a common feature of our democracy.
Quite. How else is a new Prime Minister to be chosen, if the last one resigns? Sooner or late, Johnson will have to submit himself to the judgement of the voters. That's how our system works.
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
I'd take issue with Boris - the problem is that we won't KNOW what people want, because the people aren't being asked. About 160,000 people are being asked, well short of the 40m or so in the electorate.
And whilst I know we've got the same system, the US people didn't want Trump. They preferred Hillary Clinton, but the electoral system doesn't reward highest votes, only highest 'points'.
Off topic question for the PB brains trusts - Post war, we have Douglas-Home, Callaghan and Brown all being PM without winning a General Election. Do you consider Theresa May should, or should not fall into that category? [1]
[1] I know, I know. It depends on the definition of 'Win'. If it means their party gets a majority, then TM should be in the same grouping as those three. If we define 'win' as largest party in Parliament then she wouldn't. To be fair to Brown, if we defined 'Win' as preventing the other lot from getting a majority arguably Brown could be said to have 'won' in 2010 as a Lab/Lib minority government headed by him wasn't completely off the cards.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Indeed, but iSam seems to be using the word to mean "submit to".
I took it from this, where he seems to think we shouldn’t have the POTUS foisted on us. Didn’t actually say ‘recognise’ though I admit
Foreign heads of State visit the UK all the time. The US is our principal trading partner and most important military ally. The idea that we should not invite their Head of State is for the birds.
Still the new PM will still have to win a vote of confidence in the HOC, as decided by MPs including one in whose election he had a say, that is arrant nonsense in a representative democracy.
And what about McMillan in 1957, Douglas-Hume in 1963, Callaghan in 1976, Major in 1990, Brown in 2007 and May in 2016? Changing PM is the course of a parliament is a common feature of our democracy.
Quite. How else is a new Prime Minister to be chosen, if the last one resigns? Sooner or late, Johnson will have to submit himself to the judgement of the voters. That's how our system works.
It is how our system works and it stinks. The PM now has a massive amount of executive power. Johnson is advocating a position (No Deal) that is potentially massively destructive to the UK economy. It is possible that there are a majority of voters who think this is a risk worth taking. It should be put to an immediate ballot.
Incidentally, just because our system is a particular way, does not mean to say we should all shut up and accept it. One of my principle objections to Brexit is that there are many more important constitutional questions of democratic deficit that need addressing. Parties being able to change PM without almost immediate endorsement form the electorate is one of those.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Fundamentally decent person, but needs more experience. Still would have been better than the philandering charlatan though, but hey the country gets what the country deserves.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
As a republican I accept the Queen is head of state. I do not accept her right to be head of state. They are different statements, Pullman is saying he does not view the process as legitimate, plenty of people on the right said the same about Brown taking over. I don't agree with Pullman about the process (would agree about Boris' fitness for the office) but it is not an anti democratic or controversial position.
The Queen is Head of State because of statute. If you accept the right of Parliament to make laws on taxes, etc, then it seems weird not to accept the right of Parliament to make laws on the Head of State.
It's been 331 years since the Monarchists lost that battle.
Technical point, but if you repealed the Bill of Rights and the Succession to the Crown Acts she would still be the Head of State under common law.
Fundamentally decent person, but needs more experience. Still would have been better than the philandering charlatan though, but hey the country gets what the country deserves.
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
I'd take issue with Boris - the problem is that we won't KNOW what people want, because the people aren't being asked. About 160,000 people are being asked, well short of the 40m or so in the electorate.
And whilst I know we've got the same system, the US people didn't want Trump. They preferred Hillary Clinton, but the electoral system doesn't reward highest votes, only highest 'points'.
Off topic question for the PB brains trusts - Post war, we have Douglas-Home, Callaghan and Brown all being PM without winning a General Election. Do you consider Theresa May should, or should not fall into that category? [1]
[1] I know, I know. It depends on the definition of 'Win'. If it means their party gets a majority, then TM should be in the same grouping as those three. If we define 'win' as largest party in Parliament then she wouldn't. To be fair to Brown, if we defined 'Win' as preventing the other lot from getting a majority arguably Brown could be said to have 'won' in 2010 as a Lab/Lib minority government headed by him wasn't completely off the cards.
No I don't think May falls into the Brown/Callaghan/Douglas-Home category. Following a general election May formed a government that passed a Queen's Speech. I don't know another definition of "winning a general election" that is usable, although there are several that are plausible.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
It "feels" like those who already have wealth and those who will probably never have it want to leave. Those who need the economy to work and will earn future wealth want to remain.
That is a good assessment. However, the two constituencies are very different in size.
The poor hugely outnumber the very wealthy. Remain lost the Referendum because they forgot how many poor people there are.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
As a republican I accept the Queen is head of state. I do not accept her right to be head of state. They are different statements, Pullman is saying he does not view the process as legitimate, plenty of people on the right said the same about Brown taking over. I don't agree with Pullman about the process (would agree about Boris' fitness for the office) but it is not an anti democratic or controversial position.
The Queen is Head of State because of statute. If you accept the right of Parliament to make laws on taxes, etc, then it seems weird not to accept the right of Parliament to make laws on the Head of State.
It's been 331 years since the Monarchists lost that battle.
Technical point, but if you repealed the Bill of Rights and the Succession to the Crown Acts she would still be the Head of State under common law.
Doesn’t recognise the Referendum result either, or Trump. Basically these people refuse to accept defeat or the possibility they could be wrong. Spoiled for too long
What does "recognise Trump" mean? Trump is the President of a foreign country and his election has nothing to do with the UK.
"Not recognising" something that is fact, is just foolish, but you hear this all the time. You can claim that you dont like X as Y, but you still need to recognise this as a fact, only by doing that can you try to change the situation in the future.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
As a republican I accept the Queen is head of state. I do not accept her right to be head of state. They are different statements, Pullman is saying he does not view the process as legitimate, plenty of people on the right said the same about Brown taking over. I don't agree with Pullman about the process (would agree about Boris' fitness for the office) but it is not an anti democratic or controversial position.
The Queen is Head of State because of statute. If you accept the right of Parliament to make laws on taxes, etc, then it seems weird not to accept the right of Parliament to make laws on the Head of State.
It's been 331 years since the Monarchists lost that battle.
Technical point, but if you repealed the Bill of Rights and the Succession to the Crown Acts she would still be the Head of State under common law.
If you repealed (retrospectively) the exclusion of Roman Catholics, that would change things.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
I think I made it 5 the other day, but let's say it's 4.
In six days time we will hear the result of the Brecon & Radnor recall. If that's successful your figure will drop to 3. If, as I think extremely likely, the LibDems win the ensuing by-election then it will drop to 2.
Which brings us to Phillip Lee. If the rumours are true about him about to defect to the LibDems then that ends the Conservative + DUP majority.
And it's also worth noting that Boris is highly divisive. I wouldn't be surprised to see half a dozen tories abstaining or even voting against the Gov't in a VONC. In that instance it will all depend on loose Labour. But if anything will unite them it's likely to be Boris.
Which is all why I think Boris will simply go for it. He's not the kind of person who would want to run a minority Government with all the fiascos that will entail.
I think he will call a General Election and attempt to eviscerate Corbyn. Michael Gove campaign manager?
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
So, only takes 3 Tories to switch to cause problems I think.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
Oh, clearly - otherwise it would all be much less interesting. But someone was asking about the raw numbers.
I'd be interested to know who else would vote with the Government, or abstain, though.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
By 'Hartlipudiyisation' I wasn't talking about the poor or deprived but the mentality of small town xenophobia which has previously been well hidden.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
I think the Independent Unionist voted with May in the last VONC.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
Won't need to be a confidence vote. Boris will propose an early election motion and challenge magic grandpa to not back him.
Think about why an early election with the Tories promising guaranteed Brexit on Halloween: Gut the Brexit Party risk Destroy Corbyn Remove the wets Win a majority allowing Bozza to do what he wants
Or wait: Allow Farage to become saint-like amongst Brexity people Allow Brexit Party to embed itself in people's voting intention Allow Labour time to give Jezbollah an early retirement to the allotment Cement the Tories as the party of dither
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
Oh, clearly - otherwise it would all be much less interesting. But someone was asking about the raw numbers.
I'd be interested to know who else would vote with the Government, or abstain, though.
I expect Woodcock, Lewis, Hermon, and Austin would either vote with the government or abstain. Field might abstain.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
I think I made it 5 the other day, but let's say it's 4.
In six days time we will hear the result of the Brecon & Radnor recall. If that's successful your figure will drop to 3. If, as I think extremely likely, the LibDems win the ensuing by-election then it will drop to 2.
Which brings us to Phillip Lee. If the rumours are true about him about to defect to the LibDems then that ends the Conservative + DUP majority.
And it's also worth noting that Boris is highly divisive. I wouldn't be surprised to see half a dozen tories abstaining or even voting against the Gov't in a VONC. In that instance it will all depend on loose Labour. But if anything will unite them it's likely to be Boris.
Which is all why I think Boris will simply go for it. He's not the kind of person who would want to run a minority Government with all the fiascos that will entail.
I think he will call a General Election and attempt to eviscerate Corbyn. Michael Gove campaign manager?
I think this is very sound reasoning. Apart from anything else it will be a necessity as you note because there will likely shortly be no "government" to be head of.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
Won't need to be a confidence vote. Boris will propose an early election motion and challenge magic grandpa to not back him.
Think about why an early election with the Tories promising guaranteed Brexit on Halloween: Gut the Brexit Party risk Destroy Corbyn Remove the wets Win a majority allowing Bozza to do what he wants
Or wait: Allow Farage to become saint-like amongst Brexity people Allow Brexit Party to embed itself in people's voting intention Allow Labour time to give Jezbollah an early retirement to the allotment Cement the Tories as the party of dither
He will go to the country. 17th or 24th October.
So suppose Boris doesn't win - how do we avoid crashing out on 31st October - Parliament would still be getting set up if the election was on the 17th let alone the 24th...
As I said before if Boris wants an election he needs to push for early September by asking for it in July..
To have an election that late in October he needs to have an additional extension lined up and Nigel would destroy him on that..
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
Won't need to be a confidence vote. Boris will propose an early election motion and challenge magic grandpa to not back him.
Think about why an early election with the Tories promising guaranteed Brexit on Halloween: Gut the Brexit Party risk Destroy Corbyn Remove the wets Win a majority allowing Bozza to do what he wants
Or wait: Allow Farage to become saint-like amongst Brexity people Allow Brexit Party to embed itself in people's voting intention Allow Labour time to give Jezbollah an early retirement to the allotment Cement the Tories as the party of dither
He will go to the country. 17th or 24th October.
I wonder if Farage could run as a Conservative under Boris?
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
Won't need to be a confidence vote. Boris will propose an early election motion and challenge magic grandpa to not back him.
Think about why an early election with the Tories promising guaranteed Brexit on Halloween: Gut the Brexit Party risk Destroy Corbyn Remove the wets Win a majority allowing Bozza to do what he wants
Or wait: Allow Farage to become saint-like amongst Brexity people Allow Brexit Party to embed itself in people's voting intention Allow Labour time to give Jezbollah an early retirement to the allotment Cement the Tories as the party of dither
He will go to the country. 17th or 24th October.
If he is to go he should go sooner. September, August if possible. Allow to campaign to say will get a renegotiation and pass deal or no deal. 24 October is too late, means guaranteed no deal.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
Don't forget the dep speakers
Ah. Of course.
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
Not all non-Tories will support a VONC.
Won't need to be a confidence vote. Boris will propose an early election motion and challenge magic grandpa to not back him.
Think about why an early election with the Tories promising guaranteed Brexit on Halloween: Gut the Brexit Party risk Destroy Corbyn Remove the wets Win a majority allowing Bozza to do what he wants
Or wait: Allow Farage to become saint-like amongst Brexity people Allow Brexit Party to embed itself in people's voting intention Allow Labour time to give Jezbollah an early retirement to the allotment Cement the Tories as the party of dither
I have also questioned whether I am prepared to be a member of a party that chooses him as its leader, though there is a reasonable argument that when he crashes and burns, as seems very likely, there will be a further election. Moderate centrist Tories may want to keep their membership cards.
I have also questioned whether I am prepared to be a member of a party that chooses him as its leader, though there is a reasonable argument that when he crashes and burns, as seems very likely, there will be a further election. Moderate centrist Tories may want to keep their membership cards.
Yes, I think that is wise. Boris may not even make it to PM.
Interesting that remain has considerably more purists than leave (not necessarily a good thing even from my perspective). No wonder leave advocates are not in favour of retesting the will-o-the-people! Their belief in democracy only goes so far!!
I have also questioned whether I am prepared to be a member of a party that chooses him as its leader, though there is a reasonable argument that when he crashes and burns, as seems very likely, there will be a further election. Moderate centrist Tories may want to keep their membership cards.
I have also questioned whether I am prepared to be a member of a party that chooses him as its leader, though there is a reasonable argument that when he crashes and burns, as seems very likely, there will be a further election. Moderate centrist Tories may want to keep their membership cards.
Just backed 2019 GE at 2.7 largely as a result of @Mysticrose's articulate explanation of why this is likely. Ably backed up by others including @RochdalePioneers.
Comments
And what about McMillan in 1957, Douglas-Hume in 1963, Callaghan in 1976, Major in 1990, Brown in 2007 and May in 2016? Changing PM is the course of a parliament is a common feature of our democracy.
From the Kama Sutra.
Luckily I learnt my lesson on this at a young age. At the age of 10 I "refused to recognise" that Argentina had won the FIFA world cup in 1978. At the next world cup Argentina played the first match as "World Cup holders" and at the wise age of 14 I reasised how silly I had been.
https://twitter.com/philippullman/status/1135464375135997953?s=21
Checkmate.
...or JackW.
It's been 331 years since the Monarchists lost that battle.
https://news.sky.com/story/live-conservative-leadership-rivals-round-on-boris-johnson-over-tv-debates-11741612
Still have no idea who either of them are. Ah well, don't need to find out now
And whilst I know we've got the same system, the US people didn't want Trump. They preferred Hillary Clinton, but the electoral system doesn't reward highest votes, only highest 'points'.
Off topic question for the PB brains trusts - Post war, we have Douglas-Home, Callaghan and Brown all being PM without winning a General Election. Do you consider Theresa May should, or should not fall into that category? [1]
[1] I know, I know. It depends on the definition of 'Win'. If it means their party gets a majority, then TM should be in the same grouping as those three. If we define 'win' as largest party in Parliament then she wouldn't.
To be fair to Brown, if we defined 'Win' as preventing the other lot from getting a majority arguably Brown could be said to have 'won' in 2010 as a Lab/Lib minority government headed by him wasn't completely off the cards.
Incidentally, just because our system is a particular way, does not mean to say we should all shut up and accept it. One of my principle objections to Brexit is that there are many more important constitutional questions of democratic deficit that need addressing. Parties being able to change PM without almost immediate endorsement form the electorate is one of those.
By my calculation, that's 319 who are not-Tories, not-DUP, not Sinn Fein, and not the Speaker, v. 313 Tories.
So the Tories+DUP = 323, a majority of 4 over the rest. If the DUP abstain, then the Tories lose a confidence vote by 6. (Though technically they have a "confidence and supply" agreement - so they shouldn't do that!)
(* i.e. paid)
The poor hugely outnumber the very wealthy. Remain lost the Referendum because they forgot how many poor people there are.
Johnson 88
Hunt 39
Gove 35
Raab 23
Javid 19
Stewart 7
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
In six days time we will hear the result of the Brecon & Radnor recall. If that's successful your figure will drop to 3. If, as I think extremely likely, the LibDems win the ensuing by-election then it will drop to 2.
Which brings us to Phillip Lee. If the rumours are true about him about to defect to the LibDems then that ends the Conservative + DUP majority.
And it's also worth noting that Boris is highly divisive. I wouldn't be surprised to see half a dozen tories abstaining or even voting against the Gov't in a VONC. In that instance it will all depend on loose Labour. But if anything will unite them it's likely to be Boris.
Which is all why I think Boris will simply go for it. He's not the kind of person who would want to run a minority Government with all the fiascos that will entail.
I think he will call a General Election and attempt to eviscerate Corbyn. Michael Gove campaign manager?
LD (+2)
Lab (-1)
Con (-1)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0crw8ssin8/TimesResults_190610_VI_w.pdf
Dem
Surge
BXP 26 (+1)
LD 22 (n/c)
Lab 19 (n/c)
Con 17 (-1)
Grn 8 (-1)
That makes it 317 who are not Tories, plus 312 Tories.
The Gvernment would lose a confidence vote by 5 if the DUP abstain, and a Gov win by 5 if the DUP honour the confidence + supply agreement.
I'd be interested to know who else would vote with the Government, or abstain, though.
It's not like he has a set of public voters who may be swayed by his opinion..
Good heavens, whatever can he be thinking?
We'll have @HYUFD along in a minute to tell us that none of these things matter because Salvini, Trump, Bolsonaro etc...
Think about why an early election with the Tories promising guaranteed Brexit on Halloween:
Gut the Brexit Party risk
Destroy Corbyn
Remove the wets
Win a majority allowing Bozza to do what he wants
Or wait:
Allow Farage to become saint-like amongst Brexity people
Allow Brexit Party to embed itself in people's voting intention
Allow Labour time to give Jezbollah an early retirement to the allotment
Cement the Tories as the party of dither
He will go to the country. 17th or 24th October.
Hmm. Let me hazard a wild guess here...
And Jezza is more terrifying if he follows on from No Deal, surely?
As I said before if Boris wants an election he needs to push for early September by asking for it in July..
To have an election that late in October he needs to have an additional extension lined up and Nigel would destroy him on that..
They'd need minds to concentrate first.
Boris might be forced into it over No Deal. That's if he even makes it to the Palace in the first place.
Lab members are all mad frankly.
Could it possibly get better for him?
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/06/brexit-and-the-governing-party/