A few days ago we were being told that Boris would be good at choosing a team and delegating to them.
Today even that crutch has fallen away with the news that he has appointed IDS to manage his campaign. IDS! One of the most disloyal backbenchers around, dim, a poor leader and with no understanding of the institution he claims to dislike so much.
A few days ago we were being told that Boris would be good at choosing a team and delegating to them.
Today even that crutch has fallen away with the news that he has appointed IDS to manage his campaign. IDS! One of the most disloyal backbenchers around, dim, a poor leader and with no understanding of the institution he claims to dislike so much.
But, come on, universal credit. Outstanding success.
I've never seen such unanimity on PB about the unsuitability of a politician for high office and particularly one from the right. Even Corbyn had his followers.
Only because the vast majority of PBers are Remainers determined to stop Brexit and they are frightened of Boris as he might actually win a general election and deliver Brexit
Frightened by Johnson?
Speak for yourself. He is a Machiavellian narcissist and scares the living daylights out of me!
Machiavellian?!!!
Duplicitous, underhand and without moral compass.
But Machiavellian, to me at least, also implies some kind of intelligent plotting behind the slyness.
With Boris, you never quite get that feeling. He just comes across as malevolent, untrustworthy and incompetent rather than actually skilful.
His underhand manouvring is about to make him a wholly unworthy Prime Minister.
The stupidity of Tory MPs is what's about to make him PM. Nothing else.
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
Everyone, including government and ministers, are bound by the law which parliament makes. It is of course the job of courts to interpret it or declare it incompatible with other laws and so on but the principle stands. Every pressure group and lawyer on the make is ceaselessly holding them to account for their own laws.
As long as two months? That ship has already sailed for many, many former loyalists like me. Politically homeless, and living in the political equivalent of a Boots the Chemist doorway.
I'm wondering why Labour MPs don't gamble and call another vote of no confidence in Corbyn, specifically on his EU position. Force him to lay his cards on the table in another leadership contest, and put up a more well known individual to oppose him.
And the possibility that the Tories might not be facing Corbyn in a General Election would massively ignite the Tory leadership contest as well (although i suppose they might not want that?)
I've never seen such unanimity on PB about the unsuitability of a politician for high office and particularly one from the right. Even Corbyn had his followers.
Only because the vast majority of PBers are Remainers determined to stop Brexit and they are frightened of Boris as he might actually win a general election and deliver Brexit
If Boris gets the job - as against being forced out beforehand - there isn’t going to be a General Election anytime soon. He has said as much. Villiers said as much on today’s politics live, and added that she didn’t want one. Why do you cling to this illusion that he’s going to call one on the first day?
Is it simply because it’s the only way his impossible promises can come real?
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
Everyone, including government and ministers, are bound by the law which parliament makes. It is of course the job of courts to interpret it or declare it incompatible with other laws and so on but the principle stands. Every pressure group and lawyer on the make is ceaselessly holding them to account for their own laws.
Not sure a motion in the House of Commons expressing the will of MPs qualifies as a 'law'.
I'm wondering why Labour MPs don't gamble and call another vote of no confidence in Corbyn, specifically on his EU position. Force him to lay his cards on the table in another leadership contest, and put up a more well known individual to oppose him.
And the possibility that the Tories might not be facing Corbyn in a General Election would massively ignite the Tory leadership contest as well (although i suppose they might not want that?)
There is no such thing as a 'vote of confidence' in the Labour Party. They could of course force another leadership election, but the evidence suggests members still back him because Brexit isn't a deal breaker for them.
The thing is it's likely to prove more problematic among actual Labour voters.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
Everyone, including government and ministers, are bound by the law which parliament makes. It is of course the job of courts to interpret it or declare it incompatible with other laws and so on but the principle stands. Every pressure group and lawyer on the make is ceaselessly holding them to account for their own laws.
Not sure a motion in the House of Commons expressing the will of MPs qualifies as a 'law'.
There are plenty of motions in the House of Commons. At the moment it resembles nothing so much as a cesspit.
I'm wondering why Labour MPs don't gamble and call another vote of no confidence in Corbyn, specifically on his EU position. Force him to lay his cards on the table in another leadership contest, and put up a more well known individual to oppose him.
And the possibility that the Tories might not be facing Corbyn in a General Election would massively ignite the Tory leadership contest as well (although i suppose they might not want that?)
There is no such thing as a 'vote of confidence' in the Labour Party. They could of course force another leadership election, but the evidence suggests members still back him because Brexit isn't a deal breaker for them.
The thing is it's likely to prove more problematic among actual Labour voters.
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
Everyone, including government and ministers, are bound by the law which parliament makes. It is of course the job of courts to interpret it or declare it incompatible with other laws and so on but the principle stands. Every pressure group and lawyer on the make is ceaselessly holding them to account for their own laws.
Not sure a motion in the House of Commons expressing the will of MPs qualifies as a 'law'.
There are plenty of motions in the House of Commons. At the moment it resembles nothing so much as a cesspit.
I've never seen such unanimity on PB about the unsuitability of a politician for high office and particularly one from the right. Even Corbyn had his followers.
Only because the vast majority of PBers are Remainers determined to stop Brexit and they are frightened of Boris as he might actually win a general election and deliver Brexit
Frightened by Johnson?
Speak for yourself. He is a Machiavellian narcissist and scares the living daylights out of me!
Machiavellian?!!!
Duplicitous, underhand and without moral compass.
But Machiavellian, to me at least, also implies some kind of intelligent plotting behind the slyness.
With Boris, you never quite get that feeling. He just comes across as malevolent, untrustworthy and incompetent rather than actually skilful.
His underhand manouvring is about to make him a wholly unworthy Prime Minister.
The stupidity of Tory MPs is what's about to make him PM. Nothing else.
He strikes me as a Dick Dastardly character. He could have won with his wit, skill and talent but instead he has chosen chicanery. The only difference being Dick Dastardly's cunning plans ended in defeat. Johnson, I fear will win this Whacky Race.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
I'm wondering why Labour MPs don't gamble and call another vote of no confidence in Corbyn, specifically on his EU position. Force him to lay his cards on the table in another leadership contest, and put up a more well known individual to oppose him.
And the possibility that the Tories might not be facing Corbyn in a General Election would massively ignite the Tory leadership contest as well (although i suppose they might not want that?)
There is no such thing as a 'vote of confidence' in the Labour Party. They could of course force another leadership election, but the evidence suggests members still back him because Brexit isn't a deal breaker for them.
The thing is it's likely to prove more problematic among actual Labour voters.
Yes a leadership election. I'm not so sure.
They cannot afford to move until they ARE sure. To have a dim witted posho posing as a champion of the poor who sucks up to racists and mass murderers elected as leader looked foolish. To have him re-elected despite him having the support of just one in six MPs looked even more foolish. To have him re-elected yet again despite all his failings and foibles and general total unfitness to run anything more complex than a briar patch would look so foolish that Labour might not survive the experience.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
I'm wondering why Labour MPs don't gamble and call another vote of no confidence in Corbyn, specifically on his EU position. Force him to lay his cards on the table in another leadership contest, and put up a more well known individual to oppose him.
And the possibility that the Tories might not be facing Corbyn in a General Election would massively ignite the Tory leadership contest as well (although i suppose they might not want that?)
There is no such thing as a 'vote of confidence' in the Labour Party. They could of course force another leadership election, but the evidence suggests members still back him because Brexit isn't a deal breaker for them.
The thing is it's likely to prove more problematic among actual Labour voters.
Yes a leadership election. I'm not so sure.
They cannot afford to move until they ARE sure. To have a dim witted posho posing as a champion of the poor who sucks up to racists and mass murderers elected as leader looked foolish. To have him re-elected despite him having the support of just one in six MPs looked even more foolish. To have him re-elected yet again despite all his failings and foibles and general total unfitness to run anything more complex than a briar patch would look so foolish that Labour might not survive the experience.
Could he job share with Johnson as joint chairman of the allotment and modelers association?
I've never seen such unanimity on PB about the unsuitability of a politician for high office and particularly one from the right. Even Corbyn had his followers.
Only because the vast majority of PBers are Remainers determined to stop Brexit and they are frightened of Boris as he might actually win a general election and deliver Brexit
If Boris gets the job - as against being forced out beforehand - there isn’t going to be a General Election anytime soon. He has said as much. Villiers said as much on today’s politics live, and added that she didn’t want one. Why do you cling to this illusion that he’s going to call one on the first day?
Is it simply because it’s the only way his impossible promises can come real?
I think it's more he won't have the numbers to become Prime Minister...
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
Everyone, including government and ministers, are bound by the law which parliament makes. It is of course the job of courts to interpret it or declare it incompatible with other laws and so on but the principle stands. Every pressure group and lawyer on the make is ceaselessly holding them to account for their own laws.
Not sure a motion in the House of Commons expressing the will of MPs qualifies as a 'law'.
Certainly doesn't. It is their exclusive power to pass Acts of Parliament which is relevant. These are binding on everyone, including the PM and ministers.
I'm wondering why Labour MPs don't gamble and call another vote of no confidence in Corbyn, specifically on his EU position. Force him to lay his cards on the table in another leadership contest, and put up a more well known individual to oppose him.
And the possibility that the Tories might not be facing Corbyn in a General Election would massively ignite the Tory leadership contest as well (although i suppose they might not want that?)
There is no such thing as a 'vote of confidence' in the Labour Party. They could of course force another leadership election, but the evidence suggests members still back him because Brexit isn't a deal breaker for them.
The thing is it's likely to prove more problematic among actual Labour voters.
Yes a leadership election. I'm not so sure.
They cannot afford to move until they ARE sure. To have a dim witted posho posing as a champion of the poor who sucks up to racists and mass murderers elected as leader looked foolish. To have him re-elected despite him having the support of just one in six MPs looked even more foolish. To have him re-elected yet again despite all his failings and foibles and general total unfitness to run anything more complex than a briar patch would look so foolish that Labour might not survive the experience.
Could he job share with Johnson as joint chairman of the allotment and modelers association?
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
Did he say heads will roll for the mistake?
Just that Johnson’s sheer brass neck had provoked him into temporarily losing his.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
Did he say heads will roll for the mistake?
Just that Johnson’s sheer brass neck had provoked him into temporarily losing his.
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
Everyone, including government and ministers, are bound by the law which parliament makes. It is of course the job of courts to interpret it or declare it incompatible with other laws and so on but the principle stands. Every pressure group and lawyer on the make is ceaselessly holding them to account for their own laws.
Sure, but Ministers of the Crown have been found by the Courts to be in breach of their legal duty to tackle air pollution for some time now. Though this is compelling Ministers to, very slowly, possibly consider taking action that they wouldn't otherwise have taken it's not really a strong example of the legislature proving capable of compelling the Executive to take Executive action.
A more effective way is to replace the Executive. It's much easier to use the law to stop people from doing things than it is to force them to do things.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
Did he say heads will roll for the mistake?
Just that Johnson’s sheer brass neck had provoked him into temporarily losing his.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
I agree, but was setting out the context of why threatening someone that Parliament would treat someone like they treated Charles I would jump to that conclusion...
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
Did he say heads will roll for the mistake?
Just that Johnson’s sheer brass neck had provoked him into temporarily losing his.
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
I didn't say that replacing the PM would be easy, but I think it will eventually be necessary to prevent a no deal departure. Up to MPs to choose.
Absurd to consider arresting the PM when a majority in the Commons has the power to replace the PM - should they choose to use it.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
I agree, but was setting out the context of why threatening someone that Parliament would treat someone like they treated Charles I would jump to that conclusion...
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
I agree, but was setting out the context of why threatening someone that Parliament would treat someone like they treated Charles I would jump to that conclusion...
Not just because they have a “vile Leaver mind”
Me thinks TSE was tongue in cheek
His original post was. His response was unpleasant and nasty
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Decapitation (also known as decapitation strategy) in the context of British politics is an established metaphor for removing someone important from their position of authority, thus fatally undermining them. It relates to the military language of decapitation strike aimed at removing the leadership or command. If you eliminate the head of the army, so the theory goes, you undermine the overall strength. In recent fiction the finest (and worst) example would be the Night King whose death from a single Arya Stark blow saw the demise of the entire army of the dead.
Whilst we do indeed live in febrile times and we need to watch the language of violence, decapitation in military and political linguistics is long established. This marks it in sharp contrast to, for example, 'throwing battery acid' which is clearly in a different field of play.
Let's not be too snowflakey. And let's not see effective metaphors stamped on by the Thought Police.
Ta.
p.s. In military language it refers to the head of the army, not the head of the army's head
Boris is entirely correct. If the Commons doesn't like it then the way for the Commons to establish its supremacy over the Prime Minister is a Vote of No Confidence followed by choosing one amongst them to lead a Ministry that would avoid No Deal.
It's constitutionally improper for the Commons to seek to compel a Prime Minister to use their Executive power in a specific way. That's not how it works. I suppose if there was such a conflict it might be best for the PM of the day to treat it as a de facto vote of no confidence and tell HMQ that she should appoint a replacement.
If avoiding No Deal is not important enough to the Commons to choose another Prime Minister to do so then we will end up with No Deal and the Commons will have to answer to the electorate for their inaction.
That would require remainer Tory MP's not only to vote to bring down their own government but to support a Corbyn ministry in a vote of confidence.
What if a Cooper-Letwin Mk 2 were passed requiring the PM to request another extension and Boris refused to do so? Are they going to have him arrested?
Everyone, including government and ministers, are bound by the law which parliament makes. It is of course the job of courts to interpret it or declare it incompatible with other laws and so on but the principle stands. Every pressure group and lawyer on the make is ceaselessly holding them to account for their own laws.
Sure, but Ministers of the Crown have been found by the Courts to be in breach of their legal duty to tackle air pollution for some time now. Though this is compelling Ministers to, very slowly, possibly consider taking action that they wouldn't otherwise have taken it's not really a strong example of the legislature proving capable of compelling the Executive to take Executive action.
A more effective way is to replace the Executive. It's much easier to use the law to stop people from doing things than it is to force them to do things.
Don't disagree. There is a slightly different question of the enforceability of laws which are in fact pious virtue signalling about our hopes for a better world and possess no real sanctions. Probably not a great development in our legal system, but great for lawyers of course. Specific and real enactments are enforceable.
What on earth is that tosh there is no internationalist brexit only little Britain
No, we had the opportunity to create a genuinely new modern country fit for the 21st century and beyond in terms of how we engage with the world.
Such a country would utilise the most modern of technology, set standards for environmental sustainability, transparency and accountability in public affairs and governance and be a place where people want to come both to live and to do business, a country of opportunity for all setting an example to the rest of the world.
Jeremy Hunt’s Boris baiting is not a good look for the Conservatives.
It’s like the 2015 GE all over again, except this time the politicians with nothing between them policy wise who are exaggerating tiny differences are in the same party.
Jeremy Hunt’s Boris baiting is not a good look for the Conservatives.
It’s like the 2015 GE all over again, except this time the politicians with nothing between them policy wise who are exaggerating tiny differences are in the same party.
Jeremy Hunt’s Boris baiting is not a good look for the Conservatives.
It’s like the 2015 GE all over again, except this time the politicians with nothing between them policy wise who are exaggerating tiny differences are in the same party.
This is all about character and No Deal now. No one cares, I suspect, two hoots about their NHS policy.
Hunt seems to answering online questions tonight in a sensible and rational manner. A big contrast to the show of bluster, piffle, free conscious rambling and downright lying that Boris engaged in this am.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
Did he say heads will roll for the mistake?
Just that Johnson’s sheer brass neck had provoked him into temporarily losing his.
Alright, I was only axing...
A rather cutting rejoinder.
If there are any more like that you'll either be blocked or declared Head man.
Jeremy Hunt’s Boris baiting is not a good look for the Conservatives.
It’s like the 2015 GE all over again, except this time the politicians with nothing between them policy wise who are exaggerating tiny differences are in the same party.
This is all about character and No Deal now. No one cares, I suspect, two hoots about their NHS policy.
Hunt seems to answering online questions tonight in a sensible and rational manner. A big contrast to the show of bluster, piffle, free conscious rambling and downright lying that Boris engaged in this am.
Both candidates are vacuous chancers without so much a principle between them - they care only about their own advancement. Both offer a fantasy world of tax cuts, spending increases, cuddly toys and apple pie for all paid for by a veritable forest of magic money trees that has sprung up in the past week or two.
The replies to this will doubtless show why it's either no deal or remain. No matter the deal doesn't even get rid of the EC Sales returns or intrastat reporting, hard remainers simply won't wear leaving in any fashion
Jeremy Hunt’s Boris baiting is not a good look for the Conservatives.
It’s like the 2015 GE all over again, except this time the politicians with nothing between them policy wise who are exaggerating tiny differences are in the same party.
This is all about character and No Deal now. No one cares, I suspect, two hoots about their NHS policy.
Hunt seems to answering online questions tonight in a sensible and rational manner. A big contrast to the show of bluster, piffle, free conscious rambling and downright lying that Boris engaged in this am.
Both candidates are vacuous chancers without so much a principle between them - they care only about their own advancement. Both offer a fantasy world of tax cuts, spending increases, cuddly toys and apple pie for all paid for by a veritable forest of magic money trees that has sprung up in the past week or two.
How on earth did the Tories come to this?
They looked at Labour and thought their scheme had worked quite well. So they copied it.
I don't agree with them, but Boris is the child of Corbyn's surprising failure to suffer the worst defeat since the Kadets optimistically fielded candidates in the Constituent Assembly elections of 1917.
Nobody has ever wanted to pay my taxes on my behalf.
More likely is that nobody has ever tried to stop you from paying your taxes by disrupting your internet access.
Being able to selectively target routers and gateways to suppress the vote at a street or even a house level, is pretty much ideal from a stealing an election point of view. It's almost like a smart bomb for vote supression, just fire one right through the window of that house where they vote for party X.
Our telecommunications infrastructure is not close to being robust enough for safely holding a general election.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Decapitation (also known as decapitation strategy) in the context of British politics is an established metaphor for removing someone important from their position of authority, thus fatally undermining them. It relates to the military language of decapitation strike aimed at removing the leadership or command. If you eliminate the head of the army, so the theory goes, you undermine the overall strength. In recent fiction the finest (and worst) example would be the Night King whose death from a single Arya Stark blow saw the demise of the entire army of the dead.
Whilst we do indeed live in febrile times and we need to watch the language of violence, decapitation in military and political linguistics is long established. This marks it in sharp contrast to, for example, 'throwing battery acid' which is clearly in a different field of play.
Let's not be too snowflakey. And let's not see effective metaphors stamped on by the Thought Police.
Ta.
p.s. In military language it refers to the head of the army, not the head of the army's head
Similarly in politics until now: one decapitated the party, We have always used military metaphors in politics. This was an unfortunate aberration, which was either a clumsy mistake with language or a misguided attempt to seem macho.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Although a prominent Remainer, Sir Ed Davey, had to apologise today for suggesting the LibDems aim to decapitate Boris
And very graciously apologized for his language accepting that the term ‘decapitation’ whilst commonly used amongst political nerds was inappropriate.
I agree, but was setting out the context of why threatening someone that Parliament would treat someone like they treated Charles I would jump to that conclusion...
Not just because they have a “vile Leaver mind”
Me thinks TSE was tongue in cheek
His original post was. His response was unpleasant and nasty
It was directed at someone who has repeatedly said the murder of Jo Cox was a false flag operation.
I've never seen such unanimity on PB about the unsuitability of a politician for high office and particularly one from the right. Even Corbyn had his followers.
Only because the vast majority of PBers are Remainers determined to stop Brexit and they are frightened of Boris as he might actually win a general election and deliver Brexit
Frightened by Johnson?
Speak for yourself. He is a Machiavellian narcissist and scares the living daylights out of me!
Machiavellian?!!!
Duplicitous, underhand and without moral compass.
Machiavelli was not without a moral compass. He believed a leader had a duty to act ruthlessly to defend the state.
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Decapitation (also known as decapitation strategy) in the context of British politics is an established metaphor for removing someone important from their position of authority, thus fatally undermining them. It relates to the military language of decapitation strike aimed at removing the leadership or command. If you eliminate the head of the army, so the theory goes, you undermine the overall strength. In recent fiction the finest (and worst) example would be the Night King whose death from a single Arya Stark blow saw the demise of the entire army of the dead.
Whilst we do indeed live in febrile times and we need to watch the language of violence, decapitation in military and political linguistics is long established. This marks it in sharp contrast to, for example, 'throwing battery acid' which is clearly in a different field of play.
Let's not be too snowflakey. And let's not see effective metaphors stamped on by the Thought Police.
Ta.
p.s. In military language it refers to the head of the army, not the head of the army's head
Similarly in politics until now: one decapitated the party, We have always used military metaphors in politics. This was an unfortunate aberration, which was either a clumsy mistake with language or a misguided attempt to seem macho.
The prompt apology suggests the former.
The original Lib Dem decapitation strategy was back in 2005 which was in a more innocent era.
All this stuff about how Boris's campaign is "faltering" or is in "crisis" etc has there actually been any polling evidence to suggest he doesn't still have anything other than a commanding lead with Con members?
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Decapitation (also known as decapitation strategy) in the context of British politics is an established metaphor for removing someone important from their position of authority, thus fatally undermining them. It relates to the military language of decapitation strike aimed at removing the leadership or command. If you eliminate the head of the army, so the theory goes, you undermine the overall strength. In recent fiction the finest (and worst) example would be the Night King whose death from a single Arya Stark blow saw the demise of the entire army of the dead.
Whilst we do indeed live in febrile times and we need to watch the language of violence, decapitation in military and political linguistics is long established. This marks it in sharp contrast to, for example, 'throwing battery acid' which is clearly in a different field of play.
Let's not be too snowflakey. And let's not see effective metaphors stamped on by the Thought Police.
Ta.
p.s. In military language it refers to the head of the army, not the head of the army's head
Similarly in politics until now: one decapitated the party, We have always used military metaphors in politics. This was an unfortunate aberration, which was either a clumsy mistake with language or a misguided attempt to seem macho.
The prompt apology suggests the former.
The original Lib Dem decapitation strategy was back in 2005 which was in a more innocent era.
And it was the most imposing and abject failure in British politics since John Dudley tried to put his daughter in law on the throne of England.
Catching up on todays news seems to suggest that the Tory leadership contest is turning into a remake of Brewsters Millions!
Meanwhile, I did bring a stop to our monthy management meeting. When our general manager announced that there was no money for capital equipment for 2 years because the Trust is skint, I pointed out she was in error. As of 1 November the NHS will be getting an extra £350 000 000 per week, so we would be absolutely fine. Should have seen the tumbleweed...
Well Boris as a historian knows what happened to Charles I when he tried this democratic obscenity.
I trust this post will be roundly condemned by many of your fellow remainers who rightly deplore the undercurrent of violence that is creeping into political discourse.
Or not.
Don't be a snowflake comrade.
I was talking about Boris, like Charles I, being removed from power.
It was your vile Leaver mind that jumped to execution.
Decapitation (also known as decapitation strategy) in the context of British politics is an established metaphor for removing someone important from their position of authority, thus fatally undermining them. It relates to the military language of decapitation strike aimed at removing the leadership or command. If you eliminate the head of the army, so the theory goes, you undermine the overall strength. In recent fiction the finest (and worst) example would be the Night King whose death from a single Arya Stark blow saw the demise of the entire army of the dead.
Whilst we do indeed live in febrile times and we need to watch the language of violence, decapitation in military and political linguistics is long established. This marks it in sharp contrast to, for example, 'throwing battery acid' which is clearly in a different field of play.
Let's not be too snowflakey. And let's not see effective metaphors stamped on by the Thought Police.
Ta.
p.s. In military language it refers to the head of the army, not the head of the army's head
Similarly in politics until now: one decapitated the party, We have always used military metaphors in politics. This was an unfortunate aberration, which was either a clumsy mistake with language or a misguided attempt to seem macho.
The prompt apology suggests the former.
The original Lib Dem decapitation strategy was back in 2005 which was in a more innocent era.
Yes. I’m not a massive fan of such language, but political battle lines, broadsides, campaigns, troops etc all have equally bloody, or bloodier origins, and are now the stuff of cliche.
I've never seen such unanimity on PB about the unsuitability of a politician for high office and particularly one from the right. Even Corbyn had his followers.
Only because the vast majority of PBers are Remainers determined to stop Brexit and they are frightened of Boris as he might actually win a general election and deliver Brexit
Frightened by Johnson?
Speak for yourself. He is a Machiavellian narcissist and scares the living daylights out of me!
Machiavellian?!!!
Duplicitous, underhand and without moral compass.
Machiavelli was not without a moral compass. He believed a leader had a duty to act ruthlessly to defend the state.
So you must admire the way the British state is thwarting the self-harm demanded of it by the people?
Comments
Today even that crutch has fallen away with the news that he has appointed IDS to manage his campaign. IDS! One of the most disloyal backbenchers around, dim, a poor leader and with no understanding of the institution he claims to dislike so much.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1143588694571606017
And the possibility that the Tories might not be facing Corbyn in a General Election would massively ignite the Tory leadership contest as well (although i suppose they might not want that?)
Is it simply because it’s the only way his impossible promises can come real?
The thing is it's likely to prove more problematic among actual Labour voters.
Oh sorry, not that sort of motion.
A more effective way is to replace the Executive. It's much easier to use the law to stop people from doing things than it is to force them to do things.
Not just because they have a “vile Leaver mind”
If not, one can amuse one self, by imagining the next Tory leadership contest in November.
Absurd to consider arresting the PM when a majority in the Commons has the power to replace the PM - should they choose to use it.
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1143598425654644736
https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1143599304243912704
In the event of (please insert name of winner) becomes prime minister I wish to register my no confidence in said person.
Yours (please insert name of MPs no confidence and deselected)
Whilst we do indeed live in febrile times and we need to watch the language of violence, decapitation in military and political linguistics is long established. This marks it in sharp contrast to, for example, 'throwing battery acid' which is clearly in a different field of play.
Let's not be too snowflakey. And let's not see effective metaphors stamped on by the Thought Police.
Ta.
p.s. In military language it refers to the head of the army, not the head of the army's head
While he makes model buses out of old wine boxes, the UK enters meltdown.
https://twitter.com/Freight_NI/status/1143244806933614592
Such a country would utilise the most modern of technology, set standards for environmental sustainability, transparency and accountability in public affairs and governance and be a place where people want to come both to live and to do business, a country of opportunity for all setting an example to the rest of the world.
It’s like the 2015 GE all over again, except this time the politicians with nothing between them policy wise who are exaggerating tiny differences are in the same party.
Hunt seems to answering online questions tonight in a sensible and rational manner. A big contrast to the show of bluster, piffle, free conscious rambling and downright lying that Boris engaged in this am.
How on earth did the Tories come to this?
I don't agree with them, but Boris is the child of Corbyn's surprising failure to suffer the worst defeat since the Kadets optimistically fielded candidates in the Constituent Assembly elections of 1917.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1143598735441612800?s=21
Sir Graham Brady (Old Lady) has resigned.
Yours ever,
Lord (Charlie) Falconer.
Being able to selectively target routers and gateways to suppress the vote at a street or even a house level, is pretty much ideal from a stealing an election point of view. It's almost like a smart bomb for vote supression, just fire one right through the window of that house where they vote for party X.
Our telecommunications infrastructure is not close to being robust enough for safely holding a general election.
We have always used military metaphors in politics. This was an unfortunate aberration, which was either a clumsy mistake with language or a misguided attempt to seem macho.
The prompt apology suggests the former.
That and the lack of spare cash....
They were ever so worried because the demand arrived when I was on holiday.
Getting the money back from the Inland Revenue was fun.
Anyone else might help?
Catching up on todays news seems to suggest that the Tory leadership contest is turning into a remake of Brewsters Millions!
Meanwhile, I did bring a stop to our monthy management meeting. When our general manager announced that there was no money for capital equipment for 2 years because the Trust is skint, I pointed out she was in error. As of 1 November the NHS will be getting an extra £350 000 000 per week, so we would be absolutely fine. Should have seen the tumbleweed...
(To be fair, it's less diabolical than it used to be, though People Who Know tell me that's more down to GDS than HMRC.)
I can see some of you shaking your fists at that.