59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
Would be biggest Tory majority since Thatcher 1987, Labour doing even worse than Foot 1983
Labour minority with Flavible.
Flavible is untested, there is no way a 9% Tory lead does not give a Tory majority on UNS
Clearly UNS is a waste of time in this environment.
But why would a deviation from UNS conceivably help Labour? Are the Tories losing more votes (v 2017) in marginals or safe seats (or safe losers?) What about Labour -> LDs?
Indeed, Thornberry at risk, Southwark North and Bermondsey, Hallam, Cambridge etc could all be LD gains from Labour on that poll
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
With a 9% lead over Labour possibly.
Seats like Dewsbury, Wakefield, Wrexham etc would all fall to the Tories on that poll
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
It would be much simpler just to have an indicative vote in advance. That way we would know and you remove the risk of a VONC leading to a GE which Boris can date after Brexit.
I agree it would be much simpler to have an indicative vote in advance but I can't see a mechanism for that to happen.
I'd hoped that TMay would have enabled an indicative vote on Johnson before she went off to the palace.
Or Corbyn had put a VONC on Boris's first day...
But he didn't
If Corbyn got in on those numbers, you bet that Boris or whoever would do.
Apologies if this point has already been made (not had time to read the thread yet) but if the default position is that we leave on 31st October would it not be a rather remarkable breach of the rules of purdah to seek an extension after a VoNC had been passed?
Interesting that, among Lib Dem supporters expressing a preference Corbyn only beats Johnson by 3:2. Perhaps there is less potential for anti-Tory tactical voting than assumed?
It depends on several things we don't know:
1. How far are LibDem voters prepared to vote tactically? 2. If they are, is PM preference more important to LibDems than NoDeal preference or Tory/anti-Tory preference? 3. Will voters in a Con-Lab marginal know they're in a Con-Lab marginal, given big national swings?
Similar questions arise in reverse for a Con-LD marginal, and for Brexit Party voters. My rule of thumb is that in a constituency where a party obviously has no chance, around 50-60% of its supporters will switch if they believe a similarly-inclined party could win, and 40-50% will not.
Given the avalanche of negative media against the Tories in the past week that poll is little short of astounding.
Is that sarcasm? Negative media avalanche?
Apart from the Brecon result both Sky and the Beeb have had project fear stories daily more or less since Bojo arrived. Even much of the usually pro-Tory papers have been the same.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
Is Boris actually calling the election? If he has been VONC'ed then effectively it is parliament calling the election.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
Is Boris actually calling the election? If he has been VONC'ed then effectively it is parliament calling the election.
The 'power' to call a GE still resides with the Queen however. It's a consquence of fulfilling the law. No only calls it, but it flows from actually lawfully.
Interesting that, among Lib Dem supporters expressing a preference Corbyn only beats Johnson by 3:2. Perhaps there is less potential for anti-Tory tactical voting than assumed?
It depends on several things we don't know:
1. How far are LibDem voters prepared to vote tactically? 2. If they are, is PM preference more important to LibDems than NoDeal preference or Tory/anti-Tory preference? 3. Will voters in a Con-Lab marginal know they're in a Con-Lab marginal, given big national swings?
Similar questions arise in reverse for a Con-LD marginal, and for Brexit Party voters. My rule of thumb is that in a constituency where a party obviously has no chance, around 50-60% of its supporters will switch if they believe a similarly-inclined party could win, and 40-50% will not.
Another factor is whether the Brexit party stands everywhere or whether it will stand down against potentially under threat ERGers like Fysh and Baker
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
But Boris isn't the one calling the election.
If the election is due to a VONC then it is the opposition calling the election and they have left it too late. Boris won't be asking permission he will be saying "I pledged to take us out and I have taken us out".
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
There was this attempt at giving that point a bit of perspective earlier in the thread, quoted from OblitusSumMe, the question of what in the Status Quo.
#OblitusSumMe My understanding of the law is that you can create a status quo situation that involves a change on a specified date.
For example, consider signing a contract that agrees the purchase of a house. Once the contract has been signed the status quo becomes that the purchase will be effected on a specified date and yet, before that date, you do not own the house.
Consequently, the status quo in law can include a change in other parameters.
If Parliament didn't intend to vote for no deal then they should have paid more attention when the Bill was making its way through Parliament.
Fortunately, if the Commons wishes to rectify their mistake then they possess the power to do so, if they are willing to use it.
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
If...IF there were documents/ pledges in place from the SNP (35 seats) and the Lib Dems (13 seats) for support for Corbyn for a VOC (with labour on on 247), that takes the votes to only 295.
You would no doubt get some voting against. I doubt chuka would, and certainly not some of the Tiggers/ex-tiggers.
I can't see it. It would be a terrible risk of the Queen, and that is one thing you cannot do, to drag her into this mess.
Why the fuck not? She's been sponging off us for nearly a century so the least she can do is sort out this hypothetical mess.
Apologies if this point has already been made (not had time to read the thread yet) but if the default position is that we leave on 31st October would it not be a rather remarkable breach of the rules of purdah to seek an extension after a VoNC had been passed?
After VONC and before an election is called there is no purdah, so there would remain a window of opportunity.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
But Boris isn't the one calling the election.
If the election is due to a VONC then it is the opposition calling the election and they have left it too late. Boris won't be asking permission he will be saying "I pledged to take us out and I have taken us out".
It's not the opposition, it's the house by the motion (or lack of motion) of their actions.
Look at the act.
VONC passes: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
14days start. If by the end of the 14 days the house does NOT pass the motion;
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Then parliment is dissolved by the Queen, and we get a GE.
Let’s strike a deal the government writes into law recognizing the EU Financial Transparency regulations and then they can get on with no deal, any problems with that?
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
Is Boris actually calling the election? If he has been VONC'ed then effectively it is parliament calling the election.
How is the date chosen in this situation? [question to anyone, not just GotV2]
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
With a 9% lead over Labour possibly.
Seats like Dewsbury, Wakefield, Wrexham etc would all fall to the Tories on that poll
From Yougov these figures represent a 3.25% swing from La to Con compared with 2017 . It would result in 30 gains at Labour's expense offset by 16 losses to LDs and 10 to SNP - taking the Tories to 321 seats.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
The UK barely functions as a democracy any more. The PM has just been voted in by a hundred thousand largely elderly nutters. He intends to ignore parliament if he can't abolish the current sitting altogether. He considers his government to be bound by a date set by his predecessor's government, and this parliament is bound by a non-binding vote held in the previous parliament.
Thanks to the dictatorship of the mob we have no viable opposition, with a cabal of stalinist scum holding whats left of the Labour Party to ransom as they plunge on towards their ultimate goal of no deal Brexit thus unleashing the collapse of capitalism.
And even if we manage to hold an election before we get to Brexit what will we get. A swathe of Brexit Party MPs half of whom look like poster caricatures of what "gammon" represents. I did enjoy one of their candidates sneering at "Former" Sainsbury's CEO Justin King's no deal warnings. Yes love, because you clearly know more about grocery than he does, after all he is only "former" CEO.
We are utterly fucked. May as well get yourselves as comfortable as you can and enjoy the ride.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
Is Boris actually calling the election? If he has been VONC'ed then effectively it is parliament calling the election.
How is the date chosen in this situation? [question to anyone, not just GOTV2]
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
Is Boris actually calling the election? If he has been VONC'ed then effectively it is parliament calling the election.
How is the date chosen in this situation? [question to anyone, not just GOTV2]
You have Labour members to thank. Lots of Nick Palmers decided long ago that Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is more important to them than defeating the Conservatives. Such is the privilege of not needing a Labour government or fearing a Tory one.
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
I'm not actually convinced it's true that Boris would be acting against legislation if he refused to resign. The FTPA says that once the Commons has voted ‘that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’ it then automatically triggers an election unless within a 14 day period the Commons votes ‘that this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.’
There isn’t actually anything in there about an alternative government being formed, and my reading of the act is that Boris could legitimately remain PM in all circumstances unless he were to lose an election. Maybe if the Commons signalled that it would have confidence in Corbyn there would be pressure brought upon the Queen to sack the incumbent PM, but how she would react to that is anyone’s guess!
Has Liddle apologised, or shown any remorse or recantation, for his utterly inflammatory, and completely untrue, remarks about the Peterborough by-election?
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
But clearly Boris wouldn't call an election to get a mandate to do something (or rather, not do something) which would already be irrelevant by the time of the election. As others have said, in the case of a vonc it's not him calling the election. And if it was a 2/3rds vote initiated by him, it'd most likely be explained as a vote to give him a strong majority for the next stage of negotiations with the EU and the rest of the world post Brexit
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
With a 9% lead over Labour possibly.
Seats like Dewsbury, Wakefield, Wrexham etc would all fall to the Tories on that poll
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
Is Boris actually calling the election? If he has been VONC'ed then effectively it is parliament calling the election.
How is the date chosen in this situation? [question to anyone, not just GOTV2]
Interesting that, among Lib Dem supporters expressing a preference Corbyn only beats Johnson by 3:2. Perhaps there is less potential for anti-Tory tactical voting than assumed?
Remember that BJ is still in his honeymoon period. And at the last election Corbyn was already very unpopular and yet many erstwhile LibDems like me voted for him. Hell, I even canvassed for him. There are sizeable "anyone but the Tories" and "anything but Hard Brexit" factions in the British public.
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
We still will.
And you'll be dead. Meaning that at some stage in the future, you will expire (as will we all).
I'd guess that, at some stage, we will get an FTA. But we were assured with the utmost certainty that the EU would hand it to us on a plate. Pronto!
I may* be very confused, but there appears to be two Independent Groups now in Parliament. TIGC which wants to be a political party and please join us and send money, and The Independents who are a Co-op of MPs definitely not a party please join us and send money.
So we have the Independent Change Group Party - 5 MPs. The Independents Co-op - 5 MPs. We have Independent MPs who wanted their independence of the Independents Group but haven't joined the Independents. And other Independents who are Independent of their former party, both Independent Groups and sit as Independent Independents.
Ordinarily I would say that all of these can expect to be relieved of their seats in a snap election but is that necessarily so? After all, Independents swept the board in some areas in council elections in May, and have provided their own entertainment. Such as in neighbouring Middlesbrough where the Independent Mayor thought he could govern with the newly elected Independent group of councillors. Several of whom object to other Independents and to the group of Independents and want to just be independent
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
But Boris isn't the one calling the election.
If the election is due to a VONC then it is the opposition calling the election and they have left it too late. Boris won't be asking permission he will be saying "I pledged to take us out and I have taken us out".
It's not the opposition, it's the house by the motion (or lack of motion) of their actions.
Look at the act.
VONC passes: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
14days start. If by the end of the 14 days the house does NOT pass the motion;
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Then parliment is dissolved by the Queen, and we get a GE.
all the while, Boris remains PM.
I also read it as not requiring Boris to stand down.
However, it’s an appallingly drafted piece of legislation that was rushed through on a whim and it’s clear to see how you could come to a contrary opinion.
Edit: I’d also mention that I don’t think HMQ needs to dismiss Boris. There are two bits of constitutional precedent that never really go well together - one, that the Queen must appoint a Prime Minister best able to command the confidence of the House, and 2, the country must have a government until it can be shown that an alternative government with the confidence of the House can be formed. If you only ever went by 1, Brown should have resigned the day after the 2010 election.
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
We still will.
And you'll be dead. Meaning that at some stage in the future, you will expire (as will we all).
I'd guess that, at some stage, we will get an FTA. But we were assured with the utmost certainty that the EU would hand it to us on a plate. Pronto!
I may* be very confused, but there appears to be two Independent Groups now in Parliament. TIGC which wants to be a political party and please join us and send money, and The Independents who are a Co-op of MPs definitely not a party please join us and send money.
So we have the Independent Change Group Party - 5 MPs. The Independents Co-op - 5 MPs. We have Independent MPs who wanted their independence of the Independents Group but haven't joined the Independents. And other Independents who are Independent of their former party, both Independent Groups and sit as Independent Independents.
Ordinarily I would say that all of these can expect to be relieved of their seats in a snap election but is that necessarily so? After all, Independents swept the board in some areas in council elections in May, and have provided their own entertainment. Such as in neighbouring Middlesbrough where the Independent Mayor thought he could govern with the newly elected Independent group of councillors. Several of whom object to other Independents and to the group of Independents and want to just be independent
> It is an exquisite trap and one he has built all by himself. Do or die indeed. How will he resolve the dilemma: by seeking an election well before the end of October, by not having one or by doing what he has solemnly promised not to?
The solution to the conundrum is to let parliament cause the election and force the extension, then run against the other parties for breaking his promise.
Richard Burgon for interim PM on the grounds that he'd be too stupid to do any damage before the GE. Probably take him a week just to find his new office.
> It is an exquisite trap and one he has built all by himself. Do or die indeed. How will he resolve the dilemma: by seeking an election well before the end of October, by not having one or by doing what he has solemnly promised not to?
The solution to the conundrum is to let parliament cause the election and force the extension, then run against the other parties for breaking his promise.
Nigel would have him for breakfast if that happens. Brexit vote riven down the middle.
> It is an exquisite trap and one he has built all by himself. Do or die indeed. How will he resolve the dilemma: by seeking an election well before the end of October, by not having one or by doing what he has solemnly promised not to?
The solution to the conundrum is to let parliament cause the election and force the extension, then run against the other parties for breaking his promise.
I also read it as not requiring Boris to stand down.
However, it’s an appallingly drafted piece of legislation that was rushed through on a whim and it’s clear to see how you could come to a contrary opinion.
It's not badly drafted. The reason why it doesn't say anything about how a new government might be formed in the 14-day period is that it doesn't change anything in that respect. A new government will be formed, if it is possible to do, exactly as new governments have always been formed: by the palace taking advice (normally but not necessarily from the existing PM) on whether anyone other than the existing PM is likely to be able to command the confidence of the House.
I may* be very confused, but there appears to be two Independent Groups now in Parliament. TIGC which wants to be a political party and please join us and send money, and The Independents who are a Co-op of MPs definitely not a party please join us and send money.
So we have the Independent Change Group Party - 5 MPs. The Independents Co-op - 5 MPs. We have Independent MPs who wanted their independence of the Independents Group but haven't joined the Independents. And other Independents who are Independent of their former party, both Independent Groups and sit as Independent Independents.
Ordinarily I would say that all of these can expect to be relieved of their seats in a snap election but is that necessarily so? After all, Independents swept the board in some areas in council elections in May, and have provided their own entertainment. Such as in neighbouring Middlesbrough where the Independent Mayor thought he could govern with the newly elected Independent group of councillors. Several of whom object to other Independents and to the group of Independents and want to just be independent
One lot is a waiting room for potential LibDems and the other lot isn’t.
Surely a joke? Mind you I'm still waiting for several people to reveal themselves as the absurdist performance artists they obviously must be.
When your ass is owned by the Koch brothers, you will eventually blame every single thing on environmentalism.
In fairness, Brendan actually denies that environmentalism is to blame. This is more: if you can accuse Mr Trump of being responsible then I could just as easily blame the Greens.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
But Boris isn't the one calling the election.
If the election is due to a VONC then it is the opposition calling the election and they have left it too late. Boris won't be asking permission he will be saying "I pledged to take us out and I have taken us out".
It's not the opposition, it's the house by the motion (or lack of motion) of their actions.
Look at the act.
VONC passes: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
14days start. If by the end of the 14 days the house does NOT pass the motion;
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Then parliment is dissolved by the Queen, and we get a GE.
all the while, Boris remains PM.
I also read it as not requiring Boris to stand down.
However, it’s an appallingly drafted piece of legislation that was rushed through on a whim and it’s clear to see how you could come to a contrary opinion.
Edit: I’d also mention that I don’t think HMQ needs to dismiss Boris. There are two bits of constitutional precedent that never really go well together - one, that the Queen must appoint a Prime Minister best able to command the confidence of the House, and 2, the country must have a government until it can be shown that an alternative government with the confidence of the House can be formed. If you only ever went by 1, Brown should have resigned the day after the 2010 election.
HMG can mean a new HMG not necessarily the former HMG which actually only requires one individual to somehow demonstrate that they have the confidence of the house.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
Would be biggest Tory majority since Thatcher 1987, Labour doing even worse than Foot 1983
Labour minority with Flavible.
Flavible is untested, there is no way a 9% Tory lead does not give a Tory majority on UNS
UNS is tested and failed. Flavible is trying to rectify the obvious flaws in UNS when there are big swings to and from third parties; it may not be ‘tested’ (although their B&R prediction was very close) but better untested than wrong.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
LOL, if you think Tories will gain off SNP you are barking
I did put an apostrophe. Just quoting electoral calculus
I can't see an apostrophe.
A couple of Tory gains from the SNP are certainly possible, if the Brexit Party doesn't stand and if some anti-SNP voters are willing to switch to the Tories.
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
We still will.
And you'll be dead. Meaning that at some stage in the future, you will expire (as will we all).
I'd guess that, at some stage, we will get an FTA. But we were assured with the utmost certainty that the EU would hand it to us on a plate. Pronto!
I also read it as not requiring Boris to stand down.
However, it’s an appallingly drafted piece of legislation that was rushed through on a whim and it’s clear to see how you could come to a contrary opinion.
It's not badly drafted. The reason why it doesn't say anything about how a new government might be formed in the 14-day period is that it doesn't change anything in that respect. A new government will be formed, if it is possible to do, exactly as new governments have always been formed: by the palace taking advice (normally but not necessarily from the existing PM) on whether anyone other than the existing PM is likely to be able to command the confidence of the House.
Indeed. Also it's designed for hung parliments.
Lets say (for example), there were 600 seats:
Tory 285 Labour: 265 Lib Dems: 30 Brexit: 25 (for simpilifcation no other parties)
So, say currently there's a Tory/Lib dem coalition: 315 seats- a majority.
For whatever reason, the lib dems get in huff, and want to bring down the government, they remove the coalition, and do a VONC, which passes.
Now, the government have 14 days to get a VOC in them. they could go for GE, or they could do a new deal with the Brexit party, which with 310 combined seats has a majority....
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
LOL, if you think Tories will gain off SNP you are barking
I did put an apostrophe. Just quoting electoral calculus
Appreciate it may not be your personal numbers but it is pretty common knowledge that applied as it is to Scotland it is stupid and not going to happen. If lucky in present circumstances the Tories will be lucky to have anybody left.
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
LOL, if you think Tories will gain off SNP you are barking
I did put an apostrophe. Just quoting electoral calculus
I can't see an apostrophe.
A couple of Tory gains from the SNP are certainly possible, if the Brexit Party doesn't stand and if some anti-SNP voters are willing to switch to the Tories.
Before the FTPA following a vote of no confidence, the government could choose either to resign or request a dissolution of Parliament. Callaghan chose dissolution which he was entitled to do.
Now the FTPA explicitly provides for 14 days for the formation of another government before a GE can be triggered. If Johnson tries to ignore that he is ignoring legislation.
Whatever the Queen does it will be controversial. She will be advised to take the least controversial option which I believe will be to call the LOTO. To allow Johnson to ignore the legislation and squat in number 10 would be extremely controversial.
No, the rules would be for a GE if no other option is avilable, and meanwhile Boris gets to be PM until that GE.
She should instruct Boris to call a GE, and presumably if he didn't he would be acting illegally under the FTPA.
There is another option available - the natural one, the LOTO. There is a reasonable chance that Corbyn would survive a VONC - at least temporarily as I have explained.
It would be much simpler just to have an indicative vote in advance. That way we would know and you remove the risk of a VONC leading to a GE which Boris can date after Brexit.
I agree it would be much simpler to have an indicative vote in advance but I can't see a mechanism for that to happen.
I'd hoped that TMay would have enabled an indicative vote on Johnson before she went off to the palace.
Surely we already have the mechanism in place. Parliament took control of the agenda for the indicative votes earlier in the year. I don't see any difference in them doing so now. Not least because in doing so they are simply seeking to clarify the situation. I would have thought the Speaker would be open to such a move.
Are you allowed to interpret legislation like this?
Yes, you have to interpret legislation in context.
Wasn’t the context that we had a coalition government and Dave was really nervous about Nick leaving him, so he was giving him 14 days from their break up to decide whether he came back to him or not?
(I appreciate that this is not how the government at the time would have sold this particular provision, but isn’t that what it was really about?)
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
We still will.
And you'll be dead. Meaning that at some stage in the future, you will expire (as will we all).
I'd guess that, at some stage, we will get an FTA. But we were assured with the utmost certainty that the EU would hand it to us on a plate. Pronto!
You can blame the EU’s sequencing for that.
Which the arch Brexiteer David Davis agreed to.
Well it hasn’t worked out too well so far. I mean really, all this effort wasted on a backstop that would have been negated anyway.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
There was this attempt at giving that point a bit of perspective earlier in the thread, quoted from OblitusSumMe, the question of what in the Status Quo.
#OblitusSumMe My understanding of the law is that you can create a status quo situation that involves a change on a specified date.
For example, consider signing a contract that agrees the purchase of a house. Once the contract has been signed the status quo becomes that the purchase will be effected on a specified date and yet, before that date, you do not own the house.
Consequently, the status quo in law can include a change in other parameters.
If Parliament didn't intend to vote for no deal then they should have paid more attention when the Bill was making its way through Parliament.
Fortunately, if the Commons wishes to rectify their mistake then they possess the power to do so, if they are willing to use it.
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through a VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
We still will.
And you'll be dead. Meaning that at some stage in the future, you will expire (as will we all).
I'd guess that, at some stage, we will get an FTA. But we were assured with the utmost certainty that the EU would hand it to us on a plate. Pronto!
You can blame the EU’s sequencing for that.
Which the arch Brexiteer David Davis agreed to.
Well it hasn’t worked out too well so far. I mean really, all this effort wasted on a backstop that would have been negated anyway.
David Davis like many Brexiteers thought it would be so easy
59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
Would be biggest Tory majority since Thatcher 1987, Labour doing even worse than Foot 1983
Labour minority with Flavible.
Flavible is untested, there is no way a 9% Tory lead does not give a Tory majority on UNS
UNS is tested and failed. Flavible is trying to rectify the obvious flaws in UNS when there are big swings to and from third parties; it may not be ‘tested’ (although their B&R prediction was very close) but better untested than wrong.
Huh, I just put those numbers into Flavible and got C 325, Lab 186, LD 65, SNP 49, Plaid 4, TBP Ltd 2, Green 1
Interesting. 59 Con gains off Lab (and the SNP!) counteracted by 30 losses to the LDs to give a Con maj of 22 (according to Electoral Calculus)
In practice I don’t think numbers like that would deliver a Tory majority. The losses to the Lib Dems would be greater.
No, too many safe Tory seats in the South, especially with Brexit Party voters returning, though the LDs would pick up St Albans maybe Guildford etc the Tories would win Lincoln, Vale of Clwyd, Bolsover etc from Labour
You think the Tories would win Bolsover on 31% nationally? 🤣
Are you doubting our HY`s ability to think that? 😜😜
I miss the days of his hourly reassurances we'd get an FTA with the EU.
We still will.
And you'll be dead. Meaning that at some stage in the future, you will expire (as will we all).
I'd guess that, at some stage, we will get an FTA. But we were assured with the utmost certainty that the EU would hand it to us on a plate. Pronto!
You can blame the EU’s sequencing for that.
Which the arch Brexiteer David Davis agreed to.
Well it hasn’t worked out too well so far. I mean really, all this effort wasted on a backstop that would have been negated anyway.
David Davis like many Brexiteers thought it would be so easy
Scottish Labour: "We will campaign tirelessly to prevent Scots being given the opportunity to decide their own future!" Even though our bosses have told us to get lost. How pathetic can the Labour Scottish sub Region halfwits get., seems to be no bottom rung
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
I'm already on the receiving end of an election outcome made pointless - because 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging they would implement Brexit...and then didn't.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
There isn’t actually anything in there about an alternative government being formed
On your reading is the 14 days just in there because everyone has had to work very hard bringing the VONC and deserves some time off?
My reading is that it gives the Commons time to reconsider whether it backs the government, or if the government has resigned in that time and recommended a successor, the Commons can then express its confidence in the new administration without an election. But I don't think it changes anything about *how* the new government would actually be formed - that remains the prerogative of the Crown and exercised by convention. And how the Queen would act in the circumstance where Boris refused to resign is unclear...
Ah yes the insights of someone for who assaulting his pregnant girlfriend is a good holiday.
I don’t work hard just so I can holiday in Cleethorpes.
Why does the falling pound make a UK based holiday more affordable? Or does he mean in comparison going elsewhere because that’s become more expensive?
Who knows? Liddle’s job is to bandy around nostalgist and vaguely racist tropes to a brain-dead audience, not to be logical.
Actually, a falling pound makes a UK holiday more expensive too, due to inflationary pressures, even if these are modest at present.
It probably also makes it more expensive because of increased demand - both from Uk holidaymakers who can't afford to go abroad any more, and foreigners who find the UK relatively cheaper. So could be quite a lot more than modest.
On the other hand maybe Rod Liddle is paid in hard currency - after all the patriotic Spectator is owned by residents of Monaco, which uses the Euro.
And the commissioning editor of the Spectator, i.e. the person who approves Rod Liddle's idea for an article, is Dominic Cummings' wife.
She prefers it when Dominic is referred to as “Mary Wakefield’s husband”
"In threatening it at all, he risks making a JC premiership the only game in town for those wanting to stop no deal"
And that would be great for Boris. Presumably JC would only be PM long enough to get an extension and we would then have an election, where Boris would now have a massive stick to beat the LDs with
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Scottish Labour: "We will campaign tirelessly to prevent Scots being given the opportunity to decide their own future!" Even though our bosses have told us to get lost. How pathetic can the Labour Scottish sub Region halfwits get., seems to be no bottom rung
Sticking to the word of the SNP Government - "once in a generation" - how foolish to believe the fibbers!
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
"In threatening it at all, he risks making a JC premiership the only game in town for those wanting to stop no deal"
And that would be great for Boris. Presumably JC would only be PM long enough to get an extension and we would then have an election, where Boris would now have a massive stick to beat the LDs with
What big stick? He will be too busy fighting off TBP
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Everyone seems to be focusing on the procedural and legal ins and outs of all this, and not the potential impact on the outcome of the election.
Whilst firm (*diehard*) remainers and leavers won’t be swayed, there is a majority of the population who will be watching all this without an entrenched view. Including a lot who haven’t been watching that closely up to that point. At one extreme they might be appalled at seeing the government ride roughshod over the constitution and circumventing parliament; at the other they might be won over by ‘people v parliament’.
Comments
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
Seats like Dewsbury, Wakefield, Wrexham etc would all fall to the Tories on that poll
But he didn't
If Corbyn got in on those numbers, you bet that Boris or whoever would do.
1. How far are LibDem voters prepared to vote tactically?
2. If they are, is PM preference more important to LibDems than NoDeal preference or Tory/anti-Tory preference?
3. Will voters in a Con-Lab marginal know they're in a Con-Lab marginal, given big national swings?
Similar questions arise in reverse for a Con-LD marginal, and for Brexit Party voters. My rule of thumb is that in a constituency where a party obviously has no chance, around 50-60% of its supporters will switch if they believe a similarly-inclined party could win, and 40-50% will not.
If the election is due to a VONC then it is the opposition calling the election and they have left it too late. Boris won't be asking permission he will be saying "I pledged to take us out and I have taken us out".
“That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”
(3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
So to avoid a election, the house has to pass a motion of confidence in a new government.
All the while, Boris remains PM of course.
#OblitusSumMe My understanding of the law is that you can create a status quo situation that involves a change on a specified date.
For example, consider signing a contract that agrees the purchase of a house. Once the contract has been signed the status quo becomes that the purchase will be effected on a specified date and yet, before that date, you do not own the house.
Consequently, the status quo in law can include a change in other parameters.
If Parliament didn't intend to vote for no deal then they should have paid more attention when the Bill was making its way through Parliament.
Fortunately, if the Commons wishes to rectify their mistake then they possess the power to do so, if they are willing to use it.
Look at the act.
VONC passes: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
14days start. If by the end of the 14 days the house does NOT pass the motion;
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Then parliment is dissolved by the Queen, and we get a GE.
all the while, Boris remains PM.
Thanks to the dictatorship of the mob we have no viable opposition, with a cabal of stalinist scum holding whats left of the Labour Party to ransom as they plunge on towards their ultimate goal of no deal Brexit thus unleashing the collapse of capitalism.
And even if we manage to hold an election before we get to Brexit what will we get. A swathe of Brexit Party MPs half of whom look like poster caricatures of what "gammon" represents. I did enjoy one of their candidates sneering at "Former" Sainsbury's CEO Justin King's no deal warnings. Yes love, because you clearly know more about grocery than he does, after all he is only "former" CEO.
We are utterly fucked. May as well get yourselves as comfortable as you can and enjoy the ride.
There isn’t actually anything in there about an alternative government being formed, and my reading of the act is that Boris could legitimately remain PM in all circumstances unless he were to lose an election. Maybe if the Commons signalled that it would have confidence in Corbyn there would be pressure brought upon the Queen to sack the incumbent PM, but how she would react to that is anyone’s guess!
[this may be a stupid question!]
I'd guess that, at some stage, we will get an FTA. But we were assured with the utmost certainty that the EU would hand it to us on a plate. Pronto!
So we have the Independent Change Group Party - 5 MPs. The Independents Co-op - 5 MPs. We have Independent MPs who wanted their independence of the Independents Group but haven't joined the Independents. And other Independents who are Independent of their former party, both Independent Groups and sit as Independent Independents.
Ordinarily I would say that all of these can expect to be relieved of their seats in a snap election but is that necessarily so? After all, Independents swept the board in some areas in council elections in May, and have provided their own entertainment. Such as in neighbouring Middlesbrough where the Independent Mayor thought he could govern with the newly elected Independent group of councillors. Several of whom object to other Independents and to the group of Independents and want to just be independent
However, it’s an appallingly drafted piece of legislation that was rushed through on a whim and it’s clear to see how you could come to a contrary opinion.
Edit: I’d also mention that I don’t think HMQ needs to dismiss Boris. There are two bits of constitutional precedent that never really go well together - one, that the Queen must appoint a Prime Minister best able to command the confidence of the House, and 2, the country must have a government until it can be shown that an alternative government with the confidence of the House can be formed. If you only ever went by 1, Brown should have resigned the day after the 2010 election.
> It is an exquisite trap and one he has built all by himself. Do or die indeed. How will he resolve the dilemma: by seeking an election well before the end of October, by not having one or by doing what he has solemnly promised not to?
The solution to the conundrum is to let parliament cause the election and force the extension, then run against the other parties for breaking his promise.
UNS is tested and failed. Flavible is trying to rectify the obvious flaws in UNS when there are big swings to and from third parties; it may not be ‘tested’ (although their B&R prediction was very close) but better untested than wrong.
A couple of Tory gains from the SNP are certainly possible, if the Brexit Party doesn't stand and if some anti-SNP voters are willing to switch to the Tories.
Lets say (for example), there were 600 seats:
Tory 285
Labour: 265
Lib Dems: 30
Brexit: 25
(for simpilifcation no other parties)
So, say currently there's a Tory/Lib dem coalition: 315 seats- a majority.
For whatever reason, the lib dems get in huff, and want to bring down the government, they remove the coalition, and do a VONC, which passes.
Now, the government have 14 days to get a VOC in them. they could go for GE, or they could do a new deal with the Brexit party, which with 310 combined seats has a majority....
That's basically it....
If lucky in present circumstances the Tories will be lucky to have anybody left.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1159454184015638529
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1159454487620272129
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1159451952079659008
"In threatening it at all, he risks making a JC premiership the only game in town for those wanting to stop no deal"
(I appreciate that this is not how the government at the time would have sold this particular provision, but isn’t that what it was really about?)
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this?
2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through a VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1002541345964216321
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
Whilst firm (*diehard*) remainers and leavers won’t be swayed, there is a majority of the population who will be watching all this without an entrenched view. Including a lot who haven’t been watching that closely up to that point. At one extreme they might be appalled at seeing the government ride roughshod over the constitution and circumventing parliament; at the other they might be won over by ‘people v parliament’.