You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x 2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament 3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y 4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
Surely step 3) can't actually happen, due to Labour refusing to oblige step 2) because they don't trust him to follow through on step 1) ?
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to Trump
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're really over-thinking this. The sequence would be like this:
1. Boris would meet the Cabinet at about 9:30am on 4th September where they would agree to hold a general election on 10th October.
2. Boris would phone the Queen in Balmoral at about 10:30am to tell her of the decision to hold an election on 10th October.
3. Boris wiould make a speech in Donwing St. at about 11am and tell the public we're going to have an election on 10th October.
4. Boris could present the Bill to Parliament at about 12pm and tell MPs he wants them to agree to have an election on 10th October.
Now after doing all this the idea that after Parliament has voted for the election he'd make the date 1st November is fanciful in the extreme and it's no often I agree with @williamglenn but he's right that if Boris tried that the damage he'd get in the backlash from MPs, Great British Public and HMQ would be severe.
Believe in Boris?
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x 2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament 3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y 4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
Well, it's nonsensical anyway, because once the 2/3 vote has passed he just has to advise the Queen of the date, so "trying to change" the date doesn't come into it.
But I'll humour you. Go on. What do you suppose happens next?
A vote of no confidence, you said. And then you think we go into the 14-day period, and you think the Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And then what? If the other person gets a vote of confidence you think the election is off? Or if not they get to tell the Queen a different date?
Your premise is that he will win the 2/3 vote without having named a date in advance? If that's your starting point it explains the rest - GIGO.
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to Trump
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.
No, I have not as I have never said the Democrats will pick the strongest candidate to beat Trump as their desire for a populist left liberal candidate will come first
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.
They haven't, Boris leads Corbyn as best PM in all the latest polls
I would just like to say what an awsome afternoon i have had in Belfast. I went to Stormont parliament and the building the way it crowns the hillside projects power! If SeanT was there it would have given him the horn! I went on a tour of the building and really enjoyed it. Political figures past and present were mentioned and although i did not really learn much new information, it was a real pleasure to be involved a process that enhances political awareness. The buildings from an architectural standpoint are impresive as well throughtout Belfast. I went around Belfast city hall as well and that is stunning inside. I prefer the inside to say Manchester city hall for instance. But Manchester city hall is stunning even though it has a different style. I seem to like political buildings as well as the business inside them.
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
The "original" idea is that it's politically impossible for him to renege on the date!
We are rapidly reaching the point where no Tory MPs would be needed provided all Opposition MPs - excluding DUP - vote for Corbyn. Obviously Gutto Bebb's support would be helpful - as would the possible defection of Philip Lee. I wonder what Sylvia Hermon's intentions are now.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x 2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament 3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y 4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
Surely step 3) can't actually happen, due to Labour refusing to oblige step 2) because they don't trust him to follow through on step 1) ?
Yep Step 2 doesn't work as the first statement anyone sane would make is get an extension to x date and we are will be glad to have an election on October 10th.
Then Boris has to spend the entire campaign answering why we won't have left by October 31st with the Brexit party calling him a traitor.
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
The "original" idea is that it's politically impossible for him to renege on the date!
No - as you know, I am asking you about your crazy idea that a 2/3 vote for an election could be followed by a VONC and the appointment of another prime minister.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're really over-thinking this. The sequence would be like this:
1. Boris would meet the Cabinet at about 9:30am on 4th September where they would agree to hold a general election on 10th October.
2. Boris would phone the Queen in Balmoral at about 10:30am to tell her of the decision to hold an election on 10th October.
3. Boris wiould make a speech in Donwing St. at about 11am and tell the public we're going to have an election on 10th October.
4. Boris could present the Bill to Parliament at about 12pm and tell MPs he wants them to agree to have an election on 10th October.
Now after doing all this the idea that after Parliament has voted for the election he'd make the date 1st November is fanciful in the extreme and it's no often I agree with @williamglenn but he's right that if Boris tried that the damage he'd get in the backlash from MPs, Great British Public and HMQ would be severe.
Believe in Boris?
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
My question remains how can a government involving Labour appoint anyone other than Corbyn as PM, given the Labour rulebook, because it is not clear to me that such a thing is possible...
Are there any Labour party rules that prevent someone other than party leader becoming PM? I do seem to recall something, but the details are misty.
Probably not, as the current prime minister, Mr Johnson, is not the leader of the Labour party.
Drat your pedantry! Such a rule would sit well with the communism though.
OK. Are there any internal Labour party rules that prevent a Labour figure other than the leader becoming PM?
I should love to become a professional pedant, but I think there would be too much competition.
Answering my own question, it is not mandated but taken as read that the Labour Leader in government would become PM. Coalition demands that leader should not become PM or that Labour could one day be a minor coalition partner, are not considered:
1.VII.1.A.viii When the party is in government, the Leader shall appoint the cabinet and all other front bench positions in their capacity as Prime Minister.
4.II.2.E.i When the party is in government and the Party Leader is prime minister and, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the Cabinet shall...appoint one of its members to serve as party leader until a ballot....can be carried out.
Given a Cabinet is needed, it is unclear at what point Corbyn would be able, should the need or want arise, to declare himself permanently unavailable in the event of government formation.
A Corbyn resignation / unavailability would have to be prior to government, in which case Watson would assume and become PM.
No mechanism I can see for my pet theory that Corbyn might parachute in Long-Bailey.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x 2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament 3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y 4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
Well, it's nonsensical anyway, because once the 2/3 vote has passed he just has to advise the Queen of the date, so "trying to change" the date doesn't come into it.
But I'll humour you. Go on. What do you suppose happens next?
A vote of no confidence, you said. And then you think we go into the 14-day period, and you think the Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And then what? If the other person gets a vote of confidence you think the election is off? Or if not they get to tell the Queen a different date?
Your premise is that he will win the 2/3 vote without having named a date in advance? If that's your starting point it explains the rest - GIGO.
You really can't bring yourself to admit that your idea about a VONC following the 2/3 vote was a silly mistake?
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
The "original" idea is that it's politically impossible for him to renege on the date!
No - as you know, I am asking you about your crazy idea that a 2/3 vote for an election could be followed by a VONC and the appointment of another prime minister.
I was attempting to show by reductio ad absurdum that your own argument was wrong. You seem to accept this.
To be absolutely clear, Boris won't win a 2/3 vote without the date and any other relevant conditions for the election being clear in advance, and it will not be politically possible for him to change the date afterwards.
Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.
Yes, an honesty contest between them would be an unedifying spectacle but I guess you'd have to give it to the man in the red corner.
The problem is that he has (apart from many other faults!) a long history of anti-europeanism. Since the referendum he has been dragged reluctantly to the point where he grudgingly agrees a further referendum as the price of power. He cannot be trusted on the issue.
This is just horse trading over who gets the role of caretaker PM, lets see how things go over the next few weeks.
Indeed. As Green said earlier, stand back and observe the bigger picture.
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to Trump
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.
No, I have not as I have never said the Democrats will pick the strongest candidate to beat Trump as their desire for a populist left liberal candidate will come first
I've tried to find evidence of my accusation and can't, so I withdraw it, with apologies.
Having screwed things up so almightily, at least she could try to minimise the damage now. But oh no, she still has to keep saying it won't work.
Looks like she is looking for a way by meeting Corbyn. She was rather immature in her initial response. She, after all, commands 15 votes, so 1/18th Labour votes in the HoC. SNP, PC, Lucas, and some Tories are prepared to talk to Corbyn/Labour. If Corbyn does not behave he too can be VoNCed.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/15/why-its-time-to-stop-worrying-about-the-decline-of-the-english-language ...The irony is, of course, that the pedants are the ones making the mistakes. To people who know how language works, pundits such as Douglas Rushkoff only end up sounding ignorant, having failed to really interrogate their views. What they are expressing are stylistic preferences – and that’s fine. I have my own, and can easily say “I hate the way this is written”, or even “this is badly written”. But that is shorthand: what is left off is “in my view” or “according to my stylistic preferences and prejudices, based on what I have been exposed to up to now, and particularly between the ages of five and 25”.
Mostly, pedants do not admit this. I know, because I have had plenty of arguments with them. They like to maintain that their prejudices are somehow objective – that there are clear instances of language getting “less good” in a way that can be independently verified. But, as we have seen, that is what pedants have said throughout history.
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to Trump
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.
No, I have not as I have never said the Democrats will pick the strongest candidate to beat Trump as their desire for a populist left liberal candidate will come first
I've tried to find evidence of my accusation and can't, so I withdraw it, with apologies.
Corbyn is the intermediate step I suspect it goes:-
VoNC Boris Confidence vote in Corbyn fails Confidence vote for xyz (my guess is Beckett) wins.
The problem is that what might well happen is: VoNC Johnson Confidence vote in Corbyn fails owing to insufficient support outside the Labour Party Confidence vote in xyz fails owing to insufficient support inside the Labour party No Deal
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
The "original" idea is that it's politically impossible for him to renege on the date!
No - as you know, I am asking you about your crazy idea that a 2/3 vote for an election could be followed by a VONC and the appointment of another prime minister.
I was attempting to show by reductio ad absurdum that your own argument was wrong. You seem to accept this.
I accept that what you said was absurd - even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.
Corbyn is the intermediate step I suspect it goes:-
VoNC Boris Confidence vote in Corbyn fails Confidence vote for xyz (my guess is Beckett) wins.
The problem is that what might well happen is: VoNC Johnson Confidence vote in Corbyn fails owing to insufficient support outside the Labour Party Confidence vote in xyz fails owing to insufficient support inside the Labour party No Deal
True but it's very unlikely provided the second candidate was also a Labour MP.
Margaret Beckett covers that way, way better than anyone else - not least because she is the reason Jeremy Corbyn had enough MPs to stand for the leadership.
Mr. Eagles, thank you for reinforcing my point about your lack of historical understanding. No wonder you think Caesar was a better general than Hannibal.
What would happen to poster who suggested that both of those were inferior to the Duke of Goa?
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to Trump
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.
No, I have not as I have never said the Democrats will pick the strongest candidate to beat Trump as their desire for a populist left liberal candidate will come first
Except that it's entirely possible that she'll prove the strongest candidate to beat Trump. Still, you seem at least temporarily to have dropped the lazy 'elitist' caricature.
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to Trump
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.
No, I have not as I have never said the Democrats will pick the strongest candidate to beat Trump as their desire for a populist left liberal candidate will come first
Except that it's entirely possible that she'll prove the strongest candidate to beat Trump. Still, you seem at least temporarily to have dropped the lazy 'elitist' caricature.
Well she isn't at the moment, Biden and Sanders poll far more strongly agsinst Trump thsn her, especially Biden but if you think that will change in a year that is up to you
Boris does a Theresa and calls a general election on the day Parliament returns on 4th September.
"Johnson, however, can pre-empt such manoeuvres on September 4 when Parliament returns by tabling a motion for an early general election, to be held on October 10.
This date is opportune for two reasons. First, Parliament would dissolve by law on September 5. This immediately eliminates the threat of MPs taking control of parliamentary time, keeping the exit date of October 31 intact.
Second, this election date comes a week before the EU Council summit. If his gamble pays off and he were to win a majority, the PM would have the strong negotiating position required to obtain a new deal. If the EU still refuses to budge, the Government could spend the final weeks passing relevant no-deal legislation to minimise disruption before Britain leaves the EU."
Mr. Eagles, thank you for reinforcing my point about your lack of historical understanding. No wonder you think Caesar was a better general than Hannibal.
What would happen to poster who suggested that both of those were inferior to the Duke of Goa?
Mr. Eagles, thank you for reinforcing my point about your lack of historical understanding. No wonder you think Caesar was a better general than Hannibal.
What would happen to poster who suggested that both of those were inferior to the Duke of Goa?
Mr. Eagles, thank you for reinforcing my point about your lack of historical understanding. No wonder you think Caesar was a better general than Hannibal.
What would happen to poster who suggested that both of those were inferior to the Duke of Goa?
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to Trump
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.
No, I have not as I have never said the Democrats will pick the strongest candidate to beat Trump as their desire for a populist left liberal candidate will come first
Except that it's entirely possible that she'll prove the strongest candidate to beat Trump. Still, you seem at least temporarily to have dropped the lazy 'elitist' caricature.
Actually unless we find a way to explore alternate realities it's not possible that anyone will prove the strongest candidate to beat Trump.
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
The "original" idea is that it's politically impossible for him to renege on the date!
No - as you know, I am asking you about your crazy idea that a 2/3 vote for an election could be followed by a VONC and the appointment of another prime minister.
I was attempting to show by reductio ad absurdum that your own argument was wrong. You seem to accept this.
I accept that what you said was absurd - even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.
What do you think would happen if Johnson announced an election on date x and then tried to change the date after winning the 2/3 vote?
Just one local by-election today, on the edge of Shrewsbury. The LibDems will be lucky to continue their unbroken record into a fourth week, as it looks safe Tory.
The backtrack begins. Of course if her only objection to Corbyn's plan really is that he can't command a majority, then logically she'd vote for him in the VOC. So now either she does that or exposes her blatant deceit and hypocrisy on no deal Brexit.
I note - alone on here - that sterling has recovered all of its losses from the other week against the Euro. Interestingly it does not feature at all on any of the news channels or among the myriad of people on here who were so worried when its decline was heralded as the ruination of all foreign holidays as well as forcing elderly Brits in Europe back to blighty pronto. Funny that....
What do you want the news to say? Sterling is below where it was a month ago.
You do understand the point but choose not to admit it because it does not suit your agenda.
For goodness sake, why? Healthcare is not sweeties, you don't dish it out because you like somebody.
As long as Scottish taxpayers are paying for this largesse....
Nicola obviosly hoping that this will be reciprocated for Scots people when visiting the EU. Then she'll have another area where you get a better deal being Scottish
1. Successful Vote of No Confidence in Boris 2. Attempt to put Corbyn in, which fails. 3. Attempt to put Swinson in, which fails. 4. Attempt to put Clarke in, which fails. 5. 14 days run out, Boris calls election for September 1st. 6. No Deal Brexit.
And all because a bunch of partisans and ideologues refused to vote for a deal that would have stopped all the strife.
I think people are confused because Jo Swinson has skipped over a few moves in the chess game by ruling out Corbyn now instead of making general noises in favour of a VONC and GNU.*
VONC and GNU. God, this is a terrible time for new expressions
For goodness sake, why? Healthcare is not sweeties, you don't dish it out because you like somebody.
As long as Scottish taxpayers are paying for this largesse....
Nicola obviosly hoping that this will be reciprocated for Scots people when visiting the EU. Then she'll have another area where you get a better deal being Scottish
Boris does a Theresa and calls a general election on the day Parliament returns on 4th September.
"Johnson, however, can pre-empt such manoeuvres on September 4 when Parliament returns by tabling a motion for an early general election, to be held on October 10.
This date is opportune for two reasons. First, Parliament would dissolve by law on September 5. This immediately eliminates the threat of MPs taking control of parliamentary time, keeping the exit date of October 31 intact.
Second, this election date comes a week before the EU Council summit. If his gamble pays off and he were to win a majority, the PM would have the strong negotiating position required to obtain a new deal. If the EU still refuses to budge, the Government could spend the final weeks passing relevant no-deal legislation to minimise disruption before Britain leaves the EU."
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I know @Casino_Royale likes it , but IMHO the Spectator is an employment agency for unemployable people of poor moral character who can be relied upon to slap the keyboard for any right-wing bollocks in between drug use, repeated masturbation and torturing small animals.
I don’t understand how a proposal that involves Parliament VONCing Johnson, whilst he still claims to be angling for a deal, installing Corbyn as PM to negotiate an extension and then call an immediate election, is a reliable “anti Brexit” strategy. Installing Corbyn to the legislate for a referendum, maybe, but not an election in circumstances of which would be a Johnson dream scenario (to the extent that one exists)
For goodness sake, why? Healthcare is not sweeties, you don't dish it out because you like somebody.
As long as Scottish taxpayers are paying for this largesse....
Nicola obviosly hoping that this will be reciprocated for Scots people when visiting the EU. Then she'll have another area where you get a better deal being Scottish
Hoping and getting are two very different things.
If OTOH she doesn't get reciprocity but still has to pay for it then where are those funds coming from?
I note - alone on here - that sterling has recovered all of its losses from the other week against the Euro. Interestingly it does not feature at all on any of the news channels or among the myriad of people on here who were so worried when its decline was heralded as the ruination of all foreign holidays as well as forcing elderly Brits in Europe back to blighty pronto. Funny that....
What do you want the news to say? Sterling is below where it was a month ago.
You do understand the point but choose not to admit it because it does not suit your agenda.
I’m thinking you can’t read a graph. Zoom out a bit.
The backtrack begins. Of course if her only objection to Corbyn's plan really is that he can't command a majority, then logically she'd vote for him in the VOC. So now either she does that or exposes her blatant deceit and hypocrisy on no deal Brexit.
I don’t understand how a proposal that involves Parliament VONCing Johnson, whilst he still claims to be angling for a deal, installing Corbyn as PM to negotiate an extension and then call an immediate election, is a reliable “anti Brexit” strategy. Installing Corbyn to the legislate for a referendum, maybe, but not an election in circumstances of which would be a Johnson dream scenario (to the extent that one exists)
The problem with the 2nd referendum before election idea is that it means the caretaker PM being in power for a long time.
But you're right that it's not a reliable strategy. It's a roll of the dice, which they'd consider better than just giving up and letting Boris take us out with No Deal.
I think the 'vital supplies' referred to are medicines. So not quite so ridiculous as it sounds.
Unless something had gone badly wrong, I think we have enough C17s and A400Ms to import vital medicines. Or am I missing something? Genuine question.
With all the random spaffing going on, I have no idea.
It could equally be Boris' red wine supply
It is one of the world's largest aircraft (only the An-225 is bigger, but there is only one of them). Perhaps Boris is indulging in an aircraft version of "Men with the biggest cars have the smallest ....." ???
The backtrack begins. Of course if her only objection to Corbyn's plan really is that he can't command a majority, then logically she'd vote for him in the VOC. So now either she does that or exposes her blatant deceit and hypocrisy on no deal Brexit.
Well put. If stopping a no deal Brexit is her main priority. Swinson should agree with Lucas and Sturgeon in considering Corbyn's plan.
1. Successful Vote of No Confidence in Boris 2. Attempt to put Corbyn in, which fails. 3. Attempt to put Swinson in, which fails. 4. Attempt to put Clarke in, which fails. 5. 14 days run out, Boris calls election for September 1st. 6. No Deal Brexit.
And all because a bunch of partisans and ideologues refused to vote for a deal that would have stopped all the strife.
1. Successful Vote of No Confidence in Boris 2. Attempt to put Corbyn in, which fails. 3. Attempt to put Swinson in, which fails. 4. Attempt to put Clarke in, which fails. 5. 14 days run out, Boris calls election for September 1st. 6. No Deal Brexit.
And all because a bunch of partisans and ideologues refused to vote for a deal that would have stopped all the strife.
Boris does a Theresa and calls a general election on the day Parliament returns on 4th September.
"Johnson, however, can pre-empt such manoeuvres on September 4 when Parliament returns by tabling a motion for an early general election, to be held on October 10.
This date is opportune for two reasons. First, Parliament would dissolve by law on September 5. This immediately eliminates the threat of MPs taking control of parliamentary time, keeping the exit date of October 31 intact.
Second, this election date comes a week before the EU Council summit. If his gamble pays off and he were to win a majority, the PM would have the strong negotiating position required to obtain a new deal. If the EU still refuses to budge, the Government could spend the final weeks passing relevant no-deal legislation to minimise disruption before Britain leaves the EU."
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I know @Casino_Royale likes it , but IMHO the Spectator is an employment agency for unemployable people of poor moral character who can be relied upon to slap the keyboard for any right-wing bollocks in between drug use, repeated masturbation and torturing small animals.
So, if Johnson and Corbyn are both opposed to a proposed government of “unity” (sic), where do the proposers get 200 defectors from the two largest parties for their majority in a vote of confidence.
I could just about see a couple of dozen MPs willing to commit almost certain career suicide over Brexit, but there’s no chance of a couple of hundred doing so.
Indeed. The thread reads like a Remainer fantasy, with ever more absurd & fantastic people being proposed for a GONU. (Liz Saville Roberts -- she has only been in Parliament for 4 years!)
Unfortunately I agree with you, hence my reference to alternatehistory earlier today.
The backtrack begins. Of course if her only objection to Corbyn's plan really is that he can't command a majority, then logically she'd vote for him in the VOC. So now either she does that or exposes her blatant deceit and hypocrisy on no deal Brexit.
Not been a great day for Swinson, has it?
Amateur.....
I look forward to hearing from those who were earlier saying that ruling out working with Corbyn was a brilliant political strategy, on how this reverse ferret is also a brilliant political strategy.
I think people are confused because Jo Swinson has skipped over a few moves in the chess game by ruling out Corbyn now instead of making general noises in favour of a VONC and GNU.*
VONC and GNU. God, this is a terrible time for new expressions
It is not even correct. A government of national unity means all the main party leaders come together. This is being done to explictly exclude one party. A GRU or governnent of Remainer unity is more accurate.
Harriet Harman was a temporary leader of Labour IIRC, but surely Tom Watson is the man? Deputy Leader and already building many links across party lines.
Comments
https://twitter.com/joswinson/status/1162037853167214593?s=20
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/1162038460267540484
Landslide BJ Government!!!
Although the idea of Boris being the short-lived PM of all time does sound like a plan.
ANYBODY else would...
Then Boris has to spend the entire campaign answering why we won't have left by October 31st with the Brexit party calling him a traitor.
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1162040391983611904
Of course if she did CCHQ would instantly run ads in every southern Tory Remain seat with Swinson in Corbyn's pocket
As I said earlier Corbyn has got himself in a trap of his own making.
Decline a GONU under a neutral leader and see a full on attack from all those wanting to stop no deal
Is that definitely true? I thought that he had said he wouldn't stand as the Conservative candidate - quite a difference in the nuance.
VoNC Boris
Confidence vote in Corbyn fails
Confidence vote for xyz (my guess is Beckett) wins.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2440976/#Comment_2440976
To be absolutely clear, Boris won't win a 2/3 vote without the date and any other relevant conditions for the election being clear in advance, and it will not be politically possible for him to change the date afterwards.
Indeed. As Green said earlier, stand back and observe the bigger picture.
Everyone is now talking about a GOMOO.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/15/why-its-time-to-stop-worrying-about-the-decline-of-the-english-language
...The irony is, of course, that the pedants are the ones making the mistakes. To people who know how language works, pundits such as Douglas Rushkoff only end up sounding ignorant, having failed to really interrogate their views. What they are expressing are stylistic preferences – and that’s fine. I have my own, and can easily say “I hate the way this is written”, or even “this is badly written”. But that is shorthand: what is left off is “in my view” or “according to my stylistic preferences and prejudices, based on what I have been exposed to up to now, and particularly between the ages of five and 25”.
Mostly, pedants do not admit this. I know, because I have had plenty of arguments with them. They like to maintain that their prejudices are somehow objective – that there are clear instances of language getting “less good” in a way that can be independently verified. But, as we have seen, that is what pedants have said throughout history.
VoNC Johnson
Confidence vote in Corbyn fails owing to insufficient support outside the Labour Party
Confidence vote in xyz fails owing to insufficient support inside the Labour party
No Deal
It is a straight cons v labour seat and very marginal
Margaret Beckett covers that way, way better than anyone else - not least because she is the reason Jeremy Corbyn had enough MPs to stand for the leadership.
It's almost poetry...
Still, you seem at least temporarily to have dropped the lazy 'elitist' caricature.
Were we to get a GONU should it fix the issue by extending and calling a GE or extending and calling a GE after a second No Deal / Revoke referendum.
For none Leave MPs I suspect the latter is a safer bet
(Unless I've misunderstood, in which case apols)
He has proposed a defacto GONU and it follows that if mps decide to support a neutral candidate who could succeed, he becomes isolated instantly
Why not just draw straws to decide who is going to be Prime Minister of the country?
And on that note, I must be off.
A GE is unlikely to resolve anything and can follow in due course
It could equally be Boris' red wine supply
See also: £350m a week for the NHS...
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1162045864476577798
Better to be too prepared than not prepared enough. If only someone had explained this concept to Phil Hammond.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1162046721649774592
1. Successful Vote of No Confidence in Boris
2. Attempt to put Corbyn in, which fails.
3. Attempt to put Swinson in, which fails.
4. Attempt to put Clarke in, which fails.
5. 14 days run out, Boris calls election for September 1st.
6. No Deal Brexit.
And all because a bunch of partisans and ideologues refused to vote for a deal that would have stopped all the strife.
VONC and GNU. God, this is a terrible time for new expressions
If OTOH she doesn't get reciprocity but still has to pay for it then where are those funds coming from?
Amateur.....
But you're right that it's not a reliable strategy. It's a roll of the dice, which they'd consider better than just giving up and letting Boris take us out with No Deal.
If stopping a no deal Brexit is her main priority.
Swinson should agree with Lucas and Sturgeon in considering Corbyn's plan.