Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
If you are an MP opposed to a No Deal Brexit you’d have to be certifiably insane to vote to give Boris Johnson the ability to choose - and change - the date of an election.
So you are expecting Labour's leadership to vote for it then?
Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Burgon (who else?) are not bright enough to understand, but other Labour MPs are: Do not give your opponent exactly what he wants. Maybe Kier Starmer could explain this to them, speaking very slowly, using short words and with the help of pictures.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
I was really surprised her name was not on that list yesterday.
A pity. She was at one time talked of as a future PM.
Also, likely puts Putney in play for the GE.
She would be a loss but I am more concerned about Rory. When the sound and fury of Brexit is packed away for good or ill we will need rational, intelligent, compassionate voices like him to bring this country back together again. It would be very unfortunate if he was no longer available. The irony that he made the case for May's deal far better than she ever did herself and for very little thanks is an example of what would be lost.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
@ydoethur (and others), a historical question. I’m aware that royal assent was last used by Queen Anne and refusal was last considered by George V in relation to the Government of Ireland Act. Are there any 18th or 19th century examples of threats to withhold royal assent? I seem to recall there are but my memory is not obliging me on this occasion.
1834 William IV refused to appoint a new Leader of the House and sacked the government instead. Not sure if that counts.
@ydoethur (and others), a historical question. I’m aware that royal assent was last used by Queen Anne and refusal was last considered by George V in relation to the Government of Ireland Act. Are there any 18th or 19th century examples of threats to withhold royal assent? I seem to recall there are but my memory is not obliging me on this occasion.
I don't think one can be stopped from calling oneself an 'Independent Conservative', can one? It's not calculated to deceive, like Literal Democrat. Perhaps one would have to use a small 'c' e.g. 'Independent with conservative views.'
The Electoral Commission rules specifically say you can't use "Independent [Existing Party Name]", so they'd have to find something else, but I'm sure they could.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
Vote Lib Dem. Follow your instincts.
I think that’s probably where I’m at. It does feel a bit pointless though. Good old FPTP!
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
I cannot see Labour having a majority as I suspect they will lose seats to the Tories but the Lib Dems and SNP will make up for it.
While I really don’t like Corbyn the above is why I will vote LAbour locally (and I’m a leaver former Tory vote).
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
Vote Lib Dem. Follow your instincts.
I think that’s probably where I’m at. It does feel a bit pointless though. Good old FPTP!
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
Who holds the seat at the moment?
The Tories.
I would personally have said vote Liberal Democrat. There might be enough defectors from Labour and the Tories to bring it into play for them. Even if it doesn't at least you won't bear responsibility for the resulting mess whoever wins.
Johnson is no Chamberlain, Chamberlain was a highly successful Chancellor of the Exchequer. Also, while trying to negotiate a Deal with Hitler, he did actually prepare for No Deal, via a vast programme of re -armament.
Boris is unparalleled in British history. We have never had a government of gimps before.
I dunno, what about the 'Who? Who?' ministry of 1852 or the Bonar Law government of 1922-23? Or indeed the Balfour government from 1903-05?
I was most amused when I saw the headline and the photo. But I think my grandfather wouldn't have been impressed by the Second Battle of El Alamein comment. His view was that the mistakes were all on the British side, especially by Montgomery.
I've edited my piece to clarify what I meant to say about El Alamein.
Ah! That now makes much more sense and I am sure the ghost of my grandfather is now happy.
God knows what my grandfather would think. He died there, killed by a British grenade thrown from behind him. One of those mistakes I suppose.
Well, that presumably was an individual's tragic mistake.
My grandfather on the other hand was in 9th Armoured Brigade...
When clearing out my mum's house we came across the letter that my Gran got. It had her name wrongly spelled, was a pre-printed form into which someone had typed the words "accidentally killed" in the appropriate space telling her what had happened to her husband and father of her 3 young boys. It was oddly moving and made me appreciate how lucky subsequent generations have been.
On R4 'Today' programme someone speculated that Labour would abstain in a vote on a GE. So 'No Deal' ruled out first then no GE. What would happen then?
Maybe the government is insane enough to advise the Queen to refuse royal assent for the Anti-No Deal Bill.
@ydoethur (and others), a historical question. I’m aware that royal assent was last used by Queen Anne and refusal was last considered by George V in relation to the Government of Ireland Act. Are there any 18th or 19th century examples of threats to withhold royal assent? I seem to recall there are but my memory is not obliging me on this occasion.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Deniability? Smoke and mirrors. Even during the leadership election, it was noted that Boris's campaign team was making more commitments than could be directly traced to Boris himself.
Right from the beginning, even at Oxford, Boris has stretched even the most cynical definition of political promise, allowing people to believe whatever was in Boris's best interest. In the drama doc When Boris Met Dave, Frank Luntz remarked on (and condemned) Boris's lack of principles and willingness to say anything.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
On R4 'Today' programme someone speculated that Labour would abstain in a vote on a GE. So 'No Deal' ruled out first then no GE. What would happen then?
Given that the 'no-deal' vote is now a confidence vote, then it would kick into action the FTPA and start the clock on 14 days to get a new government. If not, there's a election anyway
That’s not how the FTPA works - only a specific motion now counts as a confidence vote.
If Boris is going to go for a GE anyway perhaps the rebels can VONC him first, just for fun.
They don’t have time to form an alternative before parliament is prorogued next week.
Boris is at times his own worst enemy as he makes a change to try and bring a VoNC forward while removing the time the opposition needed to make the most of it
When Corbyn stands up on Wednesday and says we can no longer trust you so won’t accept an election without an extension Boris is going to look the desperate chances he is
@ydoethur (and others), a historical question. I’m aware that royal assent was last used by Queen Anne and refusal was last considered by George V in relation to the Government of Ireland Act. Are there any 18th or 19th century examples of threats to withhold royal assent? I seem to recall there are but my memory is not obliging me on this occasion.
Johnson is no Chamberlain, Chamberlain was a highly successful Chancellor of the Exchequer. Also, while trying to negotiate a Deal with Hitler, he did actually prepare for No Deal, via a vast programme of re -armament.
Boris is unparalleled in British history. We have never had a government of gimps before.
I dunno, what about the 'Who? Who?' ministry of 1852 or the Bonar Law government of 1922-23? Or indeed the Balfour government from 1903-05?
I was most amused when I saw the headline and the photo. But I think my grandfather wouldn't have been impressed by the Second Battle of El Alamein comment. His view was that the mistakes were all on the British side, especially by Montgomery.
I've edited my piece to clarify what I meant to say about El Alamein.
Ah! That now makes much more sense and I am sure the ghost of my grandfather is now happy.
God knows what my grandfather would think. He died there, killed by a British grenade thrown from behind him. One of those mistakes I suppose.
Well, that presumably was an individual's tragic mistake.
My grandfather on the other hand was in 9th Armoured Brigade...
When clearing out my mum's house we came across the letter that my Gran got. It had her name wrongly spelled, was a pre-printed form into which someone had typed the words "accidentally killed" in the appropriate space telling her what had happened to her husband and father of her 3 young boys. It was oddly moving and made me appreciate how lucky subsequent generations have been.
My great-grandmother got a telegram saying 'your son is wounded and in hospital.' It gave the family name and the regiment.
It wasn't until she got a letter from my grandfather that she found out which of her three sons it was.
Admittedly, that would have been less distressing that the letter your grandmother got, but it doesn't exactly suggest competence in the Casualties system.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
Vote Lib Dem. Follow your instincts.
I think that’s probably where I’m at. It does feel a bit pointless though. Good old FPTP!
Perhaps a swap with a Labour voter in a LD Tory marginal? The priority has to be to get Boris out.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Deniability? Smoke and mirrors. Even during the leadership election, it was noted that Boris's campaign team was making more commitments than could be directly traced to Boris himself.
Right from the beginning, even at Oxford, Boris has stretched even the most cynical definition of political promise, allowing people to believe whatever was in Boris's best interest. In the drama doc When Boris Met Dave, Frank Luntz remarked on (and condemned) Boris's lack of principles and willingness to say anything.
Deniability of some kind is really the only reason I can think of. Either with regard to the date or the election itself.
I still don't think Johnson wants an election, but the threat of an election might be potent if the vote is close. But the potency of the threat will depend on what the Labour Party decides about the election motion.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
I would go further. There is, so far as I am aware, no case in this country of a Prime Minister ever advising a monarch not to give royal assent, never mind that advice being followed. Arguing from general principles to infer that a Prime Minister has an extant right of veto over Acts of Parliament seems wholly unwarranted - it would be a massive extension of executive power. If the Prime Minister feels that strongly, he can resign.
@ydoethur (and others), a historical question. I’m aware that royal assent was last used by Queen Anne and refusal was last considered by George V in relation to the Government of Ireland Act. Are there any 18th or 19th century examples of threats to withhold royal assent? I seem to recall there are but my memory is not obliging me on this occasion.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
I would go further. There is, so far as I am aware, no case in this country of a Prime Minister ever advising a monarch not to give royal assent, never mind that advice being followed. Arguing from general principles to infer that a Prime Minister has an extant right of veto over Acts of Parliament seems wholly unwarranted - it would be a massive extension of executive power. If the Prime Minister feels that strongly, he can resign.
Unless I misunderstand Guido said that Blair did this on numerous occasions.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
In the USA the President has a "pocket veto" by which he can fail to sign an offending bill rather than exercise his formal veto which can be overruled. Our Queen has no such rights by precedent or law. If Parliament passes a bill she signs it. Its as simple as that. This is a distraction.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
I would go further. There is, so far as I am aware, no case in this country of a Prime Minister ever advising a monarch not to give royal assent, never mind that advice being followed. Arguing from general principles to infer that a Prime Minister has an extant right of veto over Acts of Parliament seems wholly unwarranted - it would be a massive extension of executive power. If the Prime Minister feels that strongly, he can resign.
Also, elsewhere (I didn't keep a note of the URL) I saw a suggestion that the situation about the royal assent is different when parliament is being prorogued. Ordinarily parliament could respond to governmental advice to withhold royal assent, with a vote of no confidence. After prorogation it lacks that power.
@ydoethur (and others), a historical question. I’m aware that royal assent was last used by Queen Anne and refusal was last considered by George V in relation to the Government of Ireland Act. Are there any 18th or 19th century examples of threats to withhold royal assent? I seem to recall there are but my memory is not obliging me on this occasion.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
In the USA the President has a "pocket veto" by which he can fail to sign an offending bill rather than exercise his formal veto which can be overruled. Our Queen has no such rights by precedent or law. If Parliament passes a bill she signs it. Its as simple as that. This is a distraction.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, as the article by Robert Craig makes clear.
The problem is that so much in our unwritten constituon depends on people behaving honourably and reasonably. We're now in a situation where it can't be assumed the prime minister will do either.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
I would look carefully at the local Labour candidate. Is she a bonkers Corbynite? Or a moderate who would restrain Jezza? If the latter, then think about it.
Count yourself lucky, I am in what is generally considered a safe seat, so my vote will be ignored, though at least I am free to vote my conscience.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
I would go further. There is, so far as I am aware, no case in this country of a Prime Minister ever advising a monarch not to give royal assent, never mind that advice being followed. Arguing from general principles to infer that a Prime Minister has an extant right of veto over Acts of Parliament seems wholly unwarranted - it would be a massive extension of executive power. If the Prime Minister feels that strongly, he can resign.
Before the idiocy called the FTPA it is pretty much inconceivable that Parliament could ever have passed a bill that the PM of the day did not approve because it would have been a matter of confidence and he would no longer be PM. The Act contemplates a government continuing to limp along in such circumstances but I agree with you that there is no basis for extending the powers of the PM in relation to legislation.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
Depends whether you fear a Boris Johnson No Deal, or a minority Corbyn government more. Corbyn will never get a majority, he's not going to be turning the UK into a peoples republic after the election. He may not even get to be PM if the LDs demand his head as a price of support. I am in a similar situation and will be voting Labour, LDs will never take the seat even on a surge.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
I would go further. There is, so far as I am aware, no case in this country of a Prime Minister ever advising a monarch not to give royal assent, never mind that advice being followed. Arguing from general principles to infer that a Prime Minister has an extant right of veto over Acts of Parliament seems wholly unwarranted - it would be a massive extension of executive power. If the Prime Minister feels that strongly, he can resign.
Unless I misunderstand Guido said that Blair did this on numerous occasions.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
In the USA the President has a "pocket veto" by which he can fail to sign an offending bill rather than exercise his formal veto which can be overruled. Our Queen has no such rights by precedent or law. If Parliament passes a bill she signs it. Its as simple as that. This is a distraction.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, as the article by Robert Craig makes clear.
The problem is that so much in our unwritten constituon depends on people behaving honourably and reasonably. We're now in a situation where it can't be assumed the prime minister will do either.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
How marginal are we talking?
If it's Lab-held and the incumbent is OK, vote Lab.
If it's a big stretch (taking into account the leave/remain balance etc) vote LD, as you're very likely to be safe from Con maj if your seat makes a difference, and if you dislike Corbyn you probably also want to avoid Lab maj.
If it's borderline between those two (ie Con with a smallish maj) then then look at the candidate as well - for example, if you dislike Corbyn because he is anti-war, and you love war, you may be better putting in a Lab pro-war candidate to help balance the Labour Party in a pro-war direction.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
Who holds the seat at the moment?
The Tories.
I would personally have said vote Liberal Democrat. There might be enough defectors from Labour and the Tories to bring it into play for them. Even if it doesn't at least you won't bear responsibility for the resulting mess whoever wins.
This. A Labour held Labour / Tory seat vote labour. Anywhere else the likely focus of votes may be lib dem so wait and see
If you are an MP opposed to a No Deal Brexit you’d have to be certifiably insane to vote to give Boris Johnson the ability to choose - and change - the date of an election.
So you are expecting Labour's leadership to vote for it then?
Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Burgon (who else?) are not bright enough to understand, but other Labour MPs are: Do not give your opponent exactly what he wants. Maybe Kier Starmer could explain this to them, speaking very slowly, using short words and with the help of pictures.
Given Corbyn has wanted an election constantly since the last one, surely it's Johnson who needs this explained to him?
Before the idiocy called the FTPA it is pretty much inconceivable that Parliament could ever have passed a bill that the PM of the day did not approve because it would have been a matter of confidence and he would no longer be PM. The Act contemplates a government continuing to limp along in such circumstances but I agree with you that there is no basis for extending the powers of the PM in relation to legislation.
In the alternative history where there had been no FTPA under TMay, she almost definitely wouldn't have made either the MV or the No Deal law a confidence vote, because she'd have known that she would likely lose both the vote and the resulting election.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
How marginal are we talking?
If it's Lab-held and the incumbent is OK, vote Lab.
If it's a big stretch (taking into account the leave/remain balance etc) vote LD, as you're very likely to be safe from Con maj if your seat makes a difference, and if you dislike Corbyn you probably also want to avoid Lab maj.
If it's borderline between those two (ie Con with a smallish maj) then then look at the candidate as well - for example, if you dislike Corbyn because he is anti-war, and you love war, you may be better putting in a Lab pro-war candidate to help balance the Labour Party in a pro-war direction.
Are they actually being expelled from the party or are they merely having the whip removed in the House of Commons where they are proving themselves less than reliable members of the party they were elected to support? I think it is the latter and precedent indicates that that is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs.
Yes that occurred to me. I think it is the latter.
After all, Boris needs an election & he should be grateful to Gauke & Co.
They will cease to be members of the party. They will not be permitted to refer to themselves as Conservatives or make use of material owned by the Conservative Party. They will have to return anything belonging to the Conservative Party in their care immediately or else make reasonable provision for its return.
Rory Stewart was effectively imposed on Penrith and Border Con Assn in 2010 to much local hostility. There were some very strong and hard working local candidates who were refused PAB approval. If the present chairman regrets Rory's passing he is in a very small minority.
I don't think one can be stopped from calling oneself an 'Independent Conservative', can one? It's not calculated to deceive, like Literal Democrat. Perhaps one would have to use a small 'c' e.g. 'Independent with conservative views.'
How does it work in Scotland which is an independent association? Boris cannot remove them. In fact there is a view that mps that support no deal will be deselected. Although this might be irrelevant. Certainly if Boris tries it on say mundell he will lose further any hope on saving the Scottish MPs
Ultimate risk is he loses the whole association and has to start again in Scotland as Brexit party mark II
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
In the USA the President has a "pocket veto" by which he can fail to sign an offending bill rather than exercise his formal veto which can be overruled. Our Queen has no such rights by precedent or law. If Parliament passes a bill she signs it. Its as simple as that. This is a distraction.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, as the article by Robert Craig makes clear.
The problem is that so much in our unwritten constituon depends on people behaving honourably and reasonably. We're now in a situation where it can't be assumed the prime minister will do either.
The Queen will.
Last week showed the queen does what she is advices to do and that really didn’t work out well have her.
Any assumption the crown can solve issues is now invalid
Derrr. Of course they’re a sham. The EU still does not believe the UK will go for no deal, and the shenanigans of this week merely reinforce that view. Why should Brussels cede an inch, when it looks like Brexit will be delayed, or cancelled, and the government changed or crippled?
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
A SILLY SUB-THRIBBIAN DITTY To unite Remainers and Leavers (probably against it) on a Tuesday morning
I said, we've got nothing in common No common ground to rely on PB's falling apart
You said, Brexit'll soon be over But it won't be really over Still, you don't even care
Then I said, what about Byronic as SeanT And you said, yes, I remember his filth And as I recall, style wise, Byronic has nailed it And I said, well, that's one thing we've got.
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
In the USA the President has a "pocket veto" by which he can fail to sign an offending bill rather than exercise his formal veto which can be overruled. Our Queen has no such rights by precedent or law. If Parliament passes a bill she signs it. Its as simple as that. This is a distraction.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, as the article by Robert Craig makes clear.
The problem is that so much in our unwritten constituon depends on people behaving honourably and reasonably. We're now in a situation where it can't be assumed the prime minister will do either.
The Queen will.
It's frightening that we have a prime minister who is ready to destroy so much in the name of personal ambition. And that so many of his party are meekly going along with it.
"It couldn't happen here"? We're being treated to an object lesson in how it can happen.
I live in a Labour-Tory marginal. My instinctive vote is for the LDs, but I don’t believe they can “win here”. I want to avoid a Comrade Corbyn government as much as possible, but I find myself despairing at the thought of voting Tory. What do I do?
Depends whether you fear a Boris Johnson No Deal, or a minority Corbyn government more. Corbyn will never get a majority, he's not going to be turning the UK into a peoples republic after the election. He may not even get to be PM if the LDs demand his head as a price of support. I am in a similar situation and will be voting Labour, LDs will never take the seat even on a surge.
Time to step away from PB, the extreme antics of the govt sucks you in to ever more futile arguments here. I hope that the pseudo Machiavellian bullshit practiced by Boris, Dom et al. backfires of them. They are splitting the country and destroying the honourable bits of the Tory party, which is also a shame. It’s disappointing how many people go along with it.
I presume the election will once again be fought on 2005 boundaries?
Yup. This brings us to another reason why LDs and Lab supporters need to be fairly ruthless about voting tactically even if they have reservations about their second choice: Boris has shown he has no respect for norms, and if he gets a majority he'll doubtless do a bold, audacious gerrymander.
Derrr. Of course they’re a sham. The EU still does not believe the UK will go for no deal, and the shenanigans of this week merely reinforce that view. Why should Brussels cede an inch, when it looks like Brexit will be delayed, or cancelled, and the government changed or crippled?
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
The final proof that you are NOT SeanT.
Sean was a drunk. But he was also perceptive and insightful.
Derrr. Of course they’re a sham. The EU still does not believe the UK will go for no deal, and the shenanigans of this week merely reinforce that view. Why should Brussels cede an inch, when it looks like Brexit will be delayed, or cancelled, and the government changed or crippled?
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
Given that we already knew parliament would do everything they could to prevent no deal, it sounds like Boris was bluffing with his cards face up.
If you are an MP opposed to a No Deal Brexit you’d have to be certifiably insane to vote to give Boris Johnson the ability to choose - and change - the date of an election.
So you are expecting Labour's leadership to vote for it then?
Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Burgon (who else?) are not bright enough to understand, but other Labour MPs are: Do not give your opponent exactly what he wants. Maybe Kier Starmer could explain this to them, speaking very slowly, using short words and with the help of pictures.
Given Corbyn has wanted an election constantly since the last one, surely it's Johnson who needs this explained to him?
It's all we've heard for month and months from Labour. Give us a General Election.
Derrr. Of course they’re a sham. The EU still does not believe the UK will go for no deal, and the shenanigans of this week merely reinforce that view. Why should Brussels cede an inch, when it looks like Brexit will be delayed, or cancelled, and the government changed or crippled?
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
The final proof that you are NOT SeanT.
Sean was a drunk. But he was also perceptive and insightful.
You sir are a credulous fool.
Thankyou!
Finally - FINALLY - I can step out of the great man’s shadow. It has been a burden.
Are they actually being expelled from the party or are they merely having the whip removed in the House of Commons where they are proving themselves less than reliable members of the party they were elected to support? I think it is the latter and precedent indicates that that is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs.
Yes that occurred to me. I think it is the latter.
After all, Boris needs an election & he should be grateful to Gauke & Co.
They will cease to be members of the party. They will not be permitted to refer to themselves as Conservatives or make use of material owned by the Conservative Party. They will have to return anything belonging to the Conservative Party in their care immediately or else make reasonable provision for its return.
Rory Stewart was effectively imposed on Penrith and Border Con Assn in 2010 to much local hostility. There were some very strong and hard working local candidates who were refused PAB approval. If the present chairman regrets Rory's passing he is in a very small minority.
I don't think one can be stopped from calling oneself an 'Independent Conservative', can one? It's not calculated to deceive, like Literal Democrat. Perhaps one would have to use a small 'c' e.g. 'Independent with conservative views.'
"Genuine Conservative " or "Traditional Conservative"?
I was really surprised her name was not on that list yesterday.
A pity. She was at one time talked of as a future PM.
Also, likely puts Putney in play for the GE.
She would be a loss but I am more concerned about Rory. When the sound and fury of Brexit is packed away for good or ill we will need rational, intelligent, compassionate voices like him to bring this country back together again. It would be very unfortunate if he was no longer available. The irony that he made the case for May's deal far better than she ever did herself and for very little thanks is an example of what would be lost.
Quite, but your party has made a deliberate choice which you will have to live with.
I understand that Boris & Carrie's newly adopted stray pup has been named 'Philip'. There's obviously some sort of private joke involved there. I wonder if we'll be told, subject to it passing Mr Cumming's censorship restrictions of course.
Pretty obvious
“Bad Philip. Don’t crap on the floor. “
“Rub his nose in it, honey, it’s the only way he’ll learn”
“Let’s put him outside in the cold if he doesn’t stop barking”
Derrr. Of course they’re a sham. The EU still does not believe the UK will go for no deal, and the shenanigans of this week merely reinforce that view. Why should Brussels cede an inch, when it looks like Brexit will be delayed, or cancelled, and the government changed or crippled?
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
The final proof that you are NOT SeanT.
Sean was a drunk. But he was also perceptive and insightful.
If you are an MP opposed to a No Deal Brexit you’d have to be certifiably insane to vote to give Boris Johnson the ability to choose - and change - the date of an election.
So you are expecting Labour's leadership to vote for it then?
Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Burgon (who else?) are not bright enough to understand, but other Labour MPs are: Do not give your opponent exactly what he wants. Maybe Kier Starmer could explain this to them, speaking very slowly, using short words and with the help of pictures.
Given Corbyn has wanted an election constantly since the last one, surely it's Johnson who needs this explained to him?
It's all we've heard for month and months from Labour. Give us a General Election.
"Oh. Well. Er....not now......"
Quite. I just can’t see Corbyn turning down an election. It’s not in his DNA. He clearly believes you should always fight the evil Tories wherever and whenever you can, and never shy away.
It’s one of the few admirable and honourable things about him.
Comparing Boris to Chamberlain is absurd, it was May who pursued appeasement by agreeing everything the EU proposed and taking No Deal off the table. By keeping No Deal on the table Boris is giving more chance of getting the good deal we want ie the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical solution instead.
Churchill won WW2 and has frequently been voted the Greatest Ever Briton and our best PM, I am sure Boris could live with that.
Yes after winning WW2 Churchill lost to Attlee in 1945 as attention shifted to the domestic agenda (though he still got his revenge and beat Attlee in 1951 when the Tories returned to office) but the general election now looks likely to be before October 31st and dominated by Brexit and the need for a strong leader to deliver it much as Churchill would almost certainly have won a 1940 general election dominated by WW2 and the need for a strong leader to take on Hitler
I presume the election will once again be fought on 2005 boundaries?
Yup. This brings us to another reason why LDs and Lab supporters need to be fairly ruthless about voting tactically even if they have reservations about their second choice: Boris has shown he has no respect for norms, and if he gets a majority he'll doubtless do a bold, audacious gerrymander.
Good point. Yes, Cummings and Johnson will try do this if they can - another tactic imported from the Trump/GOP playbook.
Derrr. Of course they’re a sham. The EU still does not believe the UK will go for no deal, and the shenanigans of this week merely reinforce that view. Why should Brussels cede an inch, when it looks like Brexit will be delayed, or cancelled, and the government changed or crippled?
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
The final proof that you are NOT SeanT.
Sean was a drunk. But he was also perceptive and insightful.
You sir are a credulous fool.
Byronic is being very perceptive actually, take No Deal off the table and the EU know we will always roll over in the end
From a story about trains turning signals the wrong colour, we learn that: Train signals are a traffic light system used on railways. They ensure trains are kept a safe distance apart and take factors such as stopping distances into account.
And: season ticket prices will increase by 2.8 per cent next year, significantly increasing the cost of long-distance commuting. Yes, perhaps by around 2.8 per cent.
That’s a little unfair of you
It’s not well written but they are meaning that if you have, say, a £5,000 season ticket then your costs will go up significantly in nominal terms - which is what most people focus on
Comparing Boris to Chamberlain is absurd, it was May who pursued appeasement by agreeing everything the EU proposed and taking No Deal off the table. By keeping No Deal on the table Boris is giving more chance of getting the good deal we want ie the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical solution instead.
Churchill won WW2 and has frequently been voted the Greatest Ever Briton and our best PM, I am sure Boris could live with that.
Yes after winning WW2 Churchill lost to Attlee in 1945 as attention shifted to the domestic agenda (though he still got his revenge and beat Attlee in 1951 when the Tories returned to office) but the general election now looks likely to be before October 31st and dominated by Brexit and the need for a strong leader to deliver it much as Churchill would almost certainly have won a 1940 general election dominated by WW2 and the need for a strong leader to take on Hitler
TSE turning to history is always a perilous exercise...
Can anyone actually explain why the statement about the election was made anonymously on Johnson's behalf, rather than being included in the very high-profile speech he had just made?
Thank you for that very interesting article yesterday on royal assent. It seems shaky in its logic because all the precedents it cited concerned the government advising the monarch in relation to subordinate legislatures, which is quite a different thing. Our current potential impasse is without precedent. But I learned a lot from it.
As you probably saw, David Howarth made a dissenting comment on that page, supporting the argument mentioned in the article that the passing of the Act would indicate an effective lack of confidence in the government, which would disqualify it from advising the Queen to withhold royal assent.
In the USA the President has a "pocket veto" by which he can fail to sign an offending bill rather than exercise his formal veto which can be overruled. Our Queen has no such rights by precedent or law. If Parliament passes a bill she signs it. Its as simple as that. This is a distraction.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that, as the article by Robert Craig makes clear.
The problem is that so much in our unwritten constituon depends on people behaving honourably and reasonably. We're now in a situation where it can't be assumed the prime minister will do either.
The Queen will.
Last week showed the queen does what she is advices to do and that really didn’t work out well have her.
Any assumption the crown can solve issues is now invalid
Survation has voters opposing further extension by 47% to 41% at the weekend and backing the Queen's decision to agree to prorogue Parliament by a 20% margin too
Notwithstanding the absolute state the country’s in (from whichever side of this you come), there is part of me which would enjoy the sight of the HoC tying BJ’s hands on Brexit, then refusing to grant him an election. Even more if the de-whipped Tories were to resign and cause by-elections in Putney etc which result in non-Tory victories.
I genuinely have little preference between Boris and Jezza (which neither should take as a compliment). It seems to me that in Brexit and party politics, we need a jolt which makes one or both realise they need to govern in the interests of the middle of the country rather than the couple of hundred thousand on either extreme wing who gave them their leadership positions.
Are they actually being expelled from the party or are they merely having the whip removed in the House of Commons where they are proving themselves less than reliable members of the party they were elected to support? I think it is the latter and precedent indicates that that is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs.
Yes that occurred to me. I think it is the latter.
After all, Boris needs an election & he should be grateful to Gauke & Co.
They will cease to be members of the party. They will not be permitted to refer to themselves as Conservatives or make use of material owned by the Conservative Party. They will have to return anything belonging to the Conservative Party in their care immediately or else make reasonable provision for its return.
Rory Stewart was effectively imposed on Penrith and Border Con Assn in 2010 to much local hostility. There were some very strong and hard working local candidates who were refused PAB approval. If the present chairman regrets Rory's passing he is in a very small minority.
I don't think one can be stopped from calling oneself an 'Independent Conservative', can one? It's not calculated to deceive, like Literal Democrat. Perhaps one would have to use a small 'c' e.g. 'Independent with conservative views.'
How does it work in Scotland which is an independent association? Boris cannot remove them. In fact there is a view that mps that support no deal will be deselected. Although this might be irrelevant. Certainly if Boris tries it on say mundell he will lose further any hope on saving the Scottish MPs
Ultimate risk is he loses the whole association and has to start again in Scotland as Brexit party mark II
The Brexit Party beat the Tories in Scotland in the European Parliament elections
Notwithstanding the absolute state the country’s in (from whichever side of this you come), there is part of me which would enjoy the sight of the HoC tying BJ’s hands on Brexit, then refusing to grant him an election. Even more if the de-whipped Tories were to resign and cause by-elections in Putney etc which result in non-Tory victories.
I genuinely have little preference between Boris and Jezza (which neither should take as a compliment). It seems to me that in Brexit and party politics, we need a jolt which makes one or both realise they need to govern in the interests of the middle of the country rather than the couple of hundred thousand on either extreme wing who gave them their leadership positions.
+1
Allowing party members to select Parliamentsry party leaders has been one of the worst developments in politics in recent years.
Derrr. Of course they’re a sham. The EU still does not believe the UK will go for no deal, and the shenanigans of this week merely reinforce that view. Why should Brussels cede an inch, when it looks like Brexit will be delayed, or cancelled, and the government changed or crippled?
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
The final proof that you are NOT SeanT.
Sean was a drunk. But he was also perceptive and insightful.
You sir are a credulous fool.
Byronic is being very perceptive actually, take No Deal off the table and the EU know we will always roll over in the end
Take the fantasy of No Deal off the table and we might actually have a grown up internal conversation where we understand how weak our position really is
Mr TSE always gives an interesting insight into the mind of the disgusted (ex) Tory Remainer.
To an extent I agree with his conclusion but not his route to getting there. I think Boris will get his majority, with the opposition vote share being split under quite unique circumstances. And he will then get Brexit done.
And I think it will turn out ok. But even if it’s a roaring success, Boris revitalises the economy, invests in health and education, reforms the housing market, cures the social crisis etc... it’s not clear to me there’s any circumstance that could bring such a hysterical viewpoint as Mr TSE’s back into the Tory fold while Boris is leader.
And without such a polarised electorate in 2023/4 as there is now, there’s no way Boris would get a majority if his vote ceiling is kept at 35% by natural Tory voters such as TSE. Which means very likely that Boris gets knifed before then. A one term Prime Minister (excluding this summer) but potentially one that will be judged better by historians then contemporaries.
Do you think? I think there's every possibility that people like TSE will clamber back on board. There will always be reasons why people can claim it's actually Boris who has changed to their position.
I don't know TSE personally so it's hard for me to say for certain. All I have to go on is how far he increasingly seems to be burning the emotional / tribal bridges of loyalty. Quite an interesting thing to see unfold for someone like me that's only dropped into this site on and off for a decade.
Mr TSE: what would Boris need to do / achieve, to get your vote next time around?
Mr TSE always gives an interesting insight into the mind of the disgusted (ex) Tory Remainer.
To an extent I agree with his conclusion but not his route to getting there. I think Boris will get his majority, with the opposition vote share being split under quite unique circumstances. And he will then get Brexit done.
And I think it will turn out ok. But even if it’s a roaring success, Boris revitalises the economy, invests in health and education, reforms the housing market, cures the social crisis etc... it’s not clear to me there’s any circumstance that could bring such a hysterical viewpoint as Mr TSE’s back into the Tory fold while Boris is leader.
And without such a polarised electorate in 2023/4 as there is now, there’s no way Boris would get a majority if his vote ceiling is kept at 35% by natural Tory voters such as TSE. Which means very likely that Boris gets knifed before then. A one term Prime Minister (excluding this summer) but potentially one that will be judged better by historians then contemporaries.
If Boris wins a general election and delivers Brexit his place in history will be assured for evermore regardless of what happens after
Justine Greening is a huge loss, she was the symbol of a resurgent Tory party in 2005. For her to no longer feel at home in the party should be a massive wake up call.
Interestingly, at the time, very much elected as a Eurosceptic.
Comments
Oh sorry, did you mean a different shouty crackpot?
"Even the British Government has advised refusal – and recently. It prepared to advise the Sovereign to refuse royal assent for a bill from New South Wales in 1980 which forced the NSW Government to let it lapse to prevent a formal refusal."
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/22/robert-craig-could-the-government-advise-the-queen-to-refuse-royal-assent-to-a-backbench-bill/
While I really don’t like Corbyn the above is why I will vote LAbour locally (and I’m a leaver former Tory vote).
Right from the beginning, even at Oxford, Boris has stretched even the most cynical definition of political promise, allowing people to believe whatever was in Boris's best interest. In the drama doc When Boris Met Dave, Frank Luntz remarked on (and condemned) Boris's lack of principles and willingness to say anything.
Boris is at times his own worst enemy as he makes a change to try and bring a VoNC forward while removing the time the opposition needed to make the most of it
When Corbyn stands up on Wednesday and says we can no longer trust you so won’t accept an election without an extension Boris is going to look the desperate chances he is
https://twitter.com/gavinbarwell/status/1168772470415011840?s=21
It wasn't until she got a letter from my grandfather that she found out which of her three sons it was.
Admittedly, that would have been less distressing that the letter your grandmother got, but it doesn't exactly suggest competence in the Casualties system.
I still don't think Johnson wants an election, but the threat of an election might be potent if the vote is close. But the potency of the threat will depend on what the Labour Party decides about the election motion.
The problem is that so much in our unwritten constituon depends on people behaving honourably and reasonably. We're now in a situation where it can't be assumed the prime minister will do either.
Count yourself lucky, I am in what is generally considered a safe seat, so my vote will be ignored, though at least I am free to vote my conscience.
If it's Lab-held and the incumbent is OK, vote Lab.
If it's a big stretch (taking into account the leave/remain balance etc) vote LD, as you're very likely to be safe from Con maj if your seat makes a difference, and if you dislike Corbyn you probably also want to avoid Lab maj.
If it's borderline between those two (ie Con with a smallish maj) then then look at the candidate as well - for example, if you dislike Corbyn because he is anti-war, and you love war, you may be better putting in a Lab pro-war candidate to help balance the Labour Party in a pro-war direction.
One amusing facet of an early GE is that the Corbynites once again miss out on the chance for mass deselections of the “Blairites”.
I presume the election will once again be fought on 2005 boundaries?
https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/1168778287461670912?s=19
Ultimate risk is he loses the whole association and has to start again in Scotland as Brexit party mark II
Any assumption the crown can solve issues is now invalid
This is low IQ stuff.
Boris is right, even if you hate him. The EU will only compromise - and maybe not even then - if they feel that they have to. In October. As No Deal looms.
To unite Remainers and Leavers (probably against it)
on a Tuesday morning
I said, we've got nothing in common
No common ground to rely on
PB's falling apart
You said, Brexit'll soon be over
But it won't be really over
Still, you don't even care
Then I said, what about Byronic as SeanT
And you said, yes, I remember his filth
And as I recall, style wise, Byronic has nailed it
And I said, well, that's one thing we've got.
"It couldn't happen here"? We're being treated to an object lesson in how it can happen.
Booking hotel for trade show in San Francisco. £400 a night for basic 3 star hotel
Sean was a drunk. But he was also perceptive and insightful.
You sir are a credulous fool.
"Oh. Well. Er....not now......"
'Did a Drunken Headbut Cause Brexit?'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00082dd.
Finally - FINALLY - I can step out of the great man’s shadow. It has been a burden.
“Bad Philip. Don’t crap on the floor. “
“Rub his nose in it, honey, it’s the only way he’ll learn”
“Let’s put him outside in the cold if he doesn’t stop barking”
Quite. I just can’t see Corbyn turning down an election. It’s not in his DNA. He clearly believes you should always fight the evil Tories wherever and whenever you can, and never shy away.
It’s one of the few admirable and honourable things about him.
Comparing Boris to Chamberlain is absurd, it was May who pursued appeasement by agreeing everything the EU proposed and taking No Deal off the table. By keeping No Deal on the table Boris is giving more chance of getting the good deal we want ie the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop with a technical solution instead.
Churchill won WW2 and has frequently been voted the Greatest Ever Briton and our best PM, I am sure Boris could live with that.
Yes after winning WW2 Churchill lost to Attlee in 1945 as attention shifted to the domestic agenda (though he still got his revenge and beat Attlee in 1951 when the Tories returned to office) but the general election now looks likely to be before October 31st and dominated by Brexit and the need for a strong leader to deliver it much as Churchill would almost certainly have won a 1940 general election dominated by WW2 and the need for a strong leader to take on Hitler
It’s not well written but they are meaning that if you have, say, a £5,000 season ticket then your costs will go up significantly in nominal terms - which is what most people focus on
I genuinely have little preference between Boris and Jezza (which neither should take as a compliment). It seems to me that in Brexit and party politics, we need a jolt which makes one or both realise they need to govern in the interests of the middle of the country rather than the couple of hundred thousand on either extreme wing who gave them their leadership positions.
Allowing party members to select Parliamentsry party leaders has been one of the worst developments in politics in recent years.
Mr TSE: what would Boris need to do / achieve, to get your vote next time around?
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1168784885282160640?s=20