The government should let the Surrender Bill go through the Commons and Lords with no delays and then send it to the Queen...
Then get on with the general election.
Make repeal of Parliaments Surrender bill on 16th or 17th October the center piece of their manifetso.
They couldn’t repeal it before the new Parliament sits, though. That won’t happen for a while.
If the election is on Monday 14th October there's nothing to stop a sitting pf Parliament to repeal the surrender bill on Wednesday 16th October is there?
A lot of the results will not be known until 15th. Then PM needs to meet the Queen. MPs sworn in. Speaker needs to be elected. The Parliamentary schedule needs to be decided. Plus dozens of other things. Maybe even a Queen’s speech?
I think the point is, if a decisive election result is reached in favour of Boris, the EU will likely not offer an extension, what would be the point? Plus a majority Boris will tell the EU if they offer an extension he will just veto everything/spoiler tactics etc
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who OPPOSE leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 27 Are Not 49
Few things. 1. you’ve ignored ‘don’t knows’ and 2, from the same poll
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who SUPPORT leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 35 Are Not 41 Don’t know 24
Look @HYUFD voters don’t agree that No Deal respects British Democracy.
The government should let the Surrender Bill go through the Commons and Lords with no delays and then send it to the Queen...
Then get on with the general election.
Make repeal of Parliaments Surrender bill on 16th or 17th October the center piece of their manifetso.
They couldn’t repeal it before the new Parliament sits, though. That won’t happen for a while.
If the election is on Monday 14th October there's nothing to stop a sitting pf Parliament to repeal the surrender bill on Wednesday 16th October is there?
A lot of the results will not be known until 15th. Then PM needs to meet the Queen. MPs sworn in. Speaker needs to be elected. The Parliamentary schedule needs to be decided. Plus dozens of other things. Maybe even a Queen’s speech?
I think the post above is correct. The EU is rational and simply no extension would offered, if the new PM was clear he intended to repeal and obviously had the numbers. It’d be a “more in sorrow than in anger” statement I guess.
Also, the proposed bill is about asking, a new Parliament could easily be in place in time not to accept.
If the 21 Tory rebels who lost the whip tonight caucus with Nick Boles they will be 14 MPs short of over-hauling the SNP and being granted three questions for their leader at PMQs. There are 15 Lib Dem MPs.
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who OPPOSE leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 27 Are Not 49
Few things. 1. you’ve ignored ‘don’t knows’ and 2, from the same poll
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who SUPPORT leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 35 Are Not 41 Don’t know 24
Look @HYUFD voters don’t agree that No Deal respects British Democracy.
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who OPPOSE leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 27 Are Not 49
Few things. 1. you’ve ignored ‘don’t knows’ and 2, from the same poll
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who SUPPORT leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 35 Are Not 41 Don’t know 24
Only 6% majority believe they are not compared to 22% majority believe anti No Deal Brexit MPs are not
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who OPPOSE leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 27 Are Not 49
Few things. 1. you’ve ignored ‘don’t knows’ and 2, from the same poll
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who SUPPORT leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 35 Are Not 41 Don’t know 24
Only 6% majority believe they are not compared to 22% majority believe anti No Deal Brexit MPs are not
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who OPPOSE leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 27 Are Not 49
Few things. 1. you’ve ignored ‘don’t knows’ and 2, from the same poll
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who SUPPORT leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 35 Are Not 41 Don’t know 24
Only 6% majority believe they are not compared to 22% majority believe anti No Deal Brexit MPs are not
So the public are in tune with MPs in being able to say what they are against, but not what they are for.
Good to see people and Parliamentarians in such close accord!
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who OPPOSE leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 27 Are Not 49
Few things. 1. you’ve ignored ‘don’t knows’ and 2, from the same poll
Whether or not you agree with them, do you think MPs and politicians who SUPPORT leaving the EU without a deal are behaving in a way that respects British democracy?
Are 35 Are Not 41 Don’t know 24
1. No, it can be derived by deduction so I didn't bother. Maybe I should have realised that I you couldn't calculate for yourself that 100-27-49=24.
2. Yes, there is quite a difference between those two sets of numbers. Those thinking No Deal supporting MPs are disrespecting democracy only marginally exceed those who don't. By contrast, those thinking the likes of Hammond are disrespecting democracy are hugely greater than those who don't.
That's quite significant I think in terms of the way people will view the shenanigans going on in parliament this week.
You never answered my question: are you expecting the Tory party to stand aside for the Brexit Party in Northern leave seats?
Probably not but if Cummings is feeling particularly ruthless possibly, e.g. if the Tories stand down in Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to give the Brexit Party a free run against Yvette Cooper (the Brexit Party won the area in the European Parliament elections)
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
You never answered my question: are you expecting the Tory party to stand aside for the Brexit Party in Northern leave seats?
Probably not but if Cummings is feeling particularly ruthless possibly, e.g. if the Tories stand down in Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to give the Brexit Party a free run against Yvette Cooper (the Brexit Party won the area in the European Parliament elections)
Boris won’t go all out for no deal so he’ll never get all of the Brexit Party vote.
I'm sot so sure.
Now the purge is complete what's to stop him going for No Deal in an election campaign?
I'm sot so sure.
Now the purge is complete what's to stop him going for No Deal in an election campaign?
Con 35% + BXP 12% = 47% [LEAVE vote united]
Lab 25%
Lib-Dem 15%
Green 7%
REMAIN vote split.
(Goodnight again)
Split votes are less meaningful if people are more willing to vote tactically.
I suspect Remain supporters are more willing to vote tactically than Leave supporters.
Even post-purge there will be plenty of Conservative MPs (as well as supporters and voters!) whose support is contingent on Johnson actually seeking a deal. And although Johnson is willing to pursue No Deal, it doesn't seem to be his first preference. If he did win a GE and if he did then reach some kind of "new" - most likely reheated, but we are already in double-if territory here so further speculation seems ill-advised - agreement with the EU, it's hardly inconceivable he'd be willing to purge No Deal headbangers too.
(After all, he wouldn't want his "triumph of diplomacy" to be spoiled... Mrs May was extremely proud of the deal she made, judging by the way her spin doctors tried to emphasise it as one of her greatest achievements during her leaving-day "celebrations", but she didn't have the ruthlessness, or political opportunity, to fight so hard and dirty for it.)
Overall I can't see Boris as an active proponent of No Deal even if he calculates that a deal on his terms is incredibly unlikely and he's not gravely troubled by that fact. Becoming a No Dealer would undermine his "I'm a strong diplomat and we need the option of no deal so we can get a deal" shtick.
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
Yes, and the indications so far have been that Labour Leavers are not that passionate about Brexit, so I don't think there are too many easy pick ups for the Tories - maybe half a dozen or so seats?
We're pretty sure SCon will lose seats so where are the rest coming from? Smells of a Hung Parliament again to me.
Edit: I see Corbyn next PM is down to 5/2 on Betfair. And with that scary thought, I'll say goodnite, and sweet dreams everybody.
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
Yougov tonight gives the Tories a 23% lead over the LDs in the South but Labour only lead the Tories by 5% in the North
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
Yes, and the indications so far have been that Labour Leavers are not that passionate about Brexit, so I don't think there are too many easy pick ups for the Tories - maybe half a dozen or so seats?
We're pretty sure SCon will lose seats so where are the rest coming from? Smells of a Hung Parliament again to me.
Has been my thought for a long time (informed by having lots of older family in Wigan) that Labour leavers will not vote Tory. The whole thing with voting leave was that you could vote for something small c conservative/traditionalist and yet simultaneously oppose a Tory Prime Minister in Cameron and not vote Tory.
If the Brexit party are in open alliance with the Tories then they won't vote for them either.
Boris won’t go all out for no deal so he’ll never get all of the Brexit Party vote.
I'm sot so sure.
Now the purge is complete what's to stop him going for No Deal in an election campaign?
I'm sot so sure.
Now the purge is complete what's to stop him going for No Deal in an election campaign?
Con 35% + BXP 12% = 47% [LEAVE vote united]
Lab 25%
Lib-Dem 15%
Green 7%
REMAIN vote split.
(Goodnight again)
The remain votes may look split, but it depends how lending and squeezing goes on. There are socialist leavers out there you know you are still counting for the con + bxp. You factoring how con + bxp is also split and also need vote lend and squeeze intelligently. How much of that con vote is neither leave or specifically no deal? Conservatives have been party of business and euro membership for nearly fifty years. For example we know what hestletine will tell a poster but how will he really vote? And when is that election. Thanks to ftpa Corbyn has Boris in a credibility shredding machine, if he keeps him trapped till next year what will boris and his party’s poll figures look like?
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
Yes, and the indications so far have been that Labour Leavers are not that passionate about Brexit, so I don't think there are too many easy pick ups for the Tories - maybe half a dozen or so seats?
We're pretty sure SCon will lose seats so where are the rest coming from? Smells of a Hung Parliament again to me.
Edit: I see Corbyn next PM is down to 5/2 on Betfair. And with that scary thought, I'll say goodnite, and sweet dreams everybody.
Yes, Southern Remainers seem more motivated than Northern Leavers - which will be bad news for the Tories.
Meanwhile JRM really has to work on his body language.....
Struggling to sleep so back on with a thought. Corbyn and VONC and the likelihood he could not get the confidence of the house. He is perhaps loathe to call VONC because if he fails and someone else leads a GNU, he ceases to be leader of the opposition, is he really going to be satisfied with a minor cabinet role in someone else's government? Would he even be offered a role? He could be voting to become nobody
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
Yes, and the indications so far have been that Labour Leavers are not that passionate about Brexit, so I don't think there are too many easy pick ups for the Tories - maybe half a dozen or so seats?
We're pretty sure SCon will lose seats so where are the rest coming from? Smells of a Hung Parliament again to me.
Has been my thought for a long time (informed by having lots of older family in Wigan) that Labour leavers will not vote Tory. The whole thing with voting leave was that you could vote for something small c conservative/traditionalist and yet simultaneously oppose a Tory Prime Minister in Cameron and not vote Tory.
If the Brexit party are in open alliance with the Tories then they won't vote for them either.
Yet Yougov tonight has 6% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory and 8% now voting Brexit Party but only 1% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour
Struggling to sleep so back on with a thought. Corbyn and VONC and the likelihood he could not get the confidence of the house. He is perhaps loathe to call VONC because if he fails and someone else leads a GNU, he ceases to be leader of the opposition, is he really going to be satisfied with a minor cabinet role in someone else's government? Would he even be offered a role? He could be voting to become nobody
There have long been reports that Corbyn would like to retire but cannot until his succession is guaranteed. Whether that is still true, or his head has been turned by the prospect of power...
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
Yes, and the indications so far have been that Labour Leavers are not that passionate about Brexit, so I don't think there are too many easy pick ups for the Tories - maybe half a dozen or so seats?
We're pretty sure SCon will lose seats so where are the rest coming from? Smells of a Hung Parliament again to me.
Has been my thought for a long time (informed by having lots of older family in Wigan) that Labour leavers will not vote Tory. The whole thing with voting leave was that you could vote for something small c conservative/traditionalist and yet simultaneously oppose a Tory Prime Minister in Cameron and not vote Tory.
If the Brexit party are in open alliance with the Tories then they won't vote for them either.
Yet Yougov tonight has 6% of 2017 Labour voters now voting Tory and 8% now voting Brexit Party but only 1% of 2017 Tory voters now voting Labour
And 14% of 2017 Tory voters voting BXP. The 2017 Tory vote is reasonably sticky (76%) up with the LDs (79%) and well ahead of Labour (58%) - but where that will stand after tonight’s imbroglio, time will tell. Labour is haemorrhaging to LD (18) Green (9) and BXP (8)
Nuclear option thoughts Boris calls a VONC in his own government and in the debate makes it clear the government will advise HMQ to withhold assent on any bill that seeks to extend Brexit beyond Halloween. Confidence in government would be taken as parliaments tacit approval of that stance. VONC passes and then Boris rides out the 14 days and we go to the country.......
Nuclear option thoughts Boris calls a VONC in his own government and in the debate makes it clear the government will advise HMQ to withhold assent on any bill that seeks to extend Brexit beyond Halloween. Confidence in government would be taken as parliaments tacit approval of that stance. VONC passes and then Boris rides out the 14 days and we go to the country.......
Nuclear option thoughts Boris calls a VONC in his own government and in the debate makes it clear the government will advise HMQ to withhold assent on any bill that seeks to extend Brexit beyond Halloween. Confidence in government would be taken as parliaments tacit approval of that stance. VONC passes and then Boris rides out the 14 days and we go to the country.......
If the PM loses a VONC, the Commons supports an alternative, and he refuses to resign, he'd get sacked.
The FTPA makes things very muddy
I think it makes it more clear in these circumstances: Jeremy Corbyn, were he able to secure the support of the SNP, could make a good case that he should have a shot.
In the old days, if the government lost 20-odd MPs, they could simply call an election. Now, by shedding those MPs, they open themselves up to another government being formed.
Nuclear option thoughts Boris calls a VONC in his own government and in the debate makes it clear the government will advise HMQ to withhold assent on any bill that seeks to extend Brexit beyond Halloween. Confidence in government would be taken as parliaments tacit approval of that stance. VONC passes and then Boris rides out the 14 days and we go to the country.......
He can't advise MMQ to withold Royal Support for a bill passed by parliament.
Before inviting someone else to be PM, HMQ will want to know the details of their proposed government, what coalition arrangements have been agreed, how stable it will be etc. If the candidate cannot convince her he or she could provide a stable government she will conclude an election is required and decline to invite the candidate to form a government. 14 days ain't long enough to hammer out a deal with 5 parties. She wont approve a PM who will simply extend article 50 then go to the country. She'll skip the extend bit and let her subjects decide.
Nuclear option thoughts Boris calls a VONC in his own government and in the debate makes it clear the government will advise HMQ to withhold assent on any bill that seeks to extend Brexit beyond Halloween. Confidence in government would be taken as parliaments tacit approval of that stance. VONC passes and then Boris rides out the 14 days and we go to the country.......
He can't advise MMQ to withold Royal Support for a bill passed by parliament.
Yes he can, she might tell him to sod off but he is her primary adviser
Nuclear option thoughts Boris calls a VONC in his own government and in the debate makes it clear the government will advise HMQ to withhold assent on any bill that seeks to extend Brexit beyond Halloween. Confidence in government would be taken as parliaments tacit approval of that stance. VONC passes and then Boris rides out the 14 days and we go to the country.......
He can't advise MMQ to withold Royal Support for a bill passed by parliament.
If the PM loses a VONC, the Commons supports an alternative, and he refuses to resign, he'd get sacked.
The FTPA makes things very muddy
I think it makes it more clear in these circumstances: Jeremy Corbyn, were he able to secure the support of the SNP, could make a good case that he should have a shot.
In the old days, if the government lost 20-odd MPs, they could simply call an election. Now, by shedding those MPs, they open themselves up to another government being formed.
Yes but the FTPA states the government has 14 days to try and regain the confidence of the house. Given Corbyn is unlikely to get a majority, how likely is a convincing GNU candidate with a programme for government and stable coalition agreement likely to appear and be able to persuade HMQ they can provide stable government?
Before inviting someone else to be PM, HMQ will want to know the details of their proposed government, what coalition arrangements have been agreed, how stable it will be etc. If the candidate cannot convince her he or she could provide a stable government she will conclude an election is required and decline to invite the candidate to form a government. 14 days ain't long enough to hammer out a deal with 5 parties. She wont approve a PM who will simply extend article 50 then go to the country. She'll skip the extend bit and let her subjects decide.
The Tories are going to do pretty badly in Remain areas at the next election in places like the Home Counties. They're going to have to do very well in traditional Labour areas that mostly voted Leave to compensate for that.
Before inviting someone else to be PM, HMQ will want to know the details of their proposed government, what coalition arrangements have been agreed, how stable it will be etc. If the candidate cannot convince her he or she could provide a stable government she will conclude an election is required and decline to invite the candidate to form a government. 14 days ain't long enough to hammer out a deal with 5 parties. She wont approve a PM who will simply extend article 50 then go to the country. She'll skip the extend bit and let her subjects decide.
You're making up the constitution
No I'm not. HMQ requires stable government, shes not going to appoint someone who does not have a stable coalition agreement (see the 2010 debate post election) and she will not appoint someone simply to enact one thing (extension) then go to the country when an election is the default after a VONC anyway
No I'm not. HMQ requires stable government, shes not going to appoint someone who does not have a stable coalition agreement (see the 2010 debate post election) and she will not appoint someone simply to enact one thing (extension) then go to the country when an election is the default after a VONC anyway
Historically minority governments are also a thing
No I'm not. HMQ requires stable government, shes not going to appoint someone who does not have a stable coalition agreement (see the 2010 debate post election) and she will not appoint someone simply to enact one thing (extension) then go to the country when an election is the default after a VONC anyway
Historically minority governments are also a thing
She wont invite someone to form a minority government, shes already got one, and bu definition a minority would imply they did not have the required confidence of the house
Even post-purge there will be plenty of Conservative MPs (as well as supporters and voters!) whose support is contingent on Johnson actually seeking a deal. And although Johnson is willing to pursue No Deal, it doesn't seem to be his first preference.
That's my view.
Personally, I think that if we No Deal, we'll end up accepting something like the WA, just two years later, and after a nasty recession and the loss of much of the UK car industry.
It will have been a stupid and futile gesture. A railing against the dying of the light.
I would have more confidence in Mr Johnson if he published his alternative to the Backstop. You know,
"Ladies and Gentlemen, in the UK and in the EU, and in the world at large. I fully appreciate the reason why the backstop exists. However, I think it is a step too far for our country: it is an unacceptable diminution of sovereignty, and is not something we're will to sign up for, no matter how painful exiting without a deal is.
The reason the backstop exists is because the technical task of implementing a border solution is not a 12 or 18 month process. While there have been published papers, from us, the Irish and the Commission itself on what is needed, the detailed job of specifying systems, selecting vendors, training staff and then getting it up and running will take two, maybe even three years.
I propose the following: the UK will sign up for the next five years to keep our agricultural standards in lock-step with the Commission's, we will continue to recognise the role of CE is setting standards for electronics and automotive, and we will remain in the the customs union. For dispute settlement, we will accept the rulings of the EFTA Court in Luxembourg. We will, however, leave the CFP, the CAP, the Social Chapter, and after 18 months the freedom of movement provisions of the Single Market. During the five year transition period, we will make diminishing payments into the EU's Solidarity Fund, reaching the same level (per head) as Norway from year three.
This is a good deal. It removes the Irish border as an issue. It keeps us close as neighbours and friends. And it allows the British people to know that their political class are their servants, not their masters."
But he hasn't made any proposals. He's just flounced around Europe threatening No Deal.
No I'm not. HMQ requires stable government, shes not going to appoint someone who does not have a stable coalition agreement (see the 2010 debate post election) and she will not appoint someone simply to enact one thing (extension) then go to the country when an election is the default after a VONC anyway
Historically minority governments are also a thing
Obviously its also a bit different after an election, then she has her subjects decision to go on
She wont invite someone to form a minority government, shes already got one, and bu definition a minority would imply they did not have the required confidence of the house
A minority government can have the confidence of the House without a coalition agreement, this is normal.
One thing I don't think has been extensively commented on is how many other Conservative MPs backed the Government last night but had secret sympathies with the rebels. MPs like Theresa May and Damian Hinds. They kept their powder dry because they didn't need to do anything else - the rebels had the numbers.
If they are re-elected post a new GE (as they haven't lost the whip) I would necessarily count on them as lobby fodder under all scenarios either. That matters if the result of the next GE is also indecisive.
Even post-purge there will be plenty of Conservative MPs (as well as supporters and voters!) whose support is contingent on Johnson actually seeking a deal. And although Johnson is willing to pursue No Deal, it doesn't seem to be his first preference.
That's my view.
Personally, I think that if we No Deal, we'll end up accepting something like the WA, just two years later, and after a nasty recession and the loss of much of the UK car industry.
It will have been a stupid and futile gesture. A railing against the dying of the light.
I would have more confidence in Mr Johnson if he published his alternative to the Backstop. You know,
"Ladies and Gentlemen, in the UK and in the EU, and in the world at large. I fully appreciate the reason why the backstop exists. However, I think it is a step too far for our country: it is an unacceptable diminution of sovereignty, and is not something we're will to sign up for, no matter how painful exiting without a deal is.
The reason the backstop exists is because the technical task of implementing a border solution is not a 12 or 18 month process. While there have been published papers, from us, the Irish and the Commission itself on what is needed, the detailed job of specifying systems, selecting vendors, training staff and then getting it up and running will take two, maybe even three years.
I propose the following: the UK will sign up for the next five years to keep our agricultural standards in lock-step with the Commission's, we will continue to recognise the role of CE is setting standards for electronics and automotive, and we will remain in the the customs union. For dispute settlement, we will accept the rulings of the EFTA Court in Luxembourg. We will, however, leave the CFP, the CAP, the Social Chapter, and after 18 months the freedom of movement provisions of the Single Market. During the five year transition period, we will make diminishing payments into the EU's Solidarity Fund, reaching the same level (per head) as Norway from year three.
This is a good deal. It removes the Irish border as an issue. It keeps us close as neighbours and friends. And it allows the British people to know that their political class are their servants, not their masters."
But he hasn't made any proposals. He's just flounced around Europe threatening No Deal.
She wont invite someone to form a minority government, shes already got one, and bu definition a minority would imply they did not have the required confidence of the house
A minority government can have the confidence of the House without a coalition agreement, this is normal.
Unlikely in the 14 days after a VONC that the house will support someone to form a minority administration. What would be the point? And how does this person convince HMQ they can provide a stable government? It would be uncharted territory mid term
Obviously its also a bit different after an election, then she has her subjects decision to go on
Nope, it's the same, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament and the subjects have nothing to do with it.
The PM is not chosen by parliament. Parliament does not meet after an election before the PM is appointed by HMQ
The PM requires the confidence of the HoC. If there was an indication that someone could get its support - perhaps because 20 odd ex-Tories announced they would abstain - I don't see how HMQ could avoid testing it.
Obviously its also a bit different after an election, then she has her subjects decision to go on
Nope, it's the same, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament and the subjects have nothing to do with it.
The PM is not chosen by parliament. Parliament does not meet after an election before the PM is appointed by HMQ
The PM requires the confidence of the HoC. If there was an indication that someone could get its support - perhaps because 20 odd ex-Tories announced they would abstain - I don't see how HMQ could avoid testing it.
Perhaps but who is going to get that support? Corbyn wont, if the 21 ex Tories abstain, can Corbyn really rely on the LDs, lady hermon, Change UK, plaid, the independents, hoey, mann etc ??
One thing I don't think has been extensively commented on is how many other Conservative MPs backed the Government last night but had secret sympathies with the rebels. MPs like Theresa May and Damian Hinds. They kept their powder dry because they didn't need to do anything else - the rebels had the numbers.
If they are re-elected post a new GE (as they haven't lost the whip) I would necessarily count on them as lobby fodder under all scenarios either. That matters if the result of the next GE is also indecisive.
Which i think it will be.
Yes I made a similar point below - "Even post-purge there will be plenty of Conservative MPs (as well as supporters and voters!) whose support is contingent on Johnson actually seeking a deal".
Demarcations on Brexit between parties will be clearer post-purge (including on the opposite benches, after the imminent wave of Labour Leave retirements at the next GE) but it doesn't establish party unanimity, and Johnson's Tories will still not be a Farage-free ersatz Brexit Party. In fact MPs who seek a deal of some sort, with varying levels of priority and differing preferences over terms, will still form the vast bulk of the Conservative parliamentary party, so I don't think the purge gets us very much closer to Farage calling off his Brexit Party dogs. Leavers salivating over an election by virtue of adding together Tory + TBP polling percentages are making a big mistake, I think (particularly since tactical voting among leavers is likely to be inhibited by the Tory party not being so transfer-friendly for traditional Labour/Liberal leavers).
Obviously its also a bit different after an election, then she has her subjects decision to go on
Nope, it's the same, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament and the subjects have nothing to do with it.
The PM is not chosen by parliament. Parliament does not meet after an election before the PM is appointed by HMQ
Fairy nuff, more precisely stated the PM is chosen on the basis of their ability to command a majority in parliament. But there's no aspect of this process that depends on the monarch's view of the opinion of what individual voters just told her, and the idea that there's a different hurdle partway through parliament to the one after an election is just something you've made up.
Obviously its also a bit different after an election, then she has her subjects decision to go on
Nope, it's the same, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament and the subjects have nothing to do with it.
The PM is not chosen by parliament. Parliament does not meet after an election before the PM is appointed by HMQ
Fairy nuff, more precisely stated the PM is chosen on the basis of their ability to command a majority in parliament. But there's no aspect of this process that depends on the monarch's view of the opinion of what individual voters just told her, and the idea that there's a different hurdle partway through parliament to the one after an election is just something you've made up.
After an election HMQ appoints the PM on the basis they can command a majority or in absence could provide a working minority government. If that is the same guy as pre election then nothing changes of course. After a VONC the default is an election unless the Gov regains confidence or someone new can demonstrate the house has confidence in them to provide government. The difficulty will be (in my opinion and understamding) if parliament tries to approve/support someone merely to extend article t0 then go to the country. Hmq would be in a position to say an election is the default anyway, I'm not appointing you to enact one law, you can put that policy as part of your offer to the electorate and if you win then good for you. If the house offers confidence to someone to form a government and govern then yep, she'll go for it.
Obviously its also a bit different after an election, then she has her subjects decision to go on
Nope, it's the same, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament and the subjects have nothing to do with it.
The PM is not chosen by parliament. Parliament does not meet after an election before the PM is appointed by HMQ
Fairy nuff, more precisely stated the PM is chosen on the basis of their ability to command a majority in parliament. But there's no aspect of this process that depends on the monarch's view of the opinion of what individual voters just told her, and the idea that there's a different hurdle partway through parliament to the one after an election is just something you've made up.
Private Eye, page 28, David Cameron's Bright Ideas. Spot the Difference. EU Referendum: short-term fix, thrown together to sort out a political problem with no regard for the chaotic consequences. Fixed-term Parliament Act: short-term fix, thrown together to sort out a political problem with no regard for the chaotic consequences.
Considering that premiership is supposedly what Johnson has been preparing for virtually his entire life, and he must have seen the wave on which he would ride from several miles off so has had years to prepare, he doesn't seem to have spent a lot of time swotting up on the necessary nitty-gritty. (At least that's the impression his media appearances give; reports of his meetings with European leaders seem to suggest he was serious and well-briefed but it's telling how even that was treated, by them, as surprising.)
Keep it enpoked, and it's still a plausible albeit mysterious solution to the Brexit negotiation impasse. When unleashed at the last moment, there's a (possibly remote, but non-zero) probability that EU leaders will accept some kind of bacon-flavoured fudge made out of it, since no alternative presents itself at that late stage. Let it out of the bag before the critical moment, and it will either solidify as a genuine solution and we'll all be wondering why we didn't think of it earlier instead of the backstop, or it will be dismissed out of hand as unworkable (probably by the EU itself, the kind of guys Boris hopes to be going over the heads of at a summit) and turn out to be totally worthless. The smart money is 99% on the latter, of course. So best to keep it under wraps, and for now look any prospective buyer in the eye and say "I honestly, honestly want to secure a deal, but I'm just not in a position where I can show you how I'm going to get it".
I'm surprised so many Tory politicians seem to have accepted this at face value. But I also wonder whether he's fooling himself too. Keeping the pig firmly in the poke lets him kid himself he's holding a trump card. Letting it out would almost certainly reveal it to be worthless, though he may see that instead as "playing it too early". Hence he is going to hold on to it until the end is nigh. Chances are it'll still be worthless then too, but does he realise this?
After an election HMQ appoints the PM on the basis they can command a majority or in absence could provide a working minority government. If that is the same guy as pre election then nothing changes of course. After a VONC the default is an election unless the Gov regains confidence or someone new can demonstrate the house has confidence in them to provide government. The difficulty will be (in my opinion and understamding) if parliament tries to approve/support someone merely to extend article t0 then go to the country. Hmq would be in a position to say an election is the default anyway, I'm not appointing you to enact one law, you can put that policy as part of your offer to the electorate and if you win then good for you. If the house offers confidence to someone to form a government and govern then yep, she'll go for it.
At the point where the government chopped 20 MPs off it's majority and handed them over to the opposition I think we're out of GoNAfaE territory and into regular minority government territory.
One thing I don't think has been extensively commented on is how many other Conservative MPs backed the Government last night but had secret sympathies with the rebels. MPs like Theresa May and Damian Hinds. They kept their powder dry because they didn't need to do anything else - the rebels had the numbers.
If they are re-elected post a new GE (as they haven't lost the whip) I would necessarily count on them as lobby fodder under all scenarios either. That matters if the result of the next GE is also indecisive.
Which i think it will be.
While Mrs May is loyal to the party, I suspect that she’ll enjoy her revenge cold. Johnson was an embarrassing disaster yesterday - though that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
When interviewed yesterday the interviewer said “If anyone says they know what would happen in a GE they’d be lying - but here’s someone who might” “No, I’d be lying too!” came the swift response!
Obviously its also a bit different after an election, then she has her subjects decision to go on
Nope, it's the same, the Prime Minister is chosen by Parliament and the subjects have nothing to do with it.
The PM is not chosen by parliament. Parliament does not meet after an election before the PM is appointed by HMQ
Fairy nuff, more precisely stated the PM is chosen on the basis of their ability to command a majority in parliament. But there's no aspect of this process that depends on the monarch's view of the opinion of what individual voters just told her, and the idea that there's a different hurdle partway through parliament to the one after an election is just something you've made up.
Private Eye, page 28, David Cameron's Bright Ideas. Spot the Difference. EU Referendum: short-term fix, thrown together to sort out a political problem with no regard for the chaotic consequences. Fixed-term Parliament Act: short-term fix, thrown together to sort out a political problem with no regard for the chaotic consequences.
Good spot, though the whole process by which the executive can call an election when it wants (pre 2010) was also flawed.....I dont see the pre-FTPA arrangement as fit for purpose either.
Morning all and quite clear that if the Remoaners pass their Surrender Bill today, Boris has to make clear he will not ask for an extension, law or no law. Lots of safe Tory seats now up for grabs to aspiring anti-EU candidates as we see the party axe those who think their opinions matter more than the 17.4 million. A people v parliament election is clearly looming and ordinary people will not appreciate Corbyn preventing a GE having called for one since 2017. The Tory manifesto could contain a clause stating that a re-elected Boris government will revoke today's Remoaners Surrender Act.
Comments
Also, the proposed bill is about asking, a new Parliament could easily be in place in time not to accept.
Good to see people and Parliamentarians in such close accord!
Right to leave 41
Wrong to leave 48
Don’t know 11
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1169015172167610370
https://twitter.com/fisherbro/status/1169020547977621510?s=21
https://twitter.com/JamboGJ/status/1169024332988866560
Goodnight
Now the purge is complete what's to stop him going for No Deal in an election campaign?
I'm sot so sure.
Now the purge is complete what's to stop him going for No Deal in an election campaign?
Con 35% + BXP 12% = 47% [LEAVE vote united]
Lab 25%
Lib-Dem 15%
Green 7%
REMAIN vote split.
(Goodnight again)
2. Yes, there is quite a difference between those two sets of numbers. Those thinking No Deal supporting MPs are disrespecting democracy only marginally exceed those who don't. By contrast, those thinking the likes of Hammond are disrespecting democracy are hugely greater than those who don't.
That's quite significant I think in terms of the way people will view the shenanigans going on in parliament this week.
https://twitter.com/KateMaltby/status/1168996264844959746?s=20
I suspect Remain supporters are more willing to vote tactically than Leave supporters.
Even post-purge there will be plenty of Conservative MPs (as well as supporters and voters!) whose support is contingent on Johnson actually seeking a deal. And although Johnson is willing to pursue No Deal, it doesn't seem to be his first preference. If he did win a GE and if he did then reach some kind of "new" - most likely reheated, but we are already in double-if territory here so further speculation seems ill-advised - agreement with the EU, it's hardly inconceivable he'd be willing to purge No Deal headbangers too.
(After all, he wouldn't want his "triumph of diplomacy" to be spoiled... Mrs May was extremely proud of the deal she made, judging by the way her spin doctors tried to emphasise it as one of her greatest achievements during her leaving-day "celebrations", but she didn't have the ruthlessness, or political opportunity, to fight so hard and dirty for it.)
Overall I can't see Boris as an active proponent of No Deal even if he calculates that a deal on his terms is incredibly unlikely and he's not gravely troubled by that fact. Becoming a No Dealer would undermine his "I'm a strong diplomat and we need the option of no deal so we can get a deal" shtick.
We're pretty sure SCon will lose seats so where are the rest coming from? Smells of a Hung Parliament again to me.
Edit: I see Corbyn next PM is down to 5/2 on Betfair. And with that scary thought, I'll say goodnite, and sweet dreams everybody.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/ff02f7f6-014a-4a8c-9ef7-bd2cd9986e53?in=22:14:24&out=22:15:20
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9857893/john-bercow-michael-gove-brexit-debate-boris-johnson/
Con 289
Lab 247
Ind 36
SNP 35
LD 15
DUP 10
SF 7
Ind Group For Change 5
PC 4
Greens 1
Speaker 1
Voting MPs, (excluding Sinn Fein and 4 speakers/deputy speakers):
Con + DUP = 298
Opposition = 341
Opposition majority = 43.
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
If the Brexit party are in open alliance with the Tories then they won't vote for them either.
There are socialist leavers out there you know you are still counting for the con + bxp.
You factoring how con + bxp is also split and also need vote lend and squeeze intelligently.
How much of that con vote is neither leave or specifically no deal? Conservatives have been party of business and euro membership for nearly fifty years. For example we know what hestletine will tell a poster but how will he really vote?
And when is that election. Thanks to ftpa Corbyn has Boris in a credibility shredding machine, if he keeps him trapped till next year what will boris and his party’s poll figures look like?
Meanwhile JRM really has to work on his body language.....
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1169046284285763585?s=20
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1168935562474151936?s=20
Boris calls a VONC in his own government and in the debate makes it clear the government will advise HMQ to withhold assent on any bill that seeks to extend Brexit beyond Halloween. Confidence in government would be taken as parliaments tacit approval of that stance. VONC passes and then Boris rides out the 14 days and we go to the country.......
Otherwise Gordon Brown would have stayed on forever...
In the old days, if the government lost 20-odd MPs, they could simply call an election. Now, by shedding those MPs, they open themselves up to another government being formed.
This is a nihilist government.
And it would need to be a reasonable moderate one.
Personally, I think that if we No Deal, we'll end up accepting something like the WA, just two years later, and after a nasty recession and the loss of much of the UK car industry.
It will have been a stupid and futile gesture. A railing against the dying of the light.
I would have more confidence in Mr Johnson if he published his alternative to the Backstop. You know,
"Ladies and Gentlemen, in the UK and in the EU, and in the world at large. I fully appreciate the reason why the backstop exists. However, I think it is a step too far for our country: it is an unacceptable diminution of sovereignty, and is not something we're will to sign up for, no matter how painful exiting without a deal is.
The reason the backstop exists is because the technical task of implementing a border solution is not a 12 or 18 month process. While there have been published papers, from us, the Irish and the Commission itself on what is needed, the detailed job of specifying systems, selecting vendors, training staff and then getting it up and running will take two, maybe even three years.
I propose the following: the UK will sign up for the next five years to keep our agricultural standards in lock-step with the Commission's, we will continue to recognise the role of CE is setting standards for electronics and automotive, and we will remain in the the customs union. For dispute settlement, we will accept the rulings of the EFTA Court in Luxembourg. We will, however, leave the CFP, the CAP, the Social Chapter, and after 18 months the freedom of movement provisions of the Single Market. During the five year transition period, we will make diminishing payments into the EU's Solidarity Fund, reaching the same level (per head) as Norway from year three.
This is a good deal. It removes the Irish border as an issue. It keeps us close as neighbours and friends. And it allows the British people to know that their political class are their servants, not their masters."
But he hasn't made any proposals. He's just flounced around Europe threatening No Deal.
If they are re-elected post a new GE (as they haven't lost the whip) I would necessarily count on them as lobby fodder under all scenarios either. That matters if the result of the next GE is also indecisive.
Which i think it will be.
(Edit: shit. Wrong country.)
Demarcations on Brexit between parties will be clearer post-purge (including on the opposite benches, after the imminent wave of Labour Leave retirements at the next GE) but it doesn't establish party unanimity, and Johnson's Tories will still not be a Farage-free ersatz Brexit Party. In fact MPs who seek a deal of some sort, with varying levels of priority and differing preferences over terms, will still form the vast bulk of the Conservative parliamentary party, so I don't think the purge gets us very much closer to Farage calling off his Brexit Party dogs. Leavers salivating over an election by virtue of adding together Tory + TBP polling percentages are making a big mistake, I think (particularly since tactical voting among leavers is likely to be inhibited by the Tory party not being so transfer-friendly for traditional Labour/Liberal leavers).
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/1813/1813.pdf
Private Eye, page 28, David Cameron's Bright Ideas. Spot the Difference.
EU Referendum: short-term fix, thrown together to sort out a political problem with no regard for the chaotic consequences.
Fixed-term Parliament Act: short-term fix, thrown together to sort out a political problem with no regard for the chaotic consequences.
But to be less flippant, I don't believe it's mere laziness which is leading Johnson to be so quiet on what his proposed solution might be. He is trying to sell a pig in a poke precisely because if he lets any prospective buyer look inside the sack, there's a substantial risk the pig transmogrifies into a worthless cat. It's some weird variant of "Schrodinger's pig in a poke".
Keep it enpoked, and it's still a plausible albeit mysterious solution to the Brexit negotiation impasse. When unleashed at the last moment, there's a (possibly remote, but non-zero) probability that EU leaders will accept some kind of bacon-flavoured fudge made out of it, since no alternative presents itself at that late stage. Let it out of the bag before the critical moment, and it will either solidify as a genuine solution and we'll all be wondering why we didn't think of it earlier instead of the backstop, or it will be dismissed out of hand as unworkable (probably by the EU itself, the kind of guys Boris hopes to be going over the heads of at a summit) and turn out to be totally worthless. The smart money is 99% on the latter, of course. So best to keep it under wraps, and for now look any prospective buyer in the eye and say "I honestly, honestly want to secure a deal, but I'm just not in a position where I can show you how I'm going to get it".
I'm surprised so many Tory politicians seem to have accepted this at face value. But I also wonder whether he's fooling himself too. Keeping the pig firmly in the poke lets him kid himself he's holding a trump card. Letting it out would almost certainly reveal it to be worthless, though he may see that instead as "playing it too early". Hence he is going to hold on to it until the end is nigh. Chances are it'll still be worthless then too, but does he realise this?
https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1169091568738979842?s=20
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1169095396691496960?s=20
When interviewed yesterday the interviewer said “If anyone says they know what would happen in a GE they’d be lying - but here’s someone who might” “No, I’d be lying too!” came the swift response!
https://twitter.com/JoeLSmallman/status/1169035316629557248?s=20
The Conservatives are not the only group providing a case-study in hubris and the inevitable nemesis. The Unionists are right up there with them.
Can humility be learnt? Yes, but it takes many years and a lot of effort and willpower. BoZo, Carlaw and chums are impatient, and lazy.