The whole issue seems a nonsense, a convenient peg for both sides to say no on, politics rather anything genuine, then everyone shuts down discussion because its NI and no one is allowed to have an opinion on it as they just dont get it.
Worth reading Foster's thread in full. It is not only UK that is in a logical bind. TMs deal should by now look attractive to both UK and Ireland (to protect it from double think if there is No Deal) if one took various egos out of the picture.
I suppose one way out for Boris is to backpedal and whip his MPs to support the WA, as resuscitated by the Kinnock amendment. It can't be out of the question that, with enough parliamentary backroom wheelerdealery, it'll finally pass. Thereby we'd leave the EU almost immediately and he'd go into the GE as a kind of Hypocrite Hero. And probably win it!
Johnson would surely lose a large chunk of his cabinet - Raab, Patel, Rees-Mogg, at least, if he tried to do that.
I do think that there is/was a chance for a new PM to reach across the House and pass the WA, but Johnson has long since vaporized his bridges and cannot now succeed with that gambit.
It very clearly is under consideration, who is he fooling? As for resigning the whip, well the government will have no problem finding people who are willing to stand in his seat happy with BoJo.
Much more of this and the Men in Grey Suits will be asked to get involved. Cummings is some kind of toy-town anarchist with Boris his affably bumbling figurehead. Brexit or not, the Tory tribe isn't going to sit back and let these jokers blow up a centuries-old political institution for giggles. We'll soon be looking back and seeing the Boris premiership as a short-lived and ill-advised aberration, a curiosity.
Reading conservativehome says differently. Looking at momentums takeover of the Labour party says differently. These organisations are surprisingly badly set up to deal with enthusiastic insurgents.
Yes, I just read the Matthew Parris piece and now think the Tory party is screwed. Please scrap what I said.
The strategy is surely working perfectly so far. It's simply to change the parliamentary arithmetic so that No Deal can get through:
1: Clear out any Tories that wouldn't back the Government in such a vote. 2: Engineer an election that is effectively a second referendum on Brexit. 3: Allow Labour to fuck up by having them try and face both ways.
The gamble being that such a strategy gets the Tories a majority.
Who in their right mind thought that the combination of a tarmac run off area and curb on the outside of a 170+ mph corner was a good idea?
I've said for years that tarmac run off areas are dangerous and I think they contributed to the fatal accident last week. Still, as long as powers that be prioritise keep cars in the race over driver safety, nothing will change.
Agree with the header and I am strongly attracted to Michael Gove. He appears to me to be the person who best combines Leave credentials with competence.
First sentence is TMI, last word is startling.
I still have not got over David Herdson's assertion in the header that Priti Patel should be considered PM material.....
As for Dominic Raab
1. I said that even at 66/1, Patel was *not* value. 2. Just because someone isn't PM material doesn't mean they can't become PM.
It very clearly is under consideration, who is he fooling? As for resigning the whip, well the government will have no problem finding people who are willing to stand in his seat happy with BoJo.
Much more of this and the Men in Grey Suits will be asked to get involved. Cummings is some kind of toy-town anarchist with Boris his affably bumbling figurehead. Brexit or not, the Tory tribe isn't going to sit back and let these jokers blow up a centuries-old political institution for giggles. We'll soon be looking back and seeing the Boris premiership as a short-lived and ill-advised aberration, a curiosity.
I don't know about that. An increasing number of Conservative MPs are simply walking away. There's not much sign of a fight for the soul of the party.
Agree with the header and I am strongly attracted to Michael Gove. He appears to me to be the person who best combines Leave credentials with competence.
First sentence is TMI, last word is startling.
I still have not got over David Herdson's assertion in the header that Priti Patel should be considered PM material.....
As for Dominic Raab
1. I said that even at 66/1, Patel was *not* value. 2. Just because someone isn't PM material doesn't mean they can't become PM.
It's perhaps surprising only 21 real Conservative MPs have gone so far
Good morning.
A lot more have announced that they're standing down at the next election. Claire Perry yesterday, Nick Hurd the day before, to name just a few.
Interesting. Tory MPs though loyal to their leader in ways Labour leaders can only dream about they have no such qualms about setting the dogs on those behind the throne. Ask Theresa.
It would be wrong to blame Johnson for the Tory misfortune. His plumage may be exotic but this bird is a scavenger.
No, the blame should rest on the shoulders of the Conservative Party, the whole Conservative Party and only the Conservative Party. They alone brought this Brexit trouble upon us. Our age rightly disapproves of the careless use of mental disorder as a metaphor for wrongheadedness but I am serious. Something mad has taken root in our party, and our internal defences — our immune system — seem to have been too feeble to identify this new jihadism, stand up to it and repel it.
Almost in tears, a friend said to me this week: “All those years we argued about withdrawing the whip and throwing these madcaps out of the party and draining the poison but we murmured ‘broad church’ and ‘tolerance’ and ‘due process’. We were wrong.”
It has played out exactly as what many people warned about.
...that Boris Johnson is not a suitable candidate to be PM. Was fairly obvious but amazing there are still a few nutters who think he is the right man for the job.
Yes, the Tories learnt nothing from the hijacking of the Labour Party.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Agree with the header and I am strongly attracted to Michael Gove. He appears to me to be the person who best combines Leave credentials with competence.
First sentence is TMI, last word is startling.
I still have not got over David Herdson's assertion in the header that Priti Patel should be considered PM material.....
As for Dominic Raab
. 2. Just because someone isn't PM material doesn't mean they can't become PM.
Surprised it's that short, there isn't time for them to force a win even if they bat miraculously
Given the events at Headingley I expect the bookies can find people willing to part with their cash to back an unlikely England victory without having to offer realistic odds.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Surprised it's that short, there isn't time for them to force a win even if they bat miraculously
In 2 days? Yes there's time - unlikely but there's time.
If we bat miraculously we could be par score with an hour to play tonight. Get a couple of wickets, bowl miraculously tomorrow they could be all out between Lunch and Tea. Bat like Stokes did last Test and we could overhaul the target before out of time.
Just a thought, if he complies with the law to request an extension can he not also say to the EU 'that covers my legal requirement, however let me assure you my government does not want an extension, we wish to leave on Oct 31 and if you offer one it will be accepted legally only, we would consider it imposed upon us unwillingly'
This is turning into a bunker mentality with Bozo and his advisers trying to come up with yet another ruse .
Ignoring the law however seems even a stretch too far given the Tories would completely implode .
It says much for how low standards have become that some Leavers are almost salivating at the thought of a PM ignoring a law .
Where does this end , if a PM can simply ignore the law why bother having a Parliament . And Leavers should realize that once a precedent has been set it can then be used by others who might be trying to do something they disagree with .
Even worse Johnson is trying to force through something that has no mandate. I accept that Leave has a mandate but it was sold as an orderly departure with a deal .
Some Leavers seem intent on revising history . And in their desperation they now want to trash the conventions that by and large have sustained democracy in the UK .
They seem willing to trash anything and everything on the altar of Brexit .
We must stop this dictator calling free and fair elections at all costs! #stopthecoup
Whilst I don't think it would be a good idea for Boris to not obey the law, it would pose an interesting dilemma for his opponents. That is, they have the power to remove him, but won't do it. So whilst I think it could end very badly for Boris, he'd drag his opponents down with him.
I suppose they'd simply ram through a new law retrospectively removing themselves of liability. Why not?
On a majority of -43 or whatever it is that may not work.....
I'm thinking later on, after Boris has secured his landslide. He could give himself pardoning powers like the US pres and expand them to being able to pardon himself.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Surprised it's that short, there isn't time for them to force a win even if they bat miraculously
In 2 days? Yes there's time - unlikely but there's time.
If we bat miraculously we could be par score with an hour to play tonight. Get a couple of wickets, bowl miraculously tomorrow they could be all out between Lunch and Tea. Bat like Stokes did last Test and we could overhaul the target before out of time.
Extremely unlikely, but there's time.
And if Dominic Cummings was sane and intelligent, we wouldn't be in this awful mess.
There are some things that just can't happen once you get to a certain point. Australia are into the tail, and it's a very long tail.
I suppose they'd simply ram through a new law retrospectively removing themselves of liability. Why not?
On a majority of -43 or whatever it is that may not work.....
I'm thinking later on, after Boris has secured his landslide. He could give himself pardoning powers like the US pres and expand them to being able to pardon himself.
I think HMQ and therefore the PM already has them. Just don't get used often.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
I suppose they'd simply ram through a new law retrospectively removing themselves of liability. Why not?
On a majority of -43 or whatever it is that may not work.....
I'm thinking later on, after Boris has secured his landslide. He could give himself pardoning powers like the US pres and expand them to being able to pardon himself.
He’d have to get it through the Lords and he’d be in the dock long before that happened...
I think it is now clear that Denly, Roy, Bairstow and Butler and not currently suited to Tests. Denly might be given time but the others just can't hack it. And as Denly is well over 30 time is hardly on his side.
So who should be called into the side? The standout English qualified batsmen in the Championship this season are Sibley, who's an opener. No-brainier, get him in with Burns. Sam Northeast continues to churn out runs and should go at 3. Ollie Pope being fit again should come in at 6 or 7 and keep wicket.
So who is the wildcard? Well, the other standout batsmen are Abell, Gregory (both Somerset) Higgins (Glos, averaging 77) and Salt (Sussex. Put one of them in and see what happens. They couldn't do worse. Higgins and Gregory are also capable back-up medium pacers although not true all rounders at the top level.
I think it is now clear that Denly, Roy, Bairstow and Butler and not currently suited to Tests. Denly might be given time but the others just can't hack it. And as Denly is well over 30 time is hardly on his side.
So who should be called into the side? The standout English qualified batsmen in the Championship this season are Sibley, who's an opener. No-brainier, get him in with Burns. Sam Northeast continues to churn out runs and should go at 3. Ollie Pope being fit again should come in at 6 or 7 and keep wicket.
So who is the wildcard? Well, the other standout batsmen are Abell, Gregory (both Somerset) Higgins (Glos, averaging 77) and Salt (Sussex. Put one of them in and see what happens. They couldn't do worse. Higgins and Gregory are also capable back-up medium pacers although not true all rounders at the top level.
It was pretty obvious from the start that those players aren't suitable for test cricket, but the selectors seem to be on some sort of bizarre crusade to prove that they are, regardless of the facts.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
The problem with the argument is that there are numbers against every definite course of action.
Isn't there a European law that migrants have to be accepted by the first safe county they arrive in? That law doesn't seem to be taken seriously by a lot of "activists".
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
What is the longest period the UK has been without a PM?
Normally it's less than half an hour between one resignation and the appointment of the successor. Probably it was longer when an incumbent has died in office.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
The problem with the argument is that there are numbers against every definite course of action.
What a strange article. It takes the HY hypothesis as a given (which is fair enough in terms of exploring scenarios) in spades, given that to stick around to 2024 probably requires a reasonable majority, then assumes that having achieved such a remarkable turnaround from the current shambles, Bozo then throws in the towel or gets dumped.
If the Tories do win the coming election, my bet is that he’ll be their last PM for a while, since the realities of Brexit will fall so far short of all the nonsense that has been spouted about it and the damage done will inexorably become clear, such that the Tories will then be unelectable.
We’re getting into a very strange and dark conversation, but in theory the Lord Chancellor could just pardon Boris couldn’t he? And the Royal Prerogative of Mercy appears not to be justiceable.
The player top of the all-time list might surprise you though.
If you are a low chance of getting caught, you are a higher chance of getting bowled by definition, so plenty of good defensive players get bowled more often than attacking players.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
The problem with the argument is that there are numbers against every definite course of action.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
You don't just have to count in Parliament. You also need to count 27 countries voting to agree to yet another pointless extension.
Can Boris be irritating enough that he can piss off at least one country enough to say No?
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
What is the longest period the UK has been without a PM?
Normally it's less than half an hour between one resignation and the appointment of the successor. Probably it was longer when an incumbent has died in office.
No idea. I don't even know if a PM can resign without nominating a successor. In the past this would not have been a problem because there would simply have been a GE but of course the FTPA is preventing that at present.
I would not be surprised to see Boris resign just before October 18th and then stay on as leader of the Tory party to fight the pretty inevitable GE.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
The problem with the argument is that there are numbers against every definite course of action.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
Why would no-one take his place? Someone would take his place. That person would follow the law to avoid jail and unlimited civil damages.
The player top of the all-time list might surprise you though.
If you are a low chance of getting caught, you are a higher chance of getting bowled by definition, so plenty of good defensive players get bowled more often than attacking players.
Yes, and it's a list of absolute numbers, rather than proportion, so players with longer careers well tend to be higher. But, still.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
For any constitutional lawyers is there anything to stop Boris saying he will continue to serve as First Lord of the Treasury but is resigning as Prime Minister?
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
What is the longest period the UK has been without a PM?
Normally it's less than half an hour between one resignation and the appointment of the successor. Probably it was longer when an incumbent has died in office.
About 10 days in 1834. Melbourne had been sacked and his successor was in Italy.
Shokking anti English racism against Porsche drivers that overtake on blind corners and plow into bikers. That the court took the side of the German bikers just makes it worse.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
The problem with the argument is that there are numbers against every definite course of action.
But, something has to happen.
The thing that happens is extension.
For another 3 months. And then what happens....
I would expect the EU to offer an extension to the end of the current budget period - December 2020 - which was to be the end of the transition period.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
For any constitutional lawyers is there anything to stop Boris saying he will continue to serve as First Lord of the Treasury but is resigning as Prime Minister?
Yes. There is in law no post of Prime Minister. He would have to hold another office as well to be in cabinet.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Hmmmm, then maybe making an extension a poisoned pawn would be his plan? Make the EU desperate not to extend? That's one problem they have with trying to ensure BJ is doing the asking, he might piss off the EU enough to make extension offer impossible for them
Are there any controversial veto-applicable decisions coming up? When is the budget due to be agreed?
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
Coming up with wheezes to avoid things doesnt work.
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
The problem with the argument is that there are numbers against every definite course of action.
But, something has to happen.
The thing that happens is extension.
For another 3 months. And then what happens....
That is much more open. No deal could quite possibly happen after an election or referendum but it is very unlikely in this parliament.
The most likely options in order are:
1. Extend, election, hung parliament - which probably results in a repeat of extend & election 2. Extend, election, con majority - if the majority is big enough deal, if small majoriy ?? no idea, no deal possible in that case, pretty unstable 3. Extend, referendum - seems unlikely but the logic and numbers are sound as edmundintokyo points out 4. Deal in this parliament 5. Extend, election, Lab/SNP govt - referendums in UK and Scotland 6. No deal in this parliament
This is turning into a bunker mentality with Bozo and his advisers trying to come up with yet another ruse .
Ignoring the law however seems even a stretch too far given the Tories would completely implode .
It says much for how low standards have become that some Leavers are almost salivating at the thought of a PM ignoring a law .
Where does this end , if a PM can simply ignore the law why bother having a Parliament . And Leavers should realize that once a precedent has been set it can then be used by others who might be trying to do something they disagree with .
Even worse Johnson is trying to force through something that has no mandate. I accept that Leave has a mandate but it was sold as an orderly departure with a deal .
Some Leavers seem intent on revising history . And in their desperation they now want to trash the conventions that by and large have sustained democracy in the UK .
They seem willing to trash anything and everything on the altar of Brexit .
Cameron and Hilton came very close to liberating their party and making it respectable. It took them several years and not a few tacky gimmicks but they got there and won two elections on the back of it.
It's now taken Johnson and the organ grinder just a month to trash their work completely
Shokking anti English racism against Porsche drivers that overtake on blind corners and plow into bikers. That the court took the side of the German bikers just makes it worse.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
For any constitutional lawyers is there anything to stop Boris saying he will continue to serve as First Lord of the Treasury but is resigning as Prime Minister?
Yes. There is in law no post of Prime Minister. He would have to hold another office as well to be in cabinet.
That was my point. What if there was no Prime Minister [since the title isn't to my knowledge technically required] but Boris continued as First Lord of the Treasury which is the actual job set in law? As I recall Prime Minister is more a title, it doesn't really exist.
As for Cabinet, Cleverly sit in Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio
Boris currently sits in Cabinet with 4 titles: Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union. I don't see why he couldn't sit in Cabinet with just the latter 3 portfolios [and add without Portfolio if required].
Who in their right mind thought that the combination of a tarmac run off area and curb on the outside of a 170+ mph corner was a good idea?
I've said for years that tarmac run off areas are dangerous and I think they contributed to the fatal accident last week. Still, as long as powers that be prioritise keep cars in the race over driver safety, nothing will change.
Tracks have to make money from more than just F1 and gravel run offs are terrible for track days. I almost completely destroyed one of my many M3s (I've written off 4, LOL) by going through one backwards at 120km/h at Hockenheim (before they asphalted it). There was even gravel in the exhaust manifold!
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place?
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
Two questions. Let's take them in reverse order.
Q1: "How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?". A1: The Queen appoints one as she sees fit. In practice, this would be that person most likely to command a majority. I don't know what she would do if there is no obvious person. When Eden resigned he did not nominate a successor, and Macmillan was chosen after Con grandees and Cabinet members were canvassed by the Marquess of Salisbury or by the Queen directly.
Q2: "What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place?". A2: From the point of view of the Government, very little for quite a while. We couldn't launch a nuke and could not attend EUCO, but the Ministers remain in post and the Civil Service keep on keeping on. If you are indirectly asking "who would transmit Parliament's instruction to extend" the answer is that I don't know and I don't know if they would accept it if transmitted in such a manner. Famously the EU deals with governments, not people.
This is turning into a bunker mentality with Bozo and his advisers trying to come up with yet another ruse .
Ignoring the law however seems even a stretch too far given the Tories would completely implode .
It says much for how low standards have become that some Leavers are almost salivating at the thought of a PM ignoring a law .
Where does this end , if a PM can simply ignore the law why bother having a Parliament . And Leavers should realize that once a precedent has been set it can then be used by others who might be trying to do something they disagree with .
Even worse Johnson is trying to force through something that has no mandate. I accept that Leave has a mandate but it was sold as an orderly departure with a deal .
Some Leavers seem intent on revising history . And in their desperation they now want to trash the conventions that by and large have sustained democracy in the UK .
They seem willing to trash anything and everything on the altar of Brexit .
Ironically, CCHQ could then use this against Labour, claiming that since Prime Ministers are now above the law, it is too dangerous to let Corbyn in to nationalise allotments and send all our manhole covers to Venezuela.
Interesting header as ever Mr Herdson, but a gentle reminder that if the next polls follow the most recent Survation one of a declining Tory lead things might not be developing in Johnson’s favour....
But that poll has Swinon's LibDems taking a tumble. If that trend continues, we might yet head towards a repeat of the Tory/Labour clash of 2017....
The truth is...
...no-one knows.
LibDems believe their "team" will soar during the election campaign. Labourites believe it will be a rerun of 2017. BJers think they'll suck the Brexit Party dry and land a 100 seat majority.
No-one knows.
My view is that an early election favours the Conservatives, but that they will lost 5-15 Remain seats to the LibDems (probably at the lower end of the range), and 8-10 seats to the SNP. I also think that the Alliance will do surprisingly well in Northern Ireland, as it allows people to vote against "a hard border" without crossing sectarian lines. (In Sinn Fein seats, a combination of wanting an MP that actually turns up, combined with a bit of Unionist tactical voting wouldn't surprise me in the least.)
But these 15-20 losses will likely be made up by gains from Labour. I'd expect 20-30 gains there, resulting in a small overall Conservative majority.
Go beyond the end of the year mind, and irrespective of Brexit, the UK and the world will likely have drifted into recession. That won't be a fun time, as the governing party, to ask for a mandate. And if it's in the context of "No Deal", it may be especially painful. (Not the recession, but the electoral response; the electorate rarely looks beyond the border.)
On the basis of UNS, the polls from Survation, Hanbury and ICM are not pointing to an overall Tory Majority. Survation would iimply Labour losses of 16 seats to the Tories - though 11 of the defending Labour MPs could expect a first term incumbency bonus.Labour would also lose 4 seats to LDs and 6 to SNP. Overall Labour would end up on 236 - though 3 of the 4 projected losses to the LDs seem unlikely given that Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland are not standing again. The Tories would lose 17 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to give them a total of 306. LDs would emerge with 34 seats.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
For any constitutional lawyers is there anything to stop Boris saying he will continue to serve as First Lord of the Treasury but is resigning as Prime Minister?
Yes. There is in law no post of Prime Minister. He would have to hold another office as well to be in cabinet.
That was my point. What if there was no Prime Minister [since the title isn't to my knowledge technically required] but Boris continued as First Lord of the Treasury which is the actual job set in law? As I recall Prime Minister is more a title, it doesn't really exist.
As for Cabinet, Cleverly sit in Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio
Boris currently sits in Cabinet with 4 titles: Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union. I don't see why he couldn't sit in Cabinet with just the latter 3 portfolios [and add without Portfolio if required].
Sadly, a court would see through it. If you are Head of Government in this country then it is clear that the Bill is meant to apply to you.
I do, however, think his mate the Lord Chancellor could pardon him. Though I’d have to defer to our learned friends on whether that gets him off the hook for any civil penalty or liability.
It would be wrong to blame Johnson for the Tory misfortune. His plumage may be exotic but this bird is a scavenger.
No, the blame should rest on the shoulders of the Conservative Party, the whole Conservative Party and only the Conservative Party. They alone brought this Brexit trouble upon us. Our age rightly disapproves of the careless use of mental disorder as a metaphor for wrongheadedness but I am serious. Something mad has taken root in our party, and our internal defences — our immune system — seem to have been too feeble to identify this new jihadism, stand up to it and repel it.
Almost in tears, a friend said to me this week: “All those years we argued about withdrawing the whip and throwing these madcaps out of the party and draining the poison but we murmured ‘broad church’ and ‘tolerance’ and ‘due process’. We were wrong.”
Where the Conservative Party got it wrong historically is by pretending to be anti-Eu whilst it’s elected representatives were anything but. Don’t forget Charles Tannock was elected as a eurosceptic then acquired an Irish passport after the referendum. Those in charge of the party, including most spectacularly Mr. Cameron, fed their members on this diet and then all of the pro-eu Parliamentarians profess to be shocked when their party members believed it. It is all their own fault for their dishonesty over decades.
Who in their right mind thought that the combination of a tarmac run off area and curb on the outside of a 170+ mph corner was a good idea?
I've said for years that tarmac run off areas are dangerous and I think they contributed to the fatal accident last week. Still, as long as powers that be prioritise keep cars in the race over driver safety, nothing will change.
Tracks have to make money from more than just F1 and gravel run offs are terrible for track days. I almost completely destroyed one of my many M3s (I've written off 4, LOL) by going through one backwards at 120km/h at Hockenheim (before they asphalted it). There was even gravel in the exhaust manifold!
Was that on the old Hockenheim? I was lucky enough to do two laps of the Nordschleife in my sister's M3 a few years ago. Without doubt the scariest thing I've ever done (though I'm told being a passenger in a ring taxi is scarier).
Interestingly in the past it looks like there used to often be 4-5 days between one PM resigning and a new one taking the post. A full fortnight between Gladstone leaving the post and the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury taking it in 1885.
So having the position vacant probably won't work or be accepted nowadays but it has precedent.
Interesting header as ever Mr Herdson, but a gentle reminder that if the next polls follow the most recent Survation one of a declining Tory lead things might not be developing in Johnson’s favour....
But that poll has Swinon's LibDems taking a tumble. If that trend continues, we might yet head towards a repeat of the Tory/Labour clash of 2017....
The truth is...
...no-one knows.
LibDems believe their "team" will soar during the election campaign. Labourites believe it will be a rerun of 2017. BJers think they'll suck the Brexit Party dry and land a 100 seat majority.
No-one knows.
My view is that an early election favours the Conservatives, but that they will lost 5-15 Remain seats to the LibDems (probably at the lower end of the range), and 8-10 seats to the SNP. I also think that the Alliance will do surprisingly well in Northern Ireland, as it allows people to vote against "a hard border" without crossing sectarian lines. (In Sinn Fein seats, a combination of wanting an MP that actually turns up, combined with a bit of Unionist tactical voting wouldn't surprise me in the least.)
But these 15-20 losses will likely be made up by gains from Labour. I'd expect 20-30 gains there, resulting in a small overall Conservative majority.
Go beyond the end of the year mind, and irrespective of Brexit, the UK and the world will likely have drifted into recession. That won't be a fun time, as the governing party, to ask for a mandate. And if it's in the context of "No Deal", it may be especially painful. (Not the recession, but the electoral response; the electorate rarely looks beyond the border.)
On the basis of UNS, the polls from Survation, Hanbury and ICM are not pointing to an overall Tory Majority. Survation would iimply Labour losses of 16 seats to the Tories - though 11 of the defending Labour MPs could expect a first term incumbency bonus.Labour would also lose 4 seats to LDs and 6 to SNP. Overall Labour would end up on 236 - though 3 of the 4 projected losses to the LDs seem unlikely given that Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland are not standing again. The Tories would lose 17 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to give them a total of 306. LDs would emerge with 34 seats.
If Boris does not win a majority or enough seats to get a majority with the DUP and Brexit Party then all the polling indicates that the LDs would hold the balance of power.
Swinson has made clear she will only put Labour in power if they get rid of Corbyn as leader and replace him with a centrist, anti Brexit leader
Shokking anti English racism against Porsche drivers that overtake on blind corners and plow into bikers. That the court took the side of the German bikers just makes it worse.
I've seen some absolutely horrific driving on the NC500, it seems to attract idiot show-offs.
Honestly don't know how the locals cope with the influx of wannabe Clarksons.
Yep, there are plenty of home grown knobs doing it too. I did it before it was the NC500, tbh the constant heavy rain took the pleasure out of it, not to mention keeping the speed down.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
Constitutionally the Queen could just continue as Head of State with Parliament as the legislature.
There is no constitutional requirement to have a prime minister beyond convention though the Queen would want to appoint a new PM as soon as the Commons agrees to one so the executive branch can properly function
Q1: "How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?". A1: The Queen appoints one as she sees fit. In practice, this would be that person most likely to command a majority. I don't know what she would do if there is no obvious person. When Eden resigned he did not nominate a successor, and Macmillan was chosen after Con grandees and Cabinet members were canvassed by the Marquess of Salisbury or by the Queen directly.
If I were her I'd call Theresa May. Like her or loathe her she managed to keep a functioning government together with this particular set of MPs for a good two years.
Interesting header as ever Mr Herdson, but a gentle reminder that if the next polls follow the most recent Survation one of a declining Tory lead things might not be developing in Johnson’s favour....
But that poll has Swinon's LibDems taking a tumble. If that trend continues, we might yet head towards a repeat of the Tory/Labour clash of 2017....
The truth is...
...no-one knows.
But these 15-20 losses will likely be made up by gains from Labour. I'd expect 20-30 gains there, resulting in a small overall Conservative majority.
Go beyond the end of the year mind, and irrespective of Brexit, the UK and the world will likely have drifted into recession. That won't be a fun time, as the governing party, to ask for a mandate. And if it's in the context of "No Deal", it may be especially painful. (Not the recession, but the electoral response; the electorate rarely looks beyond the border.)
On the basis of UNS, the polls from Survation, Hanbury and ICM are not pointing to an overall Tory Majority. Survation would iimply Labour losses of 16 seats to the Tories - though 11 of the defending Labour MPs could expect a first term incumbency bonus.Labour would also lose 4 seats to LDs and 6 to SNP. Overall Labour would end up on 236 - though 3 of the 4 projected losses to the LDs seem unlikely given that Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland are not standing again. The Tories would lose 17 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to give them a total of 306. LDs would emerge with 34 seats.
If Boris does not win a majority or enough seats to get a majority with the DUP and Brexit Party then all the polling indicates that the LDs would hold the balance of power.
Swinson has made clear she will only put Labour in power if they get rid of Corbyn as leader and replace him with a centrist, anti Brexit leader
I don't know if you are deliberately naïve or simply naïve. "Swinson has made clear she will only put Labour in power if they get rid of Corbyn ". So what will she do ? Put a Brexiter Tory in ? Really ? It's quite clear what will happen. Neither LD nor SNP will openly support a Labour government but tolerate it as long as the second referendum is put on statute and until then that arrangement will continue.
Interestingly in the past it looks like there used to often be 4-5 days between one PM resigning and a new one taking the post. A full fortnight between Gladstone leaving the post and the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury taking it in 1885.
So having the position vacant probably won't work or be accepted nowadays but it has precedent.
In practice I think the pressure on HMQ to call for the leader of the opposition - Corbyn - to take the post would be irresistible. Johnson can then table a VONC, putting all the members of the Rebel Alliance on the spot - but I don't see how he recovers from enabling Corbyn to enter Number 10.
It would be wrong to blame Johnson for the Tory misfortune. His plumage may be exotic but this bird is a scavenger.
No, the blame should rest on the shoulders of the Conservative Party, the whole Conservative Party and only the Conservative Party. They alone brought this Brexit trouble upon us. Our age rightly disapproves of the careless use of mental disorder as a metaphor for wrongheadedness but I am serious. Something mad has taken root in our party, and our internal defences — our immune system — seem to have been too feeble to identify this new jihadism, stand up to it and repel it.
Almost in tears, a friend said to me this week: “All those years we argued about withdrawing the whip and throwing these madcaps out of the party and draining the poison but we murmured ‘broad church’ and ‘tolerance’ and ‘due process’. We were wrong.”
Let’s be honest, the PM is not going to defy the law or come up with any wheezes that might cover him doing so. However he has every reason to threaten to do so all weekend to try and secure an election “if you want a PM who will do this thing then put yourself forward and let the people decide”.
If that doesn’t work, then resigning and fighting as a united opposition seems most likely. If Swinson repeats her statements about Corbyn, it’s hard to see him being called, and so that gets us to a caretaker PM with no future career, vaguely acceptable to all.
I had mocked the idea, but that sounds a lot like Ken Clarke. If he were being mischievous, one other thing he might do before dissolution is publish all the Yellowhammer documents.
Legal challenge an option for Johnson? Try something along the lines of the executive must have the legal option to exercise the royal prerogative as it sees fit but the legislature should have a way to force their removal should that go against its will?
The legal challenge, if it's possible, is against Bercow's ruling that Queen's Consent wasn't required, thereby denying the government a legitimate, if controversial, veto.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
Serious question. What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place? In that instance if there is no PM then no one can break the law. It is a stupid situation and would be gaming the rules but since that is what the Remain side have been doing for months it would, I assume be legal.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
For any constitutional lawyers is there anything to stop Boris saying he will continue to serve as First Lord of the Treasury but is resigning as Prime Minister?
Yes. There is in law no post of Prime Minister. He would have to hold another office as well to be in cabinet.
That was my point. What if there was no Prime Minister [since the title isn't to my knowledge technically required] but Boris continued as First Lord of the Treasury which is the actual job set in law? As I recall Prime Minister is more a title, it doesn't really exist.
As for Cabinet, Cleverly sit in Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio
Boris currently sits in Cabinet with 4 titles: Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union. I don't see why he couldn't sit in Cabinet with just the latter 3 portfolios [and add without Portfolio if required].
You miss the point. He can't resign from an office that doesn't exist. Therefore he will remain the PM until he leaves the cabinet.
Who in their right mind thought that the combination of a tarmac run off area and curb on the outside of a 170+ mph corner was a good idea?
I've said for years that tarmac run off areas are dangerous and I think they contributed to the fatal accident last week. Still, as long as powers that be prioritise keep cars in the race over driver safety, nothing will change.
Tracks have to make money from more than just F1 and gravel run offs are terrible for track days. I almost completely destroyed one of my many M3s (I've written off 4, LOL) by going through one backwards at 120km/h at Hockenheim (before they asphalted it). There was even gravel in the exhaust manifold!
Was that on the old Hockenheim? I was lucky enough to do two laps of the Nordschleife in my sister's M3 a few years ago. Without doubt the scariest thing I've ever done (though I'm told being a passenger in a ring taxi is scarier).
Yeah, this was late 90s so the old 7km Hockenheim. That was a pure horsepower track and the M3 didn't have enough.
I've done plenty of Nordschleife laps but don't really care for it - it's just too unpredictable and setting a car up for it properly makes it useless at most other tracks. I almost cracked 9 minutes in my 996 there but I nearly plowed into the back of a Dutch registered Mk.4 Transit van at Schwalbenschwanz and lost a lot of time.
It's worth recalling Johnson's key pledges when campaigning for the Tory leadership: Deliver Brexit, Unite Country, Defeat Corbyn. DUD.
If Corbyn becomes Prime Minister to extend Article 50 after Johnson failed to keep the Conservative Party united (let alone the country) then he would be the clearest failure on his own terms that you could imagine.
Hilarious to see the loony No Dealers are now reduced to speculating that Johnson will resign and the Queen - against all precedent - won't bother to appoint a prime minister. In other words, that the Queen's government - won't be carried on??
Only a few days ago, supposedly Johnson held all the cards and No Deal was "nailed on."
Now - to quote the Brexit Party's latest standard-bearer - the extreme Brexiteers are deep, deep within "the land of make believe."!
Interesting header as ever Mr Herdson, but a gentle reminder that if the next polls follow the most recent Survation one of a declining Tory lead things might not be developing in Johnson’s favour....
But that poll has Swinon's LibDems taking a tumble. If that trend continues, we might yet head towards a repeat of the Tory/Labour clash of 2017....
The truth is...
...no-one knows.
But these 15-20 losses will likely be made up by gains from Labour. I'd expect 20-30 gains there, resulting in a small overall Conservative majority.
Go beyond the end of the year mind, and irrespective of Brexit, the UK and the world will likely have drifted into recession. That won't be a fun time, as the governing party, to ask for a mandate. And if it's in the context of "No Deal", it may be especially painful. (Not the recession, but the electoral response; the electorate rarely looks beyond the border.)
On the basis of UNS, the polls from Survation, Hanbury and ICM are not pointing to an overall Tory Majority. Survation would iimply Labour losses of 16 seats to the Tories - though 11 of the defending Labour MPs could expect a first term incumbency bonus.Labour would also lose 4 seats to LDs and 6 to SNP. Overall Labour would end up on 236 - though 3 of the 4 projected losses to the LDs seem unlikely given that Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland are not standing again. The Tories would lose 17 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to give them a total of 306. LDs would emerge with 34 seats.
If Boris does not win a majority or enough seats to get a majority with the DUP and Brexit Party then all the polling indicates that the LDs would hold the balance of power.
Swinson has made clear she will only put Labour in power if they get rid of Corbyn as leader and replace him with a centrist, anti Brexit leader
I don't know if you are deliberately naïve or simply naïve. "Swinson has made clear she will only put Labour in power if they get rid of Corbyn ". So what will she do ? Put a Brexiter Tory in ? Really ? It's quite clear what will happen. Neither LD nor SNP will openly support a Labour government but tolerate it as long as the second referendum is put on statute and until then that arrangement will continue.
No, Swinson has made clear she will support a Harman or Clarke Government (to ask for extension and push for EUref2) but she would vote against a Corbyn government.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63MC1J3dzWc
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/angela-merkel-sits-out-national-anthems-on-arrival-in-beijing-xvnfmswxs
I do think that there is/was a chance for a new PM to reach across the House and pass the WA, but Johnson has long since vaporized his bridges and cannot now succeed with that gambit.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1170282987168108545?s=20
1: Clear out any Tories that wouldn't back the Government in such a vote.
2: Engineer an election that is effectively a second referendum on Brexit.
3: Allow Labour to fuck up by having them try and face both ways.
The gamble being that such a strategy gets the Tories a majority.
SPOILER: It does.
I've said for years that tarmac run off areas are dangerous and I think they contributed to the fatal accident last week. Still, as long as powers that be prioritise keep cars in the race over driver safety, nothing will change.
2. Just because someone isn't PM material doesn't mean they can't become PM.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.161754901
Give me camel racing and tractor football under Devon's holiday-brochure blue skies any day....
I still have a dislike of the halo. If someone gets trapped against a barrier or upside down, we might see a very nasty outcome.
But while the law is the law, it has to be followed.
On a majority of -43 or whatever it is that may not work.....
If we bat miraculously we could be par score with an hour to play tonight. Get a couple of wickets, bowl miraculously tomorrow they could be all out between Lunch and Tea. Bat like Stokes did last Test and we could overhaul the target before out of time.
Extremely unlikely, but there's time.
Ignoring the law however seems even a stretch too far given the Tories would completely implode .
It says much for how low standards have become that some Leavers are almost salivating at the thought of a PM ignoring a law .
Where does this end , if a PM can simply ignore the law why bother having a Parliament . And Leavers should realize that once a precedent has been set it can then be used by others who might be trying to do something they disagree with .
Even worse Johnson is trying to force through something that has no mandate. I accept that Leave has a mandate but it was sold as an orderly departure with a deal .
Some Leavers seem intent on revising history . And in their desperation they now want to trash the conventions that by and large have sustained democracy in the UK .
They seem willing to trash anything and everything on the altar of Brexit .
A threat to veto everything until we're out could be interesting. An actual veto just before the decision could do it too.
There are some things that just can't happen once you get to a certain point. Australia are into the tail, and it's a very long tail.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/newcastle-under-lyme-labour-mp-3294329
The first rule of democratic politics is counting. The numbers in parliament, which the last 12 months should surely have taught us by now is sovereign, block no deal.
No deal is not happening.
How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?
The player top of the all-time list might surprise you though.
I think it is now clear that Denly, Roy, Bairstow and Butler and not currently suited to Tests. Denly might be given time but the others just can't hack it. And as Denly is well over 30 time is hardly on his side.
So who should be called into the side? The standout English qualified batsmen in the Championship this season are Sibley, who's an opener. No-brainier, get him in with Burns. Sam Northeast continues to churn out runs and should go at 3. Ollie Pope being fit again should come in at 6 or 7 and keep wicket.
So who is the wildcard? Well, the other standout batsmen are Abell, Gregory (both Somerset) Higgins (Glos, averaging 77) and Salt (Sussex. Put one of them in and see what happens. They couldn't do worse. Higgins and Gregory are also capable back-up medium pacers although not true all rounders at the top level.
But, something has to happen.
Normally it's less than half an hour between one resignation and the appointment of the successor. Probably it was longer when an incumbent has died in office.
If the Tories do win the coming election, my bet is that he’ll be their last PM for a while, since the realities of Brexit will fall so far short of all the nonsense that has been spouted about it and the damage done will inexorably become clear, such that the Tories will then be unelectable.
Can Boris be irritating enough that he can piss off at least one country enough to say No?
I would not be surprised to see Boris resign just before October 18th and then stay on as leader of the Tory party to fight the pretty inevitable GE.
https://twitter.com/Obey___/status/1170236241012543488?s=20
Three months is no good to them.
"Boris is unlikely to be a 10-year PM but he might well win a GE"
Trouble is the opposition have got to have the guts to actually agree to hold it.
The most likely options in order are:
1. Extend, election, hung parliament - which probably results in a repeat of extend & election
2. Extend, election, con majority - if the majority is big enough deal, if small majoriy ?? no idea, no deal possible in that case, pretty unstable
3. Extend, referendum - seems unlikely but the logic and numbers are sound as edmundintokyo points out
4. Deal in this parliament
5. Extend, election, Lab/SNP govt - referendums in UK and Scotland
6. No deal in this parliament
It's now taken Johnson and the organ grinder just a month to trash their work completely
Honestly don't know how the locals cope with the influx of wannabe Clarksons.
As for Cabinet, Cleverly sit in Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio
Boris currently sits in Cabinet with 4 titles: Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union. I don't see why he couldn't sit in Cabinet with just the latter 3 portfolios [and add without Portfolio if required].
Q1: "How do we go about getting a new PM if the current one resigns and Parliament is unwilling to allow an election?".
A1: The Queen appoints one as she sees fit. In practice, this would be that person most likely to command a majority. I don't know what she would do if there is no obvious person. When Eden resigned he did not nominate a successor, and Macmillan was chosen after Con grandees and Cabinet members were canvassed by the Marquess of Salisbury or by the Queen directly.
Q2: "What if Boris resigns as PM on18th October and no one takes his place?".
A2: From the point of view of the Government, very little for quite a while. We couldn't launch a nuke and could not attend EUCO, but the Ministers remain in post and the Civil Service keep on keeping on. If you are indirectly asking "who would transmit Parliament's instruction to extend" the answer is that I don't know and I don't know if they would accept it if transmitted in such a manner. Famously the EU deals with governments, not people.
I do, however, think his mate the Lord Chancellor could pardon him. Though I’d have to defer to our learned friends on whether that gets him off the hook for any civil penalty or liability.
It is all their own fault for their dishonesty over decades.
So having the position vacant probably won't work or be accepted nowadays but it has precedent.
Swinson has made clear she will only put Labour in power if they get rid of Corbyn as leader and replace him with a centrist, anti Brexit leader
I did it before it was the NC500, tbh the constant heavy rain took the pleasure out of it, not to mention keeping the speed down.
There is no constitutional requirement to have a prime minister beyond convention though the Queen would want to appoint a new PM as soon as the Commons agrees to one so the executive branch can properly function
"Swinson has made clear she will only put Labour in power if they get rid of Corbyn ".
So what will she do ? Put a Brexiter Tory in ? Really ?
It's quite clear what will happen. Neither LD nor SNP will openly support a Labour government but tolerate it as long as the second referendum is put on statute and until then that arrangement will continue.
He’s a superannuated snob, and a querulous little prick. Time he retired.
If that doesn’t work, then resigning and fighting as a united opposition seems most likely. If Swinson repeats her statements about Corbyn, it’s hard to see him being called, and so that gets us to a caretaker PM with no future career, vaguely acceptable to all.
I had mocked the idea, but that sounds a lot like Ken Clarke. If he were being mischievous, one other thing he might do before dissolution is publish all the Yellowhammer documents.
Betting PostF1: tipped Hamilton at 5 each way (third the odds top 2) to be fastest qualifier.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/09/italy-pre-qualifying-2019.html
I've done plenty of Nordschleife laps but don't really care for it - it's just too unpredictable and setting a car up for it properly makes it useless at most other tracks. I almost cracked 9 minutes in my 996 there but I nearly plowed into the back of a Dutch registered Mk.4 Transit van at Schwalbenschwanz and lost a lot of time.
If Corbyn becomes Prime Minister to extend Article 50 after Johnson failed to keep the Conservative Party united (let alone the country) then he would be the clearest failure on his own terms that you could imagine.
Hilarious to see the loony No Dealers are now reduced to speculating that Johnson will resign and the Queen - against all precedent - won't bother to appoint a prime minister. In other words, that the Queen's government - won't be carried on??
Only a few days ago, supposedly Johnson held all the cards and No Deal was "nailed on."
Now - to quote the Brexit Party's latest standard-bearer - the extreme Brexiteers are deep, deep within "the land of make believe."!