Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real issue, surely, is that Johnson does not have the conf

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real issue, surely, is that Johnson does not have the confidence of the Commons and should have quit when the Benn bill passed

Anne Twomey, who literally wrote the book on the prerogative, has written an important blog post that cuts through much of the legal machinations:

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Yawn....we've covered this already.

    No.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    edited September 2019
    If Boris cannot get a tweaked Deal through Parliament by October 31st he will almost certainly resign as PM rather than extend given the only reason the Commons won't VONC him yet is they want to try and force him to extend first.

    However the question is what possible alternative PM can command the confidence of the House without a general election?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Yawn....we've covered this already.

    No.

    Haven't we just......
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    FPT:
    Charles said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Gold standard — Angus Reid:

    Con 36%
    Lib 33%
    NDP 13%
    Grn 9%

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election

    First 2 lines I thought that was a GB poll 😂😂😱
    I was being a bit mischievous in the way I phrased it.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    HYUFD said:

    If Boris cannot get a tweaked Deal through Parliament by October 31st he will almost certainly resign as PM rather than extend given the only reason the Commons won't VONC him yet is they want to try and force him to extend first.

    However the question is what possible alternative PM can command the confidence of the House without a general election?

    I'm favouring some PB donkey ....

    @MarqueeMark or @HYUFD ..... :wink:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Floater said:

    Yawn....we've covered this already.

    No.

    Haven't we just......
    We must be close to working out the anti-Boris seam.

    The Telegraph front page article, that we are inching towards a deal - with no further extensions, so it becomes take it or No Deal it - is far more interesting. I mean, who could ever have predicted that as a way forward......
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Boris cannot get a tweaked Deal through Parliament by October 31st he will almost certainly resign as PM rather than extend given the only reason the Commons won't VONC him yet is they want to try and force him to extend first.

    However the question is what possible alternative PM can command the confidence of the House without a general election?

    I'm favouring some PB donkey ....

    @MarqueeMark or @HYUFD ..... :wink:
    That's an ass, I'll have you know.

    It's what we have to make do with in the absence of an ARSE.
  • The threat to reprorogue is idle. If the Supreme Court decides against the government, it will give reasons and those reasons are likely to make a fresh prorogation impermissible in current circumstances.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753
    We really must get rid of the FTPA. To describe it as a complete dog's breakfast insults the eating habits of canines everywhere,
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467
    edited September 2019
    “Where prorogation is undertaken at the behest of a government which has, or appears likely to have, lost the confidence of the lower House, and is done for the purpose of avoiding a vote of no confidence or other action by Parliament against the government’s will (which may amount to an implied vote of no confidence), then such action may be regarded as ‘unconstitutional’ and may legitimately be rejected by the Queen
    So apparently the remedy is for the Queen to do her damn job.

    Failing that, we need to get a better Queen. I would suggest Helena Bonham Carter but I'm flexible.
  • Not quite. Johnson called a vote of confidence - the vote on the SO24 motion taking control of the order paper. He lost it (withdrawing the whip from his rebels, confirming that it was a vote of confidence). He then tried to show he nevertheless had the confidence of the House with the votes on the Benn Bill. He lost that as well. At that point, quite properly, he asked for a dissolution - now a FTPA vote rather than a request to the monarch - but was refused. He should have resigned then, but instead he had another go at dissolution - which was perhaps OK given Corbyn's ambiguity after the first vote. But he was refused again. At that point, a week last Monday, he really should have resigned (becoming a caretaker PM). Instead he prorogued Parliament, so that the Commons couldn't object to his failure to resign.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    The threat to reprorogue is idle. If the Supreme Court decides against the government, it will give reasons and those reasons are likely to make a fresh prorogation impermissible in current circumstances.

    Which would be a very political judgment.....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Boris cannot get a tweaked Deal through Parliament by October 31st he will almost certainly resign as PM rather than extend given the only reason the Commons won't VONC him yet is they want to try and force him to extend first.

    However the question is what possible alternative PM can command the confidence of the House without a general election?

    I'm favouring some PB donkey ....

    @MarqueeMark or @HYUFD ..... :wink:
    That's an ass, I'll have you know.

    It's what we have to make do with in the absence of an ARSE.
    Are you saying you made an ass of yourself .... Honesty in politics at last. You get my vote !! .... :smile:
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    Fishing said:

    We really must get rid of the FTPA. To describe it as a complete dog's breakfast insults the eating habits of canines everywhere,

    Alan Duncan MP said in the HoC that he tried to insert a sunset clause when it was first debated but for some reason it was rejected.
  • Fishing said:

    We really must get rid of the FTPA. To describe it as a complete dog's breakfast insults the eating habits of canines everywhere,

    In what way? It takes away power from the prime minister which is a good thing
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Tories target over 45s with pro Brexit Facebook ads and under 45s with ads on mental health and policing in more targeted campaigning

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49727121
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    Tory members suspended over Islsmaphobic posts

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49763550
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,463
    If the commons do not remove him they implicitly give him their confidence. It's all very well saying he should have resigned but hes not obliged to and they dont have to wait for him to do so they had time before prorogation.

    Heck the prorogation plan practically looked like a dare to remove him and they decided to mess about and hope the court case made it easier for them.

    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    https://twitter.com/jasimsoncaird/status/1174600570595926016?s=20

    According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or Geoffrey Marshall.

    The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.

    Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
    Your first point is valid that Johnson did try to secure a dissolution but failed.

    But the problem is not that under the FTPA a GE cannot be called at the whim of the pM. It is that the MPs all of them including those currently in government and opposition are not prepared to work together to form a working government. It is using the mindset of the old system during the era of fixed terms. In countries where fixed terms have been in force for a long time, the MPs understand the need to cooperate not compete.
    Exactly. It’s the politicians who are to blame, not the system itself.
    And they use the system as an excuse
    Scott_P said:
    If they are this opposed to any option - and they keep saying the WA as is is the only game in town - then bloody well call off the farce of negotiations.
    alex. said:

    What happens if the Lords vote down a deal? A couple of prerogations in a week? ;)

    I dont think they get a vote on it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    edited September 2019

    “Where prorogation is undertaken at the behest of a government which has, or appears likely to have, lost the confidence of the lower House, and is done for the purpose of avoiding a vote of no confidence or other action by Parliament against the government’s will (which may amount to an implied vote of no confidence), then such action may be regarded as ‘unconstitutional’ and may legitimately be rejected by the Queen
    So apparently the remedy is for the Queen to do her damn job.

    Failing that, we need to get a better Queen. I would suggest Helena Bonham Carter but I'm flexible.

    May be rejected not has to be rejected by the Queen
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    edited September 2019
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Boris cannot get a tweaked Deal through Parliament by October 31st he will almost certainly resign as PM rather than extend given the only reason the Commons won't VONC him yet is they want to try and force him to extend first.

    However the question is what possible alternative PM can command the confidence of the House without a general election?

    I'm favouring some PB donkey ....

    @MarqueeMark or @HYUFD ..... :wink:
    That's an ass, I'll have you know.

    It's what we have to make do with in the absence of an ARSE.
    Are you saying you made an ass of yourself .... Honesty in politics at last. You get my vote !! .... :smile:
    Solidarity with the HYUFD One, comrade.....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,282

    Fishing said:

    We really must get rid of the FTPA. To describe it as a complete dog's breakfast insults the eating habits of canines everywhere,

    In what way? It takes away power from the prime minister which is a good thing
    It is disliked by parties who think they are reasonably likely to get a Parliamentary majority on a minority of the the vote under FPTP. Frequent elections tend to work in their favour.

    The act certainly has its flaws, but abolition isn't a particularly good way to address them.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,463
    Alistair said:

    Everyone has been remarkably calm about the Fed intervening in the overnight inter Bank lending market a few days ago.

    Well I dont understand the significance of such things so its easy to remain calm if those who do understand dont seem to panic.

  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Scott_P said:
    The idea that they is actually a valid deal in the pipeline is something I just don't get.

    The backstop is there because we have not over 18 months found a credible way of resolving all the issues with the Irish Border. There is no way Boris has completely fixed this in a month, and even the agriculture fix isn't complete.

    Hence I really don't see there being a agreed with EU Deal sans Backstop by October for Parliament to vote on..
  • HYUFD said:

    May be rejected not has to be rejected by the Queen

    Don't try to tell me Helena Bonham Carter wouldn't have nipped this whole thing in the bud
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,463
    edited September 2019
    Scott_P said:
    We seem no closer on things and are still falling for different people in the EU bringing different levels of bluntness to proceedings. Coveney seems positively happy for no deal he is always so quick to dismiss anything. I wanted the WA to pass too but theres no need to waste time if he and Ireland genuinely believe that's the only acceptable option.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    FPT

    One of the great frustrations of Brexit over the last few years has been the ability of MPs to vote against things without consequence. The FTPA has added to that lack of consequence and made our MPs more irresponsible, not less. I don't disagree with those that say it is for the politicians to make the system work but our system now bears no resemblance to what this constitutional writer is describing. I wish it did.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    Not quite. Johnson called a vote of confidence - the vote on the SO24 motion taking control of the order paper. He lost it (withdrawing the whip from his rebels, confirming that it was a vote of confidence). He then tried to show he nevertheless had the confidence of the House with the votes on the Benn Bill. He lost that as well. At that point, quite properly, he asked for a dissolution - now a FTPA vote rather than a request to the monarch - but was refused. He should have resigned then, but instead he had another go at dissolution - which was perhaps OK given Corbyn's ambiguity after the first vote. But he was refused again. At that point, a week last Monday, he really should have resigned (becoming a caretaker PM). Instead he prorogued Parliament, so that the Commons couldn't object to his failure to resign.

    Thanks for this and the explanation on the previous thread. But isn't asking for a dissolution for all intents and purposes the same as resigning?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    kle4 said:


    Scott_P said:
    If they are this opposed to any option - and they keep saying the WA as is is the only game in town - then bloody well call off the farce of negotiations.
    At least No! No! No! isn't just a unionist preserve in Ireland.....
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    It should be remembered that "politicians" don't generally have the power to call a VONC. By convention that power lies with the LOTO or with the government.
    You can criticise Corbyn or Boris for not doing so, but nobody else really has the authority.
  • Nigelb said:

    Fishing said:

    We really must get rid of the FTPA. To describe it as a complete dog's breakfast insults the eating habits of canines everywhere,

    In what way? It takes away power from the prime minister which is a good thing
    It is disliked by parties who think they are reasonably likely to get a Parliamentary majority on a minority of the the vote under FPTP. Frequent elections tend to work in their favour.

    The act certainly has its flaws, but abolition isn't a particularly good way to address them.

    There's only been one occasion in a century or more when a party has won more than 50'% of the national general election vote. Blair won in 2005 with 35.2%
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    On the SC I am expecting a split decision. I think some of the Justices will find this question justiciable and a majority will not. I think that they will all agree even if it is justiciable the case that this particular prorogation is an abuse has not been made out.

    It will be interesting to see how wrong I am!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    TOPPING said:

    Not quite. Johnson called a vote of confidence - the vote on the SO24 motion taking control of the order paper. He lost it (withdrawing the whip from his rebels, confirming that it was a vote of confidence). He then tried to show he nevertheless had the confidence of the House with the votes on the Benn Bill. He lost that as well. At that point, quite properly, he asked for a dissolution - now a FTPA vote rather than a request to the monarch - but was refused. He should have resigned then, but instead he had another go at dissolution - which was perhaps OK given Corbyn's ambiguity after the first vote. But he was refused again. At that point, a week last Monday, he really should have resigned (becoming a caretaker PM). Instead he prorogued Parliament, so that the Commons couldn't object to his failure to resign.

    Thanks for this and the explanation on the previous thread. But isn't asking for a dissolution for all intents and purposes the same as resigning?
    No. It's saying "Go on then - sack me. And see if the people agree."

    Polling says the public don't agree. So rather than get kicked in the goolies by the voters, they run away. Leaving Boris as PM.
  • FPT

    @Flanner

    Normally I wouldn't extrapolate from Council Elections to the GE but in the current febrile state of national politics there is a better reason for doing so than usual.

    As you indicate, the Council votes are real ones, not the hypothetical responses to opinion polls. Normally such opinions are reliable enough but at the moment the respondent has to make an assumption about how Brexit will pan out. The uncertainty factor suggests the polls are likely to be less reliable than usual. Their widely varying resuts is an indication that this is the case.

    I'd still be careful about overinterpeting LD council by-election success, but they are on a long successful run so whilst caution is still necessary, it is perfectly possible that the 'councils' are giving a truer picture than the national polls.

    In short, I think LD seats are a buy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Boris cannot get a tweaked Deal through Parliament by October 31st he will almost certainly resign as PM rather than extend given the only reason the Commons won't VONC him yet is they want to try and force him to extend first.

    However the question is what possible alternative PM can command the confidence of the House without a general election?

    I'm favouring some PB donkey ....

    @MarqueeMark or @HYUFD ..... :wink:
    That's an ass, I'll have you know.

    It's what we have to make do with in the absence of an ARSE.
    Are you saying you made an ass of yourself .... Honesty in politics at last. You get my vote !! .... :smile:
    Solidarity with the HYUFD One, comrade.....
    Likewise
  • TOPPING said:

    Not quite. Johnson called a vote of confidence - the vote on the SO24 motion taking control of the order paper. He lost it (withdrawing the whip from his rebels, confirming that it was a vote of confidence). He then tried to show he nevertheless had the confidence of the House with the votes on the Benn Bill. He lost that as well. At that point, quite properly, he asked for a dissolution - now a FTPA vote rather than a request to the monarch - but was refused. He should have resigned then, but instead he had another go at dissolution - which was perhaps OK given Corbyn's ambiguity after the first vote. But he was refused again. At that point, a week last Monday, he really should have resigned (becoming a caretaker PM). Instead he prorogued Parliament, so that the Commons couldn't object to his failure to resign.

    Thanks for this and the explanation on the previous thread. But isn't asking for a dissolution for all intents and purposes the same as resigning?
    It's not the same. In a dissolution the current PM carries on (as a caretaker) until the election and the issue of who should be PM is deferred until after the election. In a resignation, the search for a new PM starts immediately.
  • eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    The idea that they is actually a valid deal in the pipeline is something I just don't get.

    The backstop is there because we have not over 18 months found a credible way of resolving all the issues with the Irish Border. There is no way Boris has completely fixed this in a month, and even the agriculture fix isn't complete.

    Hence I really don't see there being a agreed with EU Deal sans Backstop by October for Parliament to vote on..
    It's marvellous though that the President of the European Commission has gone from Druncker the un-elected autocratic sot to A MAN WE CAN DO BUSINESS WITH. I know we're due many more turns on the merry-go-round of the Brexitloon psyche but good to know that redemption is possible even in their world.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    edited September 2019

    FPT

    @Flanner

    Normally I wouldn't extrapolate from Council Elections to the GE but in the current febrile state of national politics there is a better reason for doing so than usual.

    As you indicate, the Council votes are real ones, not the hypothetical responses to opinion polls. Normally such opinions are reliable enough but at the moment the respondent has to make an assumption about how Brexit will pan out. The uncertainty factor suggests the polls are likely to be less reliable than usual. Their widely varying resuts is an indication that this is the case.

    I'd still be careful about overinterpeting LD council by-election success, but they are on a long successful run so whilst caution is still necessary, it is perfectly possible that the 'councils' are giving a truer picture than the national polls.

    In short, I think LD seats are a buy.

    The LibDems had some cracking local election results in the run up to the 2015 General Election.

    Where they were turned into bug splat.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    It's worth listening to Simon Coveney, the Irish Deputy PM on the Today programme today. He punctures the wishful thinking which passes for much of what comes out of British Ministers these days.

    And if you want a depressing contrast, it is worth listening to Kwasi Kwarteng later on, doubling down on his nonsense about judges, coming up with more wishful thinking about the negotiations and then telling a straight out lie about the Tory inquiry - or non-inquiry - into islamophobia in the party.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,220
    Mr Smithson,

    "If … there had been an effort to legitimise his premiership by winning a key vote in the Commons."

    Surely the usual way for a new PM to legitimise his premiership is by calling a general election? Don't the voters count anymore?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Are we expecting the SC judgment today?
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    HYUFD said:
    Good - Legal advice on housing is a nightmare across the country with virtually no law firm willing (or able) to offer free advice for those who need it.

    Likewise employment law advice would ensure companies followed the law more closely.

    Mind you I'm sure Citizen Advice Bureaus used to offer all those items before austerity destroyed them as councils cut back their grants.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,576
    HYUFD said:
    Cromwell had a crack at that idea in the Adultery Act of 1650, making crimes of adultery and fornication (and incest but, sadly, not folk dancing). Strangely it wasn't altogether successful. Perhaps Boris or Jezza could be persuaded to take the matter up again........

  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753

    Fishing said:

    We really must get rid of the FTPA. To describe it as a complete dog's breakfast insults the eating habits of canines everywhere,

    In what way? It takes away power from the prime minister which is a good thing
    It means that a failed Parliament and its associated Government can limp on when it is obvious that both should be put out of their misery.

    It was a badly-thought-through fudge for Clegg's convenience - it should have expired with the 2010-5 Parliament.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    TOPPING said:

    Not quite. Johnson called a vote of confidence - the vote on the SO24 motion taking control of the order paper. He lost it (withdrawing the whip from his rebels, confirming that it was a vote of confidence). He then tried to show he nevertheless had the confidence of the House with the votes on the Benn Bill. He lost that as well. At that point, quite properly, he asked for a dissolution - now a FTPA vote rather than a request to the monarch - but was refused. He should have resigned then, but instead he had another go at dissolution - which was perhaps OK given Corbyn's ambiguity after the first vote. But he was refused again. At that point, a week last Monday, he really should have resigned (becoming a caretaker PM). Instead he prorogued Parliament, so that the Commons couldn't object to his failure to resign.

    Thanks for this and the explanation on the previous thread. But isn't asking for a dissolution for all intents and purposes the same as resigning?
    It's not the same. In a dissolution the current PM carries on (as a caretaker) until the election and the issue of who should be PM is deferred until after the election. In a resignation, the search for a new PM starts immediately.
    Yep Boris having lost a vote that he had made a vote of confidence should have immediately resigned.

    The fact he didn't means everything else that follows is still has fault.
  • FPT

    @Flanner

    Normally I wouldn't extrapolate from Council Elections to the GE but in the current febrile state of national politics there is a better reason for doing so than usual.

    As you indicate, the Council votes are real ones, not the hypothetical responses to opinion polls. Normally such opinions are reliable enough but at the moment the respondent has to make an assumption about how Brexit will pan out. The uncertainty factor suggests the polls are likely to be less reliable than usual. Their widely varying resuts is an indication that this is the case.

    I'd still be careful about overinterpeting LD council by-election success, but they are on a long successful run so whilst caution is still necessary, it is perfectly possible that the 'councils' are giving a truer picture than the national polls.

    In short, I think LD seats are a buy.

    The LibDems had some cracking local election results in the run up to the 2015 General Election.

    Where the were turned into bug splat.
    I think there are points in both those arguments. LD supporters seem super-motivated and, judging by the response to Caroline Lucas' tweet condemning the LD's revoke policy, the LDs are probably attracting a lot of Green votes as well plus those for whom Brexit is key.

    However, a council by-election will, by its nature, tend to attract the most motivated and committed. So I could see the LDs doing well in these because their base is probably the most fired up at the moment.

    What would be interesting is if the LD surge in these seats was accompanied by a much higher than usual turnout. That might point to something extra.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    HYUFD said:

    Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591

    Are we expecting the SC judgment today?

    Early next week I believe
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,576
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:
    Good - Legal advice on housing is a nightmare across the country with virtually no law firm willing (or able) to offer free advice for those who need it.

    Likewise employment law advice would ensure companies followed the law more closely.

    Mind you I'm sure Citizen Advice Bureaus used to offer all those items before austerity destroyed them as councils cut back their grants.
    "Justice is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel".

  • No reason for him to quit unless another can demonstrate they have confidence. There should have been an election.
  • Are we expecting the SC judgment today?

    My understanding is that it will be Monday, I thought I saw something yesterday (perhaps from Joshua Rosenberg, that poor, poor man?) saying they were planning to write up the (majority?) judgement over the weekend. But I'd be interested if anyone has heard otherwise.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    edited September 2019
    DavidL said:

    On the SC I am expecting a split decision. I think some of the Justices will find this question justiciable and a majority will not. I think that they will all agree even if it is justiciable the case that this particular prorogation is an abuse has not been made out.

    It will be interesting to see how wrong I am!

    I expect a clear majority for justiciable , that wouldn’t be that controversial and the judges will think this at least warns a future PM about pushing the limits .

    However in terms of unlawful I think Pannick has squeezed every last ounce out of the argument . It’s hard to say but I think it will be a split decision and could still go either way.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.

    Why did they fall out of favour?
  • I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.

    It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.
  • HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
  • nico67 said:

    DavidL said:

    On the SC I am expecting a split decision. I think some of the Justices will find this question justiciable and a majority will not. I think that they will all agree even if it is justiciable the case that this particular prorogation is an abuse has not been made out.

    It will be interesting to see how wrong I am!

    I expect a clear majority for justiciable , that wouldn’t be that controversial and the judges will think this at least warns a future PM about pushing the limits .

    However in terms of unlawful I think Pannick has squeezed every last ounce out of the argument . It’s hard to say but I think it will be a split decision and could still go either way.
    Agree about 'justiciable' but would be surprosed if they found enough cause to intervenne in this particular case.

    No markets on this, I take it?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    TOPPING said:

    Not quite. Johnson called a vote of confidence - the vote on the SO24 motion taking control of the order paper. He lost it (withdrawing the whip from his rebels, confirming that it was a vote of confidence). He then tried to show he nevertheless had the confidence of the House with the votes on the Benn Bill. He lost that as well. At that point, quite properly, he asked for a dissolution - now a FTPA vote rather than a request to the monarch - but was refused. He should have resigned then, but instead he had another go at dissolution - which was perhaps OK given Corbyn's ambiguity after the first vote. But he was refused again. At that point, a week last Monday, he really should have resigned (becoming a caretaker PM). Instead he prorogued Parliament, so that the Commons couldn't object to his failure to resign.

    Thanks for this and the explanation on the previous thread. But isn't asking for a dissolution for all intents and purposes the same as resigning?
    It's not the same. In a dissolution the current PM carries on (as a caretaker) until the election and the issue of who should be PM is deferred until after the election. In a resignation, the search for a new PM starts immediately.
    thanks
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044

    Are we expecting the SC judgment today?

    Early next week.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,046
    Huntingdon Town Council. Lib Dem gain. Lab 84. Green 120. Lib Dem 485.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    edited September 2019
    It feels like the Lib Dem's uneqivocal position has forced Johnson into action. He's realised that without a deal before October his chances of winning an election are slim. He would always beat Corbyn but an unequivocal offer to the 50% of the country that wants to stay where we are with parliament in turmoil would be a threat too far.

    I don't think the court decision will find against Johnson. So it'll all be down to raw politics. Whether Johnson will get his deal (basically May's No 4) through parliament will be interesting. If he does Labour and friends would be very unwise to force an election
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.

    It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.

    Why should the Commons not agreeing with the PM result in a general election when it's not what the Commons wants
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
    Agreed. Spot on.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.

    Why did they fall out of favour?
    Grants disappeared (and even if time is given for free some money is required).
  • HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
    As ever, it is populist nonsense - based on the idea that there is an elite out to crush everyone.

    Yes, people should have access to the law - but not like this.
  • JackW said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Boris cannot get a tweaked Deal through Parliament by October 31st he will almost certainly resign as PM rather than extend given the only reason the Commons won't VONC him yet is they want to try and force him to extend first.

    However the question is what possible alternative PM can command the confidence of the House without a general election?

    I'm favouring some PB donkey ....

    @MarqueeMark or @HYUFD ..... :wink:
    That's an ass, I'll have you know.

    It's what we have to make do with in the absence of an ARSE.
    Are you saying you made an ass of yourself .... Honesty in politics at last. You get my vote !! .... :smile:
    Solidarity with the HYUFD One, comrade.....
    Spartac-ass
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,268

    I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.

    It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.

    The House can decide who the PM is in a VOC. It doesn't have to be the Tory leader. That's a private matter for the Tory party.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,268

    Are we expecting the SC judgment today?

    My understanding is that it will be Monday, I thought I saw something yesterday (perhaps from Joshua Rosenberg, that poor, poor man?) saying they were planning to write up the (majority?) judgement over the weekend. But I'd be interested if anyone has heard otherwise.
    I think the SC said "early next week".
  • I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.

    It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.

    That's never been our system, as the Lascelles letter made clear. The system was always that if another viable government could be formed that could hold the confidence of the current House of Commons, it should take over. The FTPA makes no difference to the principle.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:
    Good - Legal advice on housing is a nightmare across the country with virtually no law firm willing (or able) to offer free advice for those who need it.

    Likewise employment law advice would ensure companies followed the law more closely.

    Mind you I'm sure Citizen Advice Bureaus used to offer all those items before austerity destroyed them as councils cut back their grants.
    "Justice is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel".

    Or private schools...
  • Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.

    Why did they fall out of favour?
    I should imagine, as with CABs etc, they relied on hefty grants from local authorities (etc), which have dried up during austerity, arguably just as they're needed most.
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,502
    eek said:

    I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.

    It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.

    Why should the Commons not agreeing with the PM result in a general election when it's not what the Commons wants
    Following that logic parliament can vote itself to continue forever, irrespective of the Executive, without an election. Why bother the people?
  • eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    The idea that they is actually a valid deal in the pipeline is something I just don't get.

    The backstop is there because we have not over 18 months found a credible way of resolving all the issues with the Irish Border. There is no way Boris has completely fixed this in a month, and even the agriculture fix isn't complete.

    Hence I really don't see there being a agreed with EU Deal sans Backstop by October for Parliament to vote on..
    But there's never been a need for a backstop. So there's no need to replace it.

    If we leave without a deal there's no backstop. That's the starting point. Or should be.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,576
    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
    Agreed. Spot on.
    Law is like health. There is no upper limit whatsoever as to what quantity of other people's money people would be willing to spend on it.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,569
    Noo said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:
    Good - Legal advice on housing is a nightmare across the country with virtually no law firm willing (or able) to offer free advice for those who need it.

    Likewise employment law advice would ensure companies followed the law more closely.

    Mind you I'm sure Citizen Advice Bureaus used to offer all those items before austerity destroyed them as councils cut back their grants.
    "Justice is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel".

    Or private schools...
    Or non dom status
  • Let's just hope he doesn't make a State visit to Indonesia.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    The idea that they is actually a valid deal in the pipeline is something I just don't get.

    The backstop is there because we have not over 18 months found a credible way of resolving all the issues with the Irish Border. There is no way Boris has completely fixed this in a month, and even the agriculture fix isn't complete.

    Hence I really don't see there being a agreed with EU Deal sans Backstop by October for Parliament to vote on..
    But there's never been a need for a backstop. So there's no need to replace it.

    If we leave without a deal there's no backstop. That's the starting point. Or should be.
    AKA
    There's never been a need for a safety net: there's the floor.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    edited September 2019
    (Deleted)
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,232
    edited September 2019

    FPT

    @Flanner

    Normally I wouldn't extrapolate from Council Elections to the GE but in the current febrile state of national politics there is a better reason for doing so than usual.

    As you indicate, the Council votes are real ones, not the hypothetical responses to opinion polls. Normally such opinions are reliable enough but at the moment the respondent has to make an assumption about how Brexit will pan out. The uncertainty factor suggests the polls are likely to be less reliable than usual. Their widely varying resuts is an indication that this is the case.

    I'd still be careful about overinterpeting LD council by-election success, but they are on a long successful run so whilst caution is still necessary, it is perfectly possible that the 'councils' are giving a truer picture than the national polls.

    In short, I think LD seats are a buy.

    The LibDems had some cracking local election results in the run up to the 2015 General Election.

    Where they were turned into bug splat.
    You're a seller then? Great stuff. Takes two views to make a market.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    edited September 2019
    Noo said:

    eek said:

    Scott_P said:
    The idea that they is actually a valid deal in the pipeline is something I just don't get.

    The backstop is there because we have not over 18 months found a credible way of resolving all the issues with the Irish Border. There is no way Boris has completely fixed this in a month, and even the agriculture fix isn't complete.

    Hence I really don't see there being a agreed with EU Deal sans Backstop by October for Parliament to vote on..
    But there's never been a need for a backstop. So there's no need to replace it.

    If we leave without a deal there's no backstop. That's the starting point. Or should be.
    AKA
    There's never been a need for a safety net: there's the floor.
    If there is no need for a backstop why did May agree to it when the EU insisted upon it and why when May insisted on a whole UK rather than NI backstop did the EU back down and accept that?

    Philip, if you can show my why the backstop isn't I'm all ears but even though you've been saying the backstop isn't required you haven't provided one shred of evidence to back up your assertion.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited September 2019

    “Where prorogation is undertaken at the behest of a government which has, or appears likely to have, lost the confidence of the lower House, and is done for the purpose of avoiding a vote of no confidence or other action by Parliament against the government’s will (which may amount to an implied vote of no confidence), then such action may be regarded as ‘unconstitutional’ and may legitimately be rejected by the Queen

    So apparently the remedy is for the Queen to do her damn job.

    Failing that, we need to get a better Queen. I would suggest Helena Bonham Carter but I'm flexible.

    Judi Dench is already a Dame and a National Treasure.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    algarkirk said:

    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
    Agreed. Spot on.
    Law is like health. There is no upper limit whatsoever as to what quantity of other people's money people would be willing to spend on it.

    The state secures the ability of people to hold great wealth. The super-wealthy can't expect that to be the priority over the lives and liberties of the poor.
    As with most things, there's a balance to be struck. We should allow people to own private property AND save their lives and freedom when they're ill or when their rights are threatened.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,841
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Just like we used to have years ago. I used to volunteer at one such in North Kensington, doing housing and criminal work.

    Why did they fall out of favour?
    Grants disappeared (and even if time is given for free some money is required).
    Legal representation is only half of the issue. Front line management, supported by their superiors, using Kafka as an Operations Manual rather than a warning must be disavowed by government. You could half fix the system that way, and reduce the need for legal assistance before even making benefits one penny more generous.

    And for those with direct power over the lives of the vulnerable, NHS managers, benefits assessors etc, I would back that up by extending a sort of professional accreditation, Royal College type system to their roles.
  • Let's just hope he doesn't make a State visit to Indonesia.
    He's not the head of State. I know he acts like he is.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,474

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
    It is a terrific policy but its relative worth is irrelevant because Corbo is the one trying to flog it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:
    Good - Legal advice on housing is a nightmare across the country with virtually no law firm willing (or able) to offer free advice for those who need it.

    Likewise employment law advice would ensure companies followed the law more closely.

    Mind you I'm sure Citizen Advice Bureaus used to offer all those items before austerity destroyed them as councils cut back their grants.
    "destroyed" … pathetic hyperbole
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    Noo said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:
    Good - Legal advice on housing is a nightmare across the country with virtually no law firm willing (or able) to offer free advice for those who need it.

    Likewise employment law advice would ensure companies followed the law more closely.

    Mind you I'm sure Citizen Advice Bureaus used to offer all those items before austerity destroyed them as councils cut back their grants.
    "Justice is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel".

    Or private schools...
    I don't like private schools much, but in a free society there's no option but to defend people's right to send their children to them.
  • timpletimple Posts: 98
    edited September 2019
    If the judges find that the PM can prorogue parliament at any point for any reason for any length we urgently need to strip the PM of that right.
  • I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.

    It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.

    That's never been our system, as the Lascelles letter made clear. The system was always that if another viable government could be formed that could hold the confidence of the current House of Commons, it should take over. The FTPA makes no difference to the principle.
    The Opposition made no attempt to call a VONC, and twice an election was rejected. No doubt for reasons of self-interest. So criticising the PM for a longer than usual prorogation out of self-interest seems mildly hypocritical
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited September 2019
    Boris tried to dissolve parliament, which was an admission that he didn't carry the house. He was blocked by parliament, so with no viable alternative, he is correct to carry on.

    I think Boris will get a (slightly) improved deal from the EU and will bring it to the house before Oct 31st, and parliament will vote it down.

    I think the big key play is whether Boris can win the politics of the improved deal. To do this he will need to show he has the (full) support of the DUP, the ERG and the whole of the Tory party.

    If he can do that and it still gets voted down I think he'll be happy, because he can then at least tell the country that a Remain parliament is blocking the will of the people.

    It will send us round in circles again but will enable Boris to live beyond the 31st October.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,620
    Noo said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
    Agreed. Spot on.
    Whether or not he becomes PM (he probably wouldn't serve long anyway), I suspect that will be Corbyn's main legacy. He has opened up a huge amount of policy space for new ideas, and a new role for govt.
  • HYUFD said:
    Labour are coming up with some excellent policies. The state should always be on the side of regular people and help them defend their interests against the powerful via the law.
    I would vote Conservative in a GE and never for Corbyn. However, I think this is a very good idea. One of the biggest struggles people have, but is not reported so much, is the daily grind of having to deal with banks, councils etc who have all the resources on their side to grind down people, especially those at the poorest end of society.
  • Judi Dench is already a Dame and a National Treasure.

    Good point, that's settled then
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    nico67 said:

    DavidL said:

    On the SC I am expecting a split decision. I think some of the Justices will find this question justiciable and a majority will not. I think that they will all agree even if it is justiciable the case that this particular prorogation is an abuse has not been made out.

    It will be interesting to see how wrong I am!

    I expect a clear majority for justiciable , that wouldn’t be that controversial and the judges will think this at least warns a future PM about pushing the limits .

    However in terms of unlawful I think Pannick has squeezed every last ounce out of the argument . It’s hard to say but I think it will be a split decision and could still go either way.
    Agree about 'justiciable' but would be surprosed if they found enough cause to intervenne in this particular case.

    No markets on this, I take it?
    I think factors, outwith the strictly legal context, that might play on the case is the historic nature and legacy. I'm sure the Justices will wrap their judgement in a wonderful legalese but I consider that they'll all be looking over their shoulder at how future generations will view their considerations.

    Accordingly I'm taking a large majority in favour of justiciability and a declaration that the prorogation was unlawful with the Lords Speaker and Speaker of the House of Commons to determine when parliament reconvenes.



  • I disagree with this. If the house doesn't have confidence in a government, then we have a GE.

    It's not up to the house to decide or have a factor in who the Tory leader is.

    That's never been our system, as the Lascelles letter made clear. The system was always that if another viable government could be formed that could hold the confidence of the current House of Commons, it should take over. The FTPA makes no difference to the principle.
    The Opposition made no attempt to call a VONC, and twice an election was rejected. No doubt for reasons of self-interest. So criticising the PM for a longer than usual prorogation out of self-interest seems mildly hypocritical
    The PM called a vote of confidence himself, so there was no need for the opposition to do so.
This discussion has been closed.