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
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
Undoubtedly so, John, although I think there was a genuine concern too that Cummings/Johnson were crazy enough to crash land the plane if given the chance.
The SC won't be judging relative hypocrisy though. It will just ask whether the proroguation was lawful.
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
Under the FTPA the Commons has two ways to remove Boris. They can vote for a General Election (which Boris tabled, twice) or they can VONC which the Opposition declined to table.
As such the Commons has voted, twice, to keep Boris in place.
Are you for or against? (Genuine question, feel like you could go either way on this one, although given your loyalty to serial adulterer Boris Johnson I'm guessing you are against?)
I support the institution of marriage but obviously would not go as far as Indonesia is considering (or indeed some Middle Eastern nations already are) and criminalise sex outside of marriage
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.
Labour have lots of policies like these, and the Tories have none. If this is how you feel you should think about voting differently.
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.
Agree.
I think Corbyn is too regarded as too extreme a figure for the British public, but he has managed to take the lid of the social policies box and win a hearing from the electorate. Something no socialist has been able to do for thirty years.
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.
This is a pretty ridiculous line from both OGH and Professor Twomey as quoted on the previous thread.
Johnson quitting would have helped absolutely nothing given the House is not willing to vote for an election. All that would have happened is he would have been replaced by someone else equally unable to command a majority. If the MPs want hi out they could VoNC him at any time. They have chosen not to. Criticising Johnson for being unable to overcome the combined idiocy of the FTPA and a HoC unwilling to have an election is just dumb.
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.
He will still have to resign ("do or die") but I agree - if everyone rows behind the deal (ie Tories, ERG, DUP), then yes he could absolutely campaign on being frustrated by remainers. I don't think it paints an accurate picture of what would be going on but it would certainly work for BoJo as a campaigning line.
Are you for or against? (Genuine question, feel like you could go either way on this one, although given your loyalty to serial adulterer Boris Johnson I'm guessing you are against?)
I support the institution of marriage but obviously would not go as far as Indonesia is considering (or indeed some Middle Eastern nations already are) and criminalise sex outside of marriage
Thanks, good to know we agree on something. The law is an ass, in this case at least.
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 is what was so frustrating when he sent his minions (ie Kwasi) around the airwaves recently. He sacked the 21 because they defied the whip in a confidence vote and yet he didn't resign having lost that vote. What was frustrating was that no one, not Pienaar, nor Marr, nor Robinson, picked this element up. I'm glad you mention it because I thought I was going mad (or had it wrong - slightly more likely).
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.
Sort of.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
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.
He will still have to resign ("do or die") but I agree - if everyone rows behind the deal (ie Tories, ERG, DUP), then yes he could absolutely campaign on being frustrated by remainers. I don't think it paints an accurate picture of what would be going on but it would certainly work for BoJo as a campaigning line.
BoJo needs all the ERG members to vote for the deal and needs to work out how he will cope when they don't vote for his deal, he has to sack them and they return at the next election as BXP MPs (and the only BXP MPs at that).
History (as an academic pursuit): that's the paradox of David Cameron. After six chapters of For the Record, and the television programme last night, it strikes me that David Cameron is a secret Marxist.
At Eton, Cameron had a superb history teacher who rejected all forms of Marxist determinism and unashamedly taught the ‘great men’ version of history.
Cameron here is a Marxist, buffeted by forces outside his control, in his own telling, washed away by the tides of history. The European referendum was inevitable, for reasons he enumerates.
The BBC producer was a bit naughty, subverting Cameron's message. Cameron would say it was inevitable, then we'd cut to Osborne saying it was a stupid idea that he'd argued against; back to Cameron, then Gove saying he'd tried to talk Cameron out of it; back to Cameron, then Clegg and Mitchell saying there was no need and it was just internal party management.
Cameron criticised Boris for putting his career ahead of his convictions and arguing for something Boris never believed, but of course Cameron himself had done precisely the same thing in calling the referendum. Then he complained that the lifelong Eurosceptic Gove (who blamed the EU for ending his father's trade and the Aberdeen fishing industry) did not, in the end, put friendship and his career ahead of his principles.
I struggle to understand how the government get away with the Brexit Minister telling Spanish business leaders how terrible life will the for Spain and Ireland if there is no deal because of the impact at the ports and on flights whilst his boss tells the domestic audience it will be just a few bumps in the road.
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.
Sort of.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
The first one didn't agree to play trapeze in the first place. They've just been bundled into it by a significantly larger and madder neighbour. Who hasn't proposed an alternative material for the net, but insists they will take the leap in 6 weeks' time, whether or not there's even a trapeze.
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.
What happens then? It feels like it ought to end multiple Downing Street careers, but probably won't.
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.
Labour have lots of policies like these, and the Tories have none. If this is how you feel you should think about voting differently.
I've said before, Boris will have no qualms about nicking popular bits of Labour policy. "If they are popular, they are popular whoever is proposing them...."
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.
Sort of.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
The extraordinary thing is the number of people who think the floor is ok, or at least think we should try that first and see how it goes.
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
Under the FTPA the Commons has two ways to remove Boris. They can vote for a General Election (which Boris tabled, twice) or they can VONC which the Opposition declined to table.
As such the Commons has voted, twice, to keep Boris in place.
The FTPA is not a complete code governing the dismissal and formation of governments. It doesn't, for example, stop governments resigning or being dismissed by the monarch and it doesn't regulate the process of becoming PM. So, for example, it leaves open possibilities for the House such as a humble address asking for the PM to be dismissed or asking for the PM to be replaced by a named person. Perhaps we should have such a code, and it is a legitimate criticism of the FTPA that it isn't one, but we don't.
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.
He will still have to resign ("do or die") but I agree - if everyone rows behind the deal (ie Tories, ERG, DUP), then yes he could absolutely campaign on being frustrated by remainers. I don't think it paints an accurate picture of what would be going on but it would certainly work for BoJo as a campaigning line.
BoJo needs all the ERG members to vote for the deal and needs to work out how he will cope when they don't vote for his deal, he has to sack them and they return at the next election as BXP MPs (and the only BXP MPs at that).
Yes he would need to expel the ERG, bring the deal back and appeal to Labour along the lines of it being only them preventing a deal.
But what I don't know (@David_Howarth?) is whether he can threaten them with no deal or whether if the deal is voted down he must write the extension letter?
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
= "Look, hell, I blacked up loads of times. I just don't know who was around with a camera...."
I think aged 29 is the oldest we've seen him do it so far. If he did it into his thirties - into the twenty first century - that really is an issue that goes to his judgment.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
Shut her down, boys, we've just hit peak Brexit metaphor.
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.
Sort of.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
The first one didn't agree to play trapeze in the first place. They've just been bundled into it by a significantly larger and madder neighbour. Who hasn't proposed an alternative material for the net, but insists they will take the leap in 6 weeks' time, whether or not there's even a trapeze.
Yes, I'm liking this analogy.
Except the first one agreed contractually to take part in trapeze if the other party requested to do it back in 2008. That's forgotten by all those "ah but we didn't choose it" complaints - yes they did.
The neighbour has proposed alternatives including postponing the jump for 2 years [a standstill transition] and having 2 years of rehearsals and developing alternatives but the first one is saying no its the floor now or the net you're allergic to.
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.
What happens then? It feels like it ought to end multiple Downing Street careers, but probably won't.
Indeed.
Two options. Firstly parliament reconvenes and the business of the Commons and Lords resumes. The second nuclear option would be for the government to attempt to prorogue parliament again.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
Which Corbyn has been too frit to do. Having seen the polls (and Lord alone knows what Labour's private polling looks like) that is political self-preservation, not leadership.
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
Under the FTPA the Commons has two ways to remove Boris. They can vote for a General Election (which Boris tabled, twice) or they can VONC which the Opposition declined to table.
As such the Commons has voted, twice, to keep Boris in place.
The FTPA is not a complete code governing the dismissal and formation of governments. It doesn't, for example, stop governments resigning or being dismissed by the monarch and it doesn't regulate the process of becoming PM. So, for example, it leaves open possibilities for the House such as a humble address asking for the PM to be dismissed or asking for the PM to be replaced by a named person. Perhaps we should have such a code, and it is a legitimate criticism of the FTPA that it isn't one, but we don't.
Indeed it doesn't rule out those options but the Commons chose to forego all its options.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
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
Under the FTPA the Commons has two ways to remove Boris. They can vote for a General Election (which Boris tabled, twice) or they can VONC which the Opposition declined to table.
As such the Commons has voted, twice, to keep Boris in place.
The FTPA is not a complete code governing the dismissal and formation of governments. It doesn't, for example, stop governments resigning or being dismissed by the monarch and it doesn't regulate the process of becoming PM. So, for example, it leaves open possibilities for the House such as a humble address asking for the PM to be dismissed or asking for the PM to be replaced by a named person. Perhaps we should have such a code, and it is a legitimate criticism of the FTPA that it isn't one, but we don't.
I understand -- though I have no details -- that Jolyon Maugham has been seeking legal advice on something to do with this. Would be good if anyone has more details.
I struggle to understand how the government get away with the Brexit Minister telling Spanish business leaders how terrible life will the for Spain and Ireland if there is no deal because of the impact at the ports and on flights whilst his boss tells the domestic audience it will be just a few bumps in the road.
In the same way that they get away with saying that Brexit is all about restoring parliamentary sovereignty and then close down parliament so it can't discuss Brexit.
Or saying that they are keen to leave with a deal whilst putting forward no proposals about what that deal should contain.
Frankly it's all b*llocks. Which is why Brexit is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
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.
Sort of.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
The extraordinary thing is the number of people who think the floor is ok, or at least think we should try that first and see how it goes.
Indeed. I'm not one of them, I just prefer the floor over the allergy-net but its the last resort.
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.
Sort of.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
The extraordinary thing is the number of people who think the floor is ok, or at least think we should try that first and see how it goes.
A lot of people, having not seen the floor but having been told it's a trampoline, believe it actually is a trampoline... I suspect they are going to be in for a nasty surprise with a few broken limbs.
Personally I suspect it's more likely to be a bed of nails.
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.
Which brings us back to Jeremy Corbyn and a Labour minority government for a few weeks while an extension is gained and election called. It cannot be a coalition because no-one will enter a coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives, and it cannot be a Conservative government headed by someone other than Boris because that would split the party which has only just elected Boris in a landslide.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
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?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
I struggle to understand how the government get away with the Brexit Minister telling Spanish business leaders how terrible life will the for Spain and Ireland if there is no deal because of the impact at the ports and on flights whilst his boss tells the domestic audience it will be just a few bumps in the road.
In the same way that they get away with saying that Brexit is all about restoring parliamentary sovereignty and then close down parliament so it can't discuss Brexit.
Or saying that they are keen to leave with a deal whilst putting forward no proposals about what that deal should contain.
Frankly it's all b*llocks. Which is why Brexit is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
Well you could argue parliament has done nothing but discuss Brexit for the past 3 years. If parliament was open now what would it be discussing exactly?
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Isn't The Queens Speech a confidence vote?
If so by prorogation of Parliament for a Queens Speech he is (in)directly calling a vote of confidence.
"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?
If they did, Boris Johnson would not have been installed as Prime Minister in the first place.
To be fair, people are saying both that Boris needs an election to legitimise being PM, while arguing that this was not the right time for an election.
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.
He will still have to resign ("do or die") but I agree - if everyone rows behind the deal (ie Tories, ERG, DUP), then yes he could absolutely campaign on being frustrated by remainers. I don't think it paints an accurate picture of what would be going on but it would certainly work for BoJo as a campaigning line.
BoJo needs all the ERG members to vote for the deal and needs to work out how he will cope when they don't vote for his deal, he has to sack them and they return at the next election as BXP MPs (and the only BXP MPs at that).
Yes he would need to expel the ERG, bring the deal back and appeal to Labour along the lines of it being only them preventing a deal.
But what I don't know (@David_Howarth?) is whether he can threaten them with no deal or whether if the deal is voted down he must write the extension letter?
The Benn Act says that the PM must ask for an extension unless the House has, by 19 October, approved either a deal or no deal. He can withdraw the request if subsequently the House votes for a deal or for no deal, but not otherwise. So he has to ask for an extension if his deal is voted down, although he can have another go subsequently. But I don't think he can threaten no deal unless he has a majority for no deal.
All that would have happened is he would have been replaced by someone else equally unable to command a majority.
Would he? Say he'd done his job properly, asked around about who has support, and suggested to Brenda that she send for - I dunno - Michael Gove. Gove would have apologised to all the people Boris foolishly removed the whip from and asked them to come back. They probably mostly would have done. Gove wouldn't be trying to crash them into No Deal, and wouldn't be committed to Macron's deadline. Brexit wouldn't be fixed, but there would probably be a majority there for other stuff, or something close enough to pass legislation though negotiation and win a VOC on a good day with a following wind.
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.
What happens then? It feels like it ought to end multiple Downing Street careers, but probably won't.
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.
He will still have to resign ("do or die") but I agree - if everyone rows behind the deal (ie Tories, ERG, DUP), then yes he could absolutely campaign on being frustrated by remainers. I don't think it paints an accurate picture of what would be going on but it would certainly work for BoJo as a campaigning line.
BoJo needs all the ERG members to vote for the deal and needs to work out how he will cope when they don't vote for his deal, he has to sack them and they return at the next election as BXP MPs (and the only BXP MPs at that).
Yes he would need to expel the ERG, bring the deal back and appeal to Labour along the lines of it being only them preventing a deal.
But what I don't know (@David_Howarth?) is whether he can threaten them with no deal or whether if the deal is voted down he must write the extension letter?
The Benn Act says that the PM must ask for an extension unless the House has, by 19 October, approved either a deal or no deal. He can withdraw the request if subsequently the House votes for a deal or for no deal, but not otherwise. So he has to ask for an extension if his deal is voted down, although he can have another go subsequently. But I don't think he can threaten no deal unless he has a majority for no deal.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
Alastair is right in that Boris is currently a placeholder due to 1) there being both more pressing matters that had to be dealt with and 2) no pressing need to remove said placeholder now the more pressing matters limit what Boris can do.
And remember there wasn't enough time for a VoNC to be tabled after Benn's act became law.
Now after the Queen's speech things may change but that only occurs after the Council of Europe meeting has concluded.
Surely the ERG aren’t stupid enough to vote against a new deal .
With the ERG and DUP onside and the restoration of the whip to most of the 21 who want a deal and some Labour MPs that’s enough to get the deal over the line .
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.
Sort of.
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
The extraordinary thing is the number of people who think the floor is ok, or at least think we should try that first and see how it goes.
Indeed. I'm not one of them, I just prefer the floor over the allergy-net but its the last resort.
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?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Isn't The Queens Speech a confidence vote?
If so by prorogation of Parliament for a Queens Speech he is (in)directly calling a vote of confidence.
Will he resign when his Queens Speech fails to go through? Assuming he hasnt re-prorogued parliament again before the vote......
The overnight lending market is what seized up in the last financial crisis as banks no longer trusted other banks to make good on their ultra short term loans.
I think that is a bit unkind to call them the LibTals or LibBans. I'm not sure that Lab and LibDems are heading into the realms of extensive tactical voting, which will be good for LibDems and possibly Cons
"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?
If they did, Boris Johnson would not have been installed as Prime Minister in the first place.
To be fair, people are saying both that Boris needs an election to legitimise being PM, while arguing that this was not the right time for an election.
Both are true. A placeholder shouldn’t get to game the system in his own favour. He can be discarded at a time convenient to the majority of the House of Commons.
"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?
If they did, Boris Johnson would not have been installed as Prime Minister in the first place.
To be fair, people are saying both that Boris needs an election to legitimise being PM, while arguing that this was not the right time for an election.
I think you'll find that many of those are also saying that they want an election very soon. We'll see whether they stick to that line in the coming weeks, but I personally fully support those who wanted to legislate to prevent No Deal first. And I'm someone who actively wants an election. As in life, some things need to be done first. Stopping No Deal is objectively more urgent because of the time limit imposed by the automatic operation of law.
I really cannot fathom why people feel the need to rush everything. If something's worth doing, it's worth doing properly.
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.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
Well yes at that point he may well not have it. But till then he does
Just found this verbatim transcript of a Trump “speech” at a press conference. Mind boggling.
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
Yes but Mr Meeks two of those votes he lost were votes whereby he asked for parliament to be dissolved for a GE. If the opposition parties were confident they could beat the terribly unpopular “Bozo” and the nasty Tories then surely they should have voted with him. The election would have been before 31/10 and the new shiny remainer government could have dealt with an extension of revocation with plenty of time.
"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?
If they did, Boris Johnson would not have been installed as Prime Minister in the first place.
To be fair, people are saying both that Boris needs an election to legitimise being PM, while arguing that this was not the right time for an election.
Boris could have asked for an election in July and Parliament would have had great difficulty voting against a request for a September election.
Asking for an October election in September was a very different question and easy to justify voting against (as I stated back in June).
I think the biggest issue for a deal is the supposed Stormont lock .
Currently that has a thing called a motion of regret which either the DUP or Sinn Fein can use to block legislation.
So with the backstop if the EU bring in new rules the DUP could effectively block that . There would have to be a change to stop a minority blocking those new rules .
What is the probability of no deal on 31st October?
Boris comes back with a deal. Parliament rejects it. Parliament refuses to revoke article 50. EU refuses an extension.
Am I missing something here? What is legislating against no deal worth if the EU won't agree an extension?
The probability of elected politicians in the EU choosing chaos and recession when they can kick the can is generally pretty low. Possible of course, very probable that they will hint at it to try to get the UK to finally decide but when push comes to shove extend is far better for the EU than no deal.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
Yes but Mr Meeks two of those votes he lost were votes whereby he asked for parliament to be dissolved for a GE. If the opposition parties were confident they could beat the terribly unpopular “Bozo” and the nasty Tories then surely they should have voted with him. The election would have been before 31/10 and the new shiny remainer government could have dealt with an extension of revocation with plenty of time.
All else, to be honest, is just noise.
As I said, a placeholder doesn’t get to choose the time of maximum advantage for himself. The majority can properly break and discard him first.
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.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
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?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Never done it, never will. Really not a good thing. Re Trudeau, therefore, I take a dim view. Just as I would if it were Eric Trump. That Trudeau is a liberal makes no odds to me. I am objective almost to a fault. Unlike the following categories of people. (1) Those cutting him a ton of slack because he's on the correct side of the culture war. (2) Those pretending they are outraged when in fact they see little wrong with a bit of blacking up when the occasion demands it.
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
Under the FTPA the Commons has two ways to remove Boris. They can vote for a General Election (which Boris tabled, twice) or they can VONC which the Opposition declined to table.
As such the Commons has voted, twice, to keep Boris in place.
The FTPA is not a complete code governing the dismissal and formation of governments. It doesn't, for example, stop governments resigning or being dismissed by the monarch and it doesn't regulate the process of becoming PM. So, for example, it leaves open possibilities for the House such as a humble address asking for the PM to be dismissed or asking for the PM to be replaced by a named person. Perhaps we should have such a code, and it is a legitimate criticism of the FTPA that it isn't one, but we don't.
I understand -- though I have no details -- that Jolyon Maugham has been seeking legal advice on something to do with this. Would be good if anyone has more details.
Sounds a bit unlikely since parliamentary proceedings such as these are covered by Article IX of the Bill of Rights and are therefore non-justiciable, but anything is possible these days...
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%
Of course. But there are usually two parties contending, so "reasonably likely" is reasonable.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
Yes but Mr Meeks two of those votes he lost were votes whereby he asked for parliament to be dissolved for a GE. If the opposition parties were confident they could beat the terribly unpopular “Bozo” and the nasty Tories then surely they should have voted with him. The election would have been before 31/10 and the new shiny remainer government could have dealt with an extension of revocation with plenty of time.
All else, to be honest, is just noise.
Remember Boris has been fired twice for lying (and was caught doing the same once again this week). As the FTPA only states the earliest day and election can occur not the exact or last date, and Boris never stated when the election would occur it was perfectly valid for everyone else to tell Boris you can't have an election as we don't trust you when you say it will be before October 31st.
So it's not really noise, it's more Parliament toying with Boris in the same way a cat may play with a mouse before killing it.
"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?
If they did, Boris Johnson would not have been installed as Prime Minister in the first place.
To be fair, people are saying both that Boris needs an election to legitimise being PM, while arguing that this was not the right time for an election.
Boris could have asked for an election in July and Parliament would have had great difficulty voting against a request for a September election.
Asking for an October election in September was a very different question and easy to justify voting against (as I stated back in June).
Surely it depends how the lock works?
If it is agreed that a law passes unless a majority - or supermajority - of Stormont rejected it then that would be a democratic compromise.
This would be a new treaty and a new exercise of powers so not needn't use existing regulations.
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
Yes but Mr Meeks two of those votes he lost were votes whereby he asked for parliament to be dissolved for a GE. If the opposition parties were confident they could beat the terribly unpopular “Bozo” and the nasty Tories then surely they should have voted with him. The election would have been before 31/10 and the new shiny remainer government could have dealt with an extension of revocation with plenty of time.
All else, to be honest, is just noise.
As I'm sure you're well aware, the authority of the PM to shift the date of the election meant that urgent parliamentary business that the Commons wanted done before November might never have happened. It would rely on trusting Boris not to do the wrong thing. As former partners and employers will testify, that's not necessarily a smart move.
If only there were some sort of mechanism by which the Commons could indicate their lack of confidence in the PM...
Strictly Come (Morris) Dancing Competition ?
Boris - The Do or Die Tango with Arlene Foster Jezza - The In/Out Shake it all about with Diane Abbott Jo Swinson - The Revoke Rhumba with Vince Cable Nigel - The Farage Do the Hustle with Anne Widdecombe Nicola - The Sturgeon Turkey Trot with Alex Salmond.
10 am latest.....Brilliant new deal proposed by Boris Johnson. 'We'll Leave the EU on the 31st and we'll work out all the details of the backstop later.....'
(.....this is is not acceptable to the EU we understand)
On topic, the threader header is incorrect - Johnson still has the confidence of the commons till the opposition leader tables a Vote of No Confidence. May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes. That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I’m not sure that is correct even in theory any more. Confidence in Boris Johnson has never been tested. He was installed and no one has tested whether he has the confidence of the Commons (only one man has had the chance to test it and has chosen not to do that yet). He has yet to win a vote. He is doing his best to avoid finding out whether the Commons has confidence in him.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Nah, right now he has the confidence of the Commons. That it's a result of
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
You’re guessing. Boris Johnson has lost every vote of his tenure, including the ones which he sought to treat as a matter of party discipline (not confidence, or he would have resigned).
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
Yes but Mr Meeks two of those votes he lost were votes whereby he asked for parliament to be dissolved for a GE. If the opposition parties were confident they could beat the terribly unpopular “Bozo” and the nasty Tories then surely they should have voted with him. The election would have been before 31/10 and the new shiny remainer government could have dealt with an extension of revocation with plenty of time.
All else, to be honest, is just noise.
As I said, a placeholder doesn’t get to choose the time of maximum advantage for himself. The majority can properly break and discard him first.
The maximum advantage for the principled remainer is to have a government of their persuasion before 31/10. Unless one is playing party politics. Which I think is the actual motive rather than any altruistic desire to genuinely protect the country from no deal.
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.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
The overnight lending market is what seized up in the last financial crisis as banks no longer trusted other banks to make good on their ultra short term loans.
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
Of course - but that is a political judgment.
The question before the court is a legal one - whether and how far a PM may legally stretch this particular prerogative power in the pursuit of a political end.
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?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Says someone who has never heard of the Laffer Curve. What matters is revenues not percentages.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
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.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
The overnight lending market is what seized up in the last financial crisis as banks no longer trusted other banks to make good on their ultra short term loans.
It's not a good sign, certainly.
Clearly rumors are stating that a bank is in big trouble. Is this the end days for Deutsche Bank? (it collapsing in the next 2 weeks wouldn't surprise me given it typical Brexit logic and it going would overshadow Brexit at just the wrong time).
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?
They were funded by councils and got squeezed when there were budget cuts. Also as legal aid got cut it became ever harder to get payment for defence work or other work.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
What do you think local councils should have cut instead considering that there was no money left?
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
They cut my marginal tax rate by 5%, slashed corporation tax and increased the inheritance tax threshold to £1mn so there was definitely some money left.
Says someone who has never heard of the Laffer Curve. What matters is revenues not percentages.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
We've all heard of the laffer curve. What we haven't heard is why we should believe the peak is where you think it is
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.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Well yes I an ideal world throwing money that you have at every solution makes it better.
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Perhaps by increasing Police numbers by 15,000 rather than 20,000 and spending the rest of the money on the inbetween stages of the Justice system.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
Indeed. And this comes on top of a 'not bad' Brexit position and an 'excellent' focus on local buses. I really do sense you coming around to Labour.
Don't think you are mortally offended by VAT on private schools either, IIRC.
"Raise the scarlet standard high Beneath its folds we'll live and die Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here!"
I think that is a bit unkind to call them the LibTals or LibBans. I'm not sure that Lab and LibDems are heading into the realms of extensive tactical voting, which will be good for LibDems and possibly Cons
This current discord between Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be like manna from heaven for the Brexiters, and Cummings will be lapping it up in his game theory war-gaming headquarters. From a Remainer point of view, it's madness.
Comments
The SC won't be judging relative hypocrisy though. It will just ask whether the proroguation was lawful.
As such the Commons has voted, twice, to keep Boris in place.
I think Corbyn is too regarded as too extreme a figure for the British public, but he has managed to take the lid of the social policies box and win a hearing from the electorate. Something no socialist has been able to do for thirty years.
Johnson quitting would have helped absolutely nothing given the House is not willing to vote for an election. All that would have happened is he would have been replaced by someone else equally unable to command a majority. If the MPs want hi out they could VoNC him at any time. They have chosen not to. Criticising Johnson for being unable to overcome the combined idiocy of the FTPA and a HoC unwilling to have an election is just dumb.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1174783744273764352
From 5:11...
It's like a pair of trapeze artists disagreeing on what the safety net should be. One artist (Ireland) insists on one safety net, the other (UK) says they're allergic to the material that net is made from so it can't be that and tries suggesting alternatives that may not be as ideal as the first but are much better than the floor.
The first insists that it's either the floor or the allergy inducing safety net.
At Eton, Cameron had a superb history teacher who rejected all forms of Marxist determinism and unashamedly taught the ‘great men’ version of history.
Cameron here is a Marxist, buffeted by forces outside his control, in his own telling, washed away by the tides of history. The European referendum was inevitable, for reasons he enumerates.
The BBC producer was a bit naughty, subverting Cameron's message. Cameron would say it was inevitable, then we'd cut to Osborne saying it was a stupid idea that he'd argued against; back to Cameron, then Gove saying he'd tried to talk Cameron out of it; back to Cameron, then Clegg and Mitchell saying there was no need and it was just internal party management.
Cameron criticised Boris for putting his career ahead of his convictions and arguing for something Boris never believed, but of course Cameron himself had done precisely the same thing in calling the referendum. Then he complained that the lifelong Eurosceptic Gove (who blamed the EU for ending his father's trade and the Aberdeen fishing industry) did not, in the end, put friendship and his career ahead of his principles.
Yes, I'm liking this analogy.
Perhaps we should have such a code, and it is a legitimate criticism of the FTPA that it isn't one, but we don't.
But what I don't know (@David_Howarth?) is whether he can threaten them with no deal or whether if the deal is voted down he must write the extension letter?
May maintained the confidence of the commons right throughout her leadership even though she lost her first MV by over 200 votes.
That the Johnson ministry has decided to try and enforce party discipline by dewhipping desent and has now a notional majority of -43 is neither here nor there. The LOTO (Corbyn) needs to call a specific confidence motion.
I think aged 29 is the oldest we've seen him do it so far. If he did it into his thirties - into the twenty first century - that really is an issue that goes to his judgment.
The neighbour has proposed alternatives including postponing the jump for 2 years [a standstill transition] and having 2 years of rehearsals and developing alternatives but the first one is saying no its the floor now or the net you're allergic to.
Two options. Firstly parliament reconvenes and the business of the Commons and Lords resumes. The second nuclear option would be for the government to attempt to prorogue parliament again.
The correct term for Boris Johnson at present is placeholder.
Or saying that they are keen to leave with a deal whilst putting forward no proposals about what that deal should contain.
Frankly it's all b*llocks. Which is why Brexit is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
Personally I suspect it's more likely to be a bed of nails.
i) Labour attempting to game political advantage out of not testing it
ii) Plenty in the Commons being absolubtely horrified at the thought of PM Corbyn
reflects more on the shambles in the Commons than Johnson methinks.
Unless you have money you don't realistically have any sort of access to justice these days. It is a disgrace in a country which used to boast about the rule of law.
If so by prorogation of Parliament for a Queens Speech he is (in)directly calling a vote of confidence.
I expect we’ll find out soon enough.
1) there being both more pressing matters that had to be dealt with and
2) no pressing need to remove said placeholder now the more pressing matters limit what Boris can do.
And remember there wasn't enough time for a VoNC to be tabled after Benn's act became law.
Now after the Queen's speech things may change but that only occurs after the Council of Europe meeting has concluded.
With the ERG and DUP onside and the restoration of the whip to most of the 21 who want a deal and some Labour MPs that’s enough to get the deal over the line .
I've got a few suggestions but curious what you think.
Boris comes back with a deal.
Parliament rejects it.
Parliament refuses to revoke article 50.
EU refuses an extension.
Am I missing something here? What is legislating against no deal worth if the EU won't agree an extension?
Johnson may not even want the confidence of the commons right now, indeed he wanted an election ! But the fact is like it or not he has it.
https://www.ft.com/content/8f3d0374-dadc-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
The overnight lending market is what seized up in the last financial crisis as banks no longer trusted other banks to make good on their ultra short term loans.
As in life, some things need to be done first. Stopping No Deal is objectively more urgent because of the time limit imposed by the automatic operation of law.
I really cannot fathom why people feel the need to rush everything. If something's worth doing, it's worth doing properly.
It's not populist nonsense. Law centres did useful and worthwhile work.
There has been a 40% cut in the budget for the justice system. That is why judges aren't sitting, courts are being closed and people are waiting a year or more for trials to happen.
In the recent budget statement there was an increase of 5% for the justice system. That does nothing to deal with the issues. The government can boast all it likes about 20,000 additional police officers but unless you fund the rest of the system properly that will achieve nothing.
And that doesn't deal with the almost wholesale destruction of legal aid for civil matters. So how else are people without money to get the advice they need on complicated issues like housing, immigration, welfare and the rest? They can't - unless you have bodies such as law centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux or similar. There is a real need for this and Labour is right to try and address this issue.
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”
All else, to be honest, is just noise.
Asking for an October election in September was a very different question and easy to justify voting against (as I stated back in June).
Currently that has a thing called a motion of regret which either the DUP or Sinn Fein can use to block legislation.
So with the backstop if the EU bring in new rules the DUP could effectively block that . There would have to be a change to stop a minority blocking those new rules .
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1174971156777988102?s=20
Though we have a mammoth debt mountain and are still running a deficit despite these cuts and Labour aren't prioritising criminal justice they are proposing to throw money at everything.
That isn't a solution. A solution would be making criminal justice a priority by proposing other cuts to counteract or realistic revenues to fund it.
Never done it, never will. Really not a good thing. Re Trudeau, therefore, I take a dim view. Just as I would if it were Eric Trump. That Trudeau is a liberal makes no odds to me. I am objective almost to a fault. Unlike the following categories of people. (1) Those cutting him a ton of slack because he's on the correct side of the culture war. (2) Those pretending they are outraged when in fact they see little wrong with a bit of blacking up when the occasion demands it.
So it's not really noise, it's more Parliament toying with Boris in the same way a cat may play with a mouse before killing it.
If it is agreed that a law passes unless a majority - or supermajority - of Stormont rejected it then that would be a democratic compromise.
This would be a new treaty and a new exercise of powers so not needn't use existing regulations.
It would rely on trusting Boris not to do the wrong thing. As former partners and employers will testify, that's not necessarily a smart move.
Boris - The Do or Die Tango with Arlene Foster
Jezza - The In/Out Shake it all about with Diane Abbott
Jo Swinson - The Revoke Rhumba with Vince Cable
Nigel - The Farage Do the Hustle with Anne Widdecombe
Nicola - The Sturgeon Turkey Trot with Alex Salmond.
(.....this is is not acceptable to the EU we understand)
I'd say the chances of each of those are:
Boris comes back with a deal. 60%
Parliament rejects it. 60%
EU refuses an extension. 10%
Parliament refuses to revoke article 50. 10%
So <1% overall, imho.
The question before the court is a legal one - whether and how far a PM may legally stretch this particular prerogative power in the pursuit of a political end.
Revenues have grown year on year not fallen. Indeed you claim corporation tax has been slashed but corporation tax is bringing in record revenues despite a supposed decade of lost growth. Go figure!
Don't think you are mortally offended by VAT on private schools either, IIRC.
"Raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath its folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here!"