Why should opposition MPs vote to allow a recess for the Tory conference so Bozo can peddle more hateful division and attacks on the judges .
Whilst being fawned over by the no 10 media wing the BBC!
The Tories can shorten the conference to the weekend , and suck it up ! They have only themselves to blame .
Or they could follow my advice.
Say, we're off, let the Rabble Alliance fight like ferrts in a sack to work out who's going to take over and go off to Birmingham to have their conference.
Mmmm... and what goodies might the Rebel Alliance pass while the cheating Tories are away on their jolly?
It’s a good point. It’s about time journalists started re-establishing some journalistic discipline on these things and only reported briefings from those prepared to go formally on the record.
There are good reasons for not naming the No10 spokesies, not least that they do not become the stories or take the heat for their bosses' political machinations. If Aaronovitch wants to only hear on the record chat it's because nobody's breeding him off the record
The 14 day window does NOT apply if Johnson resigns voluntarily
I think, although I may be wrong, that he can only formally resign if he can name a successor. regardless as to what happens within parliament he would remain PM until someone can prove that they have confidence of the house. This still holds regardless as to whether the FTPA applies or not
Yes agreed, but if he resigns there is no 14 days and then GE unless it's a formal FTPA no confidence resignation
Parliament would then have to start voting on who had the confidence of the house and the FTPA would kick in automatically.
Parliament would indeed be reconvened immediately to try and work out who has their confidence, but the FTPA 14-day window doesn’t kick in unless a specifically worded motion is passed that “This house has no confidence in HM government”, which would first require a new PM to be nominated and installed.
as I said before, the PM can't resign unless there is someone to take over. they can resign every other position but until the HoC has confidence in someone else they will remain PM.
That is written no where.
he would not be asked to the palace to return 'the seal' if he couldn't name a successor.
So he sits, unwilling hostage in Number 10, refusing to sign the letter to the EU. Then what?
Loses court case, goes into opposition
Yes, but the hypothetical was that he wasn’t allowed to resign because Parliament didn’t want to put someone else up as PM (because politically they all want him to sign the letter).
Does the Queen have to nominate a new PM if no one can show they have the confidence of the House. Once again the huge gaps in the FTPA become apparent
If the PM resigns then yes, the Queen needs to nominate a new PM. The post doesn't stay vacant if nobody can command a majority. This was true long before the FTPA.
As previously, this new PM will probably not be there long without an election if they can't command a majority.
Of course by tradition the Queen’s appointment would be formally tested by the passing of a Queens Speech.
Queens Speeches and budgets are both regarded as confidence votes if I remember correctly
Not any more. It has to be a motion as laid out in the FTPA.
That's the part of the Act that really needs changed. The government of the day should be able to nominate that any vote essential to its program will be deemed a confidence vote under s2 of the FTPA.
Why? That would give government back the power to call an election whenever it chose.
No it wouldn't unless they contrive to have one of their principal policies voted down. What it would stop is zombie government whose program has been rejected and yet remain in office. Are we really going to have a government lose their Queen's speech (as seems inevitable) and yet remain in office? Its ridiculous.
The 14 day window does NOT apply if Johnson resigns voluntarily
I think, although I may be wrong, that he can only formally resign if he can name a successor. regardless as to what happens within parliament he would remain PM until someone can prove that they have confidence of the house. This still holds regardless as to whether the FTPA applies or not
Yes agreed, but if he resigns there is no 14 days and then GE unless it's a formal FTPA no confidence resignation
Parliament would then have to start voting on who had the confidence of the house and the FTPA would kick in automatically.
I dont see why it kicks in? No no confidence motion or 2/3 vote has been passed
It doesn't. The position is exactly the same as when Theresa May resigned.
Boris Johnson's command of the confidence of the House of Commons has never been tested.
No the position is not the same. May resigned as leader of the Tory party. Her stepping down as PM was only as a consequence of that. If Boris stood down as PM and remained leader of the Tory party then someone else would have to be selected from Parliament to try and form a Government and face a vote of confidence. On face value there is no one who appears to be able to do that.
His position as leader of the Conservative party is separate from the question of whether he or anyone else commands the confidence of the Commons. There is no in-built role in the constitution for the Conservative party.
Correct. But there is nothing to stop him taking the Conservative party out of Government so long as he still remains their leader. Under those circumstances you are back with Parliament trying to find someone else they can support as PM.
But if Johnson resigns and refuses to name a successor then HM would have to send for Corbyn. He would be appointed and sent away to see if he could put together a majority. And having just walked away from their responsibilities in such a public way would the Tories want to VONC him and precipitate an immediate election? So it may well be that he could remain PM for some weeks or even months - long enough to negotiate his revised deal and initiate a referendum on it. Johnson is completely trapped - he has no way out, not even resignation.
Corbyn doesn't need to assemble a majority. See January 1924.
Does the Queen have to nominate a new PM if no one can show they have the confidence of the House. Once again the huge gaps in the FTPA become apparent
If the PM resigns then yes, the Queen needs to nominate a new PM. The post doesn't stay vacant if nobody can command a majority. This was true long before the FTPA.
As previously, this new PM will probably not be there long without an election if they can't command a majority.
Of course by tradition the Queen’s appointment would be formally tested by the passing of a Queens Speech.
Queens Speeches and budgets are both regarded as confidence votes if I remember correctly
Not any more. It has to be a motion as laid out in the FTPA.
That's the part of the Act that really needs changed. The government of the day should be able to nominate that any vote essential to its program will be deemed a confidence vote under s2 of the FTPA.
Why? That would give government back the power to call an election whenever it chose.
Which, it turns out, was a really neat feature of our unwritten constitution, allowing a government to respond nimbly to events.
Then Coalition posh boys Dave and Nick decided to trash this ancient convention, solely for short term political benefit to them. And they did it in a singularly inept way, storing up terrific trouble. Hooray for Dave and Nick.
The Queen then chooses someone, after taking soundings. If no one looks likely to command the confidence of the Commons, she will presumably give Jeremy Corbyn first go to prove her wrong. Whoever she chooses, the then leader of the opposition then has to decide whether to test their confidence.
In practice it is more likely than not that he would keep his powder dry for the while.
I know we chatted about this earlier but the more I think about it the less I see Boris submitting the extension request...there is little (if any) electoral upside.
It is much more likely the government resigns, he recommends Corbyn and leaves the dirty work of an extension to Labour.
Why should opposition MPs vote to allow a recess for the Tory conference so Bozo can peddle more hateful division and attacks on the judges .
Whilst being fawned over by the no 10 media wing the BBC!
The Tories can shorten the conference to the weekend , and suck it up ! They have only themselves to blame .
Or they could follow my advice.
Say, we're off, let the Rabble Alliance fight like ferrts in a sack to work out who's going to take over and go off to Birmingham to have their conference.
Mmmm... and what goodies might the Rebel Alliance pass while the cheating Tories are away on their jolly?
Given they'll be fighting like ferrets in a sack to see who's going into Number Ten, probably not a lot...
The 14 day window does NOT apply if Johnson resigns voluntarily
I think, although I may be wrong, that he can only formally resign if he can name a successor. regardless as to what happens within parliament he would remain PM until someone can prove that they have confidence of the house. This still holds regardless as to whether the FTPA applies or not
Yes agreed, but if he resigns there is no 14 days and then GE unless it's a formal FTPA no confidence resignation
Parliament would then have to start voting on who had the confidence of the house and the FTPA would kick in automatically.
Parliament would indeed be reconvened immediately to try and work out who has their confidence, but the FTPA 14-day window doesn’t kick in unless a specifically worded motion is passed that “This house has no confidence in HM government”, which would first require a new PM to be nominated and installed.
Does the Queen have to nominate a new PM if no one can show they have the confidence of the House. Once again the huge gaps in the FTPA become apparent
If a PM can’t be nominated from the rabble sitting opposite the current government, then does she have any choice left but to dissolve Parliament?
In practice they’ll have to nominate someone, if they want that letter sent to Brussels. Even if that person resigns a day later.
Yes, the FTPA is the most almighty constitutional fcukup. Thanks Nick Clegg for that one!
The FTPA says it cannot otherwise be dissolved. Even if she wanted to she couldn't.
Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.
What a big bloody mess that would be!
That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
Yes, she’d have to call someone (in practice either the leader of the opposition or the father of the house), who would form a government and immediately face a vote of no confidence - which if carried, would start the 14-day clock running to dissolution.
Should I join the LibDems then? It's the logical conclusion to my deliberations
We have travelled down the same road albeit at at different speeds. I left the Labour Party not too long after Corbyn took over. Becoming a registered supporter of the LDs rather than a full member might be the answer, it's what I am going to do.
I was not aware that people could register as 'Tory Little Helpers'.
Please. The best helper for getting a Tory majority is Corbyn and his band of Stalinists.
The Tory/LibDem Coaltion - and the lack of a clear alternative to Austerity from Milliband - was the main recruiter for Corbyn. Post 2015 GE I have always blamed Harriet Harman as Acting Leader - rather than Margaret Beckett - for generating the momentum which led to his Leadership - by her decision to force the Shadow Cabinet abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals.
The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it
Does the Queen have to nominate a new PM if no one can show they have the confidence of the House. Once again the huge gaps in the FTPA become apparent
If the PM resigns then yes, the Queen needs to nominate a new PM. The post doesn't stay vacant if nobody can command a majority. This was true long before the FTPA.
As previously, this new PM will probably not be there long without an election if they can't command a majority.
Of course by tradition the Queen’s appointment would be formally tested by the passing of a Queens Speech.
Queens Speeches and budgets are both regarded as confidence votes if I remember correctly
Not any more. It has to be a motion as laid out in the FTPA.
That's the part of the Act that really needs changed. The government of the day should be able to nominate that any vote essential to its program will be deemed a confidence vote under s2 of the FTPA.
Why? That would give government back the power to call an election whenever it chose.
Which, it turns out, was a really neat feature of our unwritten constitution, allowing a government to respond nimbly to events.
Then Coalition posh boys Dave and Nick decided to trash this ancient convention, solely for short term political benefit to them. And they did it in a singularly inept way, storing up terrific trouble. Hooray for Dave and Nick.
I don't see why the PM deciding the election timing is any worse than an unclear leader of the Remain alliance deciding it.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
Should I join the LibDems then? It's the logical conclusion to my deliberations
We have travelled down the same road albeit at at different speeds. I left the Labour Party not too long after Corbyn took over. Becoming a registered supporter of the LDs rather than a full member might be the answer, it's what I am going to do.
I was not aware that people could register as 'Tory Little Helpers'.
Please. The best helper for getting a Tory majority is Corbyn and his band of Stalinists.
The Tory/LibDem Coaltion - and the lack of a clear alternative to Austerity from Milliband - was the main recruiter for Corbyn. Post 2015 GE I have always blamed Harriet Harman as Acting Leader - rather than Margaret Beckett - for generating the momentum which led to his Leadership - by her decision to force the Shadow Cabinet abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals.
The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it
Johnson and Swinson jumping into bed is an image I urgently need to forget.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
Well, Alexis Tsipras comes to mind immediately as unquestionably worse. I am sure that there are others.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
Does the Queen have to nominate a new PM if no one can show they have the confidence of the House. Once again the huge gaps in the FTPA become apparent
If the PM resigns then yes, the Queen needs to nominate a new PM. The post doesn't stay vacant if nobody can command a majority. This was true long before the FTPA.
As previously, this new PM will probably not be there long without an election if they can't command a majority.
Of course by tradition the Queen’s appointment would be formally tested by the passing of a Queens Speech.
Queens Speeches and budgets are both regarded as confidence votes if I remember correctly
Not any more. It has to be a motion as laid out in the FTPA.
That's the part of the Act that really needs changed. The government of the day should be able to nominate that any vote essential to its program will be deemed a confidence vote under s2 of the FTPA.
Why? That would give government back the power to call an election whenever it chose.
Which, it turns out, was a really neat feature of our unwritten constitution, allowing a government to respond nimbly to events.
Then Coalition posh boys Dave and Nick decided to trash this ancient convention, solely for short term political benefit to them. And they did it in a singularly inept way, storing up terrific trouble. Hooray for Dave and Nick.
Without it we'd undoubtedly have had an election at MV1.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
The 14 day window does NOT apply if Johnson resigns voluntarily
I think, although I may be wrong, that he can only formally resign if he can name a successor. regardless as to what happens within parliament he would remain PM until someone can prove that they have confidence of the house. This still holds regardless as to whether the FTPA applies or not
Yes agreed, but if he resigns there is no 14 days and then GE unless it's a formal FTPA no confidence resignation
Parliament would then have to start voting on who had the confidence of the house and the FTPA would kick in automatically.
Parlonfidence in HM government”, which would first require a new PM to be nominated and installed.
Does the Queen have to nominate a new PM if no one can show they have the confidence of the House. Once again the huge gaps in the FTPA become apparent
If a PM can’t be nominated from the rabble sitting opposite the current government, then does she have any choice left but to dissolve Parliament?
In practice they’ll have to nominate someone, if they want that letter sent to Brussels. Even if that person resigns a day later.
Yes, the FTPA is the most almighty constitutional fcukup. Thanks Nick Clegg for that one!
The FTPA says it cannot otherwise be dissolved. Even if she wanted to she couldn't.
Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.
What a big bloody mess that would be!
That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
Yes, she’d have to call someone (in practice either the leader of the opposition or the father of the house), who would form a government and immediately face a vote of no confidence - which if carried, would start the 14-day clock running to dissolution.
Immediately? Surely that's up to a certain J Bercow? Or does LOTO (presumably Boris) get dibs?
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
It's because she is bound to act on the advice.
Really? Surely that's just customary? Is there are law?
Yes agreed, but if he resigns there is no 14 days and then GE unless it's a formal FTPA no confidence resignation
Parliament would then have to start voting on who had the confidence of the house and the FTPA would kick in automatically.
Parliament would indeed be reconvened immediately to try and work out who has their confidence, but the FTPA 14-day window doesn’t kick in unless a specifically worded motion is passed that “This house has no confidence in HM government”, which would first require a new PM to be nominated and installed.
Does the Queen have to nominate a new PM if no one can show they have the confidence of the House. Once again the huge gaps in the FTPA become apparent
If a PM can’t be nominated from the rabble sitting opposite the current government, then does she have any choice left but to dissolve Parliament?
In practice they’ll have to nominate someone, if they want that letter sent to Brussels. Even if that person resigns a day later.
Yes, the FTPA is the most almighty constitutional fcukup. Thanks Nick Clegg for that one!
The FTPA says it cannot otherwise be dissolved. Even if she wanted to she couldn't.
Crap, yes you’re right. So if no-one could command the confidence of the House, HM through the Privy Council would have to ask Parliament to dissolve itself, which requires 434 votes, at a time when there’s no government in place because it had resigned, a week before we crashed out of the EU.
What a big bloody mess that would be!
That's not how it would work. The Queen would appoint someone as PM, and that person would form a government. That person would then be able to arrange for an extension to Article 50.
Yes, she’d have to call someone (in practice either the leader of the opposition or the father of the house), who would form a government and immediately face a vote of no confidence - which if carried, would start the 14-day clock running to dissolution.
During that 14-day period would the new PM: a) be able to extend A50? b) set the date of the election?
Presumably the answer is yes to both. Regarding b) what's to stop the new PM saying the GE date is, say, in Feb 2020?
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
Only insofar as they have made clearer (and arguably shifted slightly) the line between the powers of the executive and Parliament. Such a decision is not a party political one - and fairly easily adjusted should a government with a reliable Parliamentary majority ever wish to do so.
Though for a future government to legislate to grant itself arbitrary powers to prorogue Parliament for extended periods of time would be a very odd, and probably highly unpopular thing to do.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
Well, Alexis Tsipras comes to mind immediately as unquestionably worse. I am sure that there are others.
I think a certain Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is way out in front on this particular challenge.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
Well, Alexis Tsipras comes to mind immediately as unquestionably worse. I am sure that there are others.
Tsipras didn't really cause anything catastrophic to happen that wasn't going to happen anyway. If he hadn't folded then he would have, but he folded.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
Only insofar as they have made clearer (and arguably shifted slightly) the line between the powers of the executive and Parliament. Such a decision is not a party political one - and fairly easily adjusted should a government with a reliable Parliamentary majority ever wish to do so.
Though for a future government to legislate to grant itself arbitrary powers to prorogue Parliament for extended periods of time would be a very odd, and probably highly unpopular thing to do.
They've turned themselves into the arbiter though. I want to know who these people are now, and I want a vote as to who will sit on the SC in the future. (Or so goes the argument). I just feel that they should have ducked out.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
It's because she is bound to act on the advice.
Really? Surely that's just customary? Is there are law?
Like much of our constitution, that isn’t yet specifically written down anywhere - though the current judgment does strongly imply as much.
What is very clear is that the monarch cannot prorogue without the advice of ministers, and what the ruling did was to declare the advice to prorogue outside of the government’s power to exercise the prerogative, and therefore null and void.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
Only insofar as they have made clearer (and arguably shifted slightly) the line between the powers of the executive and Parliament. Such a decision is not a party political one - and fairly easily adjusted should a government with a reliable Parliamentary majority ever wish to do so.
Though for a future government to legislate to grant itself arbitrary powers to prorogue Parliament for extended periods of time would be a very odd, and probably highly unpopular thing to do.
The fact that a future government could do that is a deeply troubling flaw in our unwritten constitution.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
Only insofar as they have made clearer (and arguably shifted slightly) the line between the powers of the executive and Parliament. Such a decision is not a party political one - and fairly easily adjusted should a government with a reliable Parliamentary majority ever wish to do so.
Though for a future government to legislate to grant itself arbitrary powers to prorogue Parliament for extended periods of time would be a very odd, and probably highly unpopular thing to do.
They've turned themselves into the arbiter though. I want to know who these people are now, and I want a vote as to who will sit on the SC in the future. (Or so goes the argument). I just feel that they should have ducked out.
That is not new - it has always been the role of the courts.
For those that don't think there is enough football...
UEFA confirm details of new third-tier competition alongside Champions League and Europa League. UEFA have confirmed their third club competition will be called the Europa Conference League, which will start in 2021.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
Only insofar as they have made clearer (and arguably shifted slightly) the line between the powers of the executive and Parliament. Such a decision is not a party political one - and fairly easily adjusted should a government with a reliable Parliamentary majority ever wish to do so.
Though for a future government to legislate to grant itself arbitrary powers to prorogue Parliament for extended periods of time would be a very odd, and probably highly unpopular thing to do.
The fact that a future government could do that is a deeply troubling flaw in our unwritten constitution.
Well, yes. But that is the nature of an unwritten constitution (and ours is not entirely unwritten, since it incorporates a great deal of statute law).
The alternative is entrenching a fully written constitution and making it hard to change. As the example of the US demonstrates, that isn’t without its own particular problems.
How a democracy sustains itself is an ongoing and complicated matter.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
It's because she is bound to act on the advice.
Really? Surely that's just customary? Is there are law?
Like much of our constitution, that isn’t yet specifically written down anywhere - though the current judgment does strongly imply as much.
What is very clear is that the monarch cannot prorogue without the advice of ministers, and what the ruling did was to declare the advice to prorogue outside of the government’s power to exercise the prerogative, and therefore null and void.
I don't see the logical connections there. She may not customarily prorogue parliament without the advice of her ministers, but she did receive such advice, and she chose to do so. Her choice isn't invalid if the advice was. I think she should get to decide that.
(I'm very far from a Monarchist, but whilst we have such arrangements you have to respect them, and in particular you have to respect the status that you've given to the Monarch.)
Should I join the LibDems then? It's the logical conclusion to my deliberations
We have travelled down the same road albeit at at different speeds. I left the Labour Party not too long after Corbyn took over. Becoming a registered supporter of the LDs rather than a full member might be the answer, it's what I am going to do.
I was not aware that people could register as 'Tory Little Helpers'.
Of course they can. They even get a card with 'Labour Party member' written on it.
Imagine if Jeremy Corbyn potentially had an extra-marital affair with someone who he then funnelled over one hundred thousands pounds of public money to. Do you think the BBC News channel would be ignoring it?
No. The BBC has become a mouthpiece for the Tories . And Laura K managed to spin a SC loss into an advert for Bozo the champion of the people .
She is a disgrace.
Don't be ridiculous. Laura Kuensburg is a down the line impartial reporter. It is ridiculous how everyone sees the BBC as biased just because they don't report the news to their political preferences.
Give over , she is impartial , the same way you are.
We used to call Nick Robinson on here Toenails Robinson for similar "reasons".
Goes with the turf.
The main issue with Laura is not her bias. It’s that she’s just a bit shit. Probably the most ordinary, mediocre journalist ever to get that job. Just crap.
Should I join the LibDems then? It's the logical conclusion to my deliberations
We have travelled down the same road albeit at at different speeds. I left the Labour Party not too long after Corbyn took over. Becoming a registered supporter of the LDs rather than a full member might be the answer, it's what I am going to do.
I was not aware that people could register as 'Tory Little Helpers'.
Please. The best helper for getting a Tory majority is Corbyn and his band of Stalinists.
The Tory/LibDem Coaltion - and the lack of a clear alternative to Austerity from Milliband - was the main recruiter for Corbyn. Post 2015 GE I have always blamed Harriet Harman as Acting Leader - rather than Margaret Beckett - for generating the momentum which led to his Leadership - by her decision to force the Shadow Cabinet abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals.
The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it
A mistake - apart from rescuing the country, of course.
Should I join the LibDems then? It's the logical conclusion to my deliberations
We have travelled down the same road albeit at at different speeds. I left the Labour Party not too long after Corbyn took over. Becoming a registered supporter of the LDs rather than a full member might be the answer, it's what I am going to do.
I was not aware that people could register as 'Tory Little Helpers'.
Please. The best helper for getting a Tory majority is Corbyn and his band of Stalinists.
The Tory/LibDem Coaltion - and the lack of a clear alternative to Austerity from Milliband - was the main recruiter for Corbyn. Post 2015 GE I have always blamed Harriet Harman as Acting Leader - rather than Margaret Beckett - for generating the momentum which led to his Leadership - by her decision to force the Shadow Cabinet abstain on Osborne's Welfare proposals.
The coalition was a mistake. Most LibDem activists hated it at the time and openly attacked it. But it's *the past*. The Orange Book have been wiped out. The Tories and the LibDems are now literally at opposite ends of the new political paradigm. The idea that post election Johnson and Swinson are going to jump into bed is absurd - and demonstrates the utter lack of political comprehension of the person saying it
A mistake - apart from rescuing the country, of course.
Yes, rescuing the country from Cameron calling a GE for Oct 2010 and winning an overall majority in the commons.
Comments
Then Coalition posh boys Dave and Nick decided to trash this ancient convention, solely for short term political benefit to them. And they did it in a singularly inept way, storing up terrific trouble. Hooray for Dave and Nick.
So with that in mind, him resigning is a perfectly feasible outcome.
The trouble with resigning is he loses all control, and might never get the job back.
It's such a high stakes poker game this.
I'm not sure what I'd do in his position.
It is much more likely the government resigns, he recommends Corbyn and leaves the dirty work of an extension to Labour.
It will cost them dearly at the subsequent GE.
Not sure how he'll live with himself afterwards though, being such a man pf principle and all that.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
a) be able to extend A50?
b) set the date of the election?
Presumably the answer is yes to both. Regarding b) what's to stop the new PM saying the GE date is, say, in Feb 2020?
Though for a future government to legislate to grant itself arbitrary powers to prorogue Parliament for extended periods of time would be a very odd, and probably highly unpopular thing to do.
What is very clear is that the monarch cannot prorogue without the advice of ministers, and what the ruling did was to declare the advice to prorogue outside of the government’s power to exercise the prerogative, and therefore null and void.
UEFA confirm details of new third-tier competition alongside Champions League and Europa League. UEFA have confirmed their third club competition will be called the Europa Conference League, which will start in 2021.
The alternative is entrenching a fully written constitution and making it hard to change. As the example of the US demonstrates, that isn’t without its own particular problems.
How a democracy sustains itself is an ongoing and complicated matter.
(I'm very far from a Monarchist, but whilst we have such arrangements you have to respect them, and in particular you have to respect the status that you've given to the Monarch.)
Edit: Since Pitt the Younger in 1784 anyway
It’s that she’s just a bit shit.
Probably the most ordinary, mediocre journalist ever to get that job.
Just crap.