Sounds a little like a guarded olive branch to me... "keep it about Trump and you might get some cross party support". I might be reading too much into it though.
Exactly how I read it too. He had a similar message a few days ago.
The most notable, not to say bizarre manifestation of this campaign has been the ads on the traffic information gantries on the A1 saying (words to the effect of) "Things may be changing on Nov 1st as we leave the EU, make sure you have the right paperwork."
Surprised at that because that is the sort of thing which can cause accidents. Traffic signs are not meant to be wordy. Even worse is where they take a while to read AND get you fretting about things that have nothing to do with your immediate motoring experience.
EDIT: Blood on Gove's hands if it DOES cause pile-ups.
The best gantry message is "Belt up in the back". A very useful message applicable to my teenage children.
What I thought was interesting about Lord Pentland's decision today is that the basis of it is the pleadings submitted to the court by the Advocate General on behalf of the PM. Essentially, these undertake to the court that the PM will comply with the Benn Act, that he will not seek to frustrate its intent and that he will sign the letter if the circumstances arise.
From this we can infer: (1) that Boris has absolutely no intention of stepping down as PM. If Parliament want someone else they are going to have to do it the hard way. (2) the promises that he will not sign the letter or seek an extension have been exposed as complete bluster. To that extent the petition would seem to have done its job for good or ill. (3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
What I thought was interesting about Lord Pentland's decision today is that the basis of it is the pleadings submitted to the court by the Advocate General on behalf of the PM. Essentially, these undertake to the court that the PM will comply with the Benn Act, that he will not seek to frustrate its intent and that he will sign the letter if the circumstances arise.
From this we can infer: (1) that Boris has absolutely no intention of stepping down as PM. If Parliament want someone else they are going to have to do it the hard way. (2) the promises that he will not sign the letter or seek an extension have been exposed as complete bluster. To that extent the petition would seem to have done its job for good or ill. (3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
I really don't see that this is the case. I agree it's unlikely, but if Boris is planning to break the law, I doubt he would announce his intention to the court in advance.
Is that really the case, or is it simply that the government signed contracts to spaff £100m over the advertising sector?
Everything is about GE positioning now, isn't it, on all sides, and in that context this could be money spaffed very wisely. The "Get Ready!" ads build up the anticipation - like the hyping of a blockbuster movie, "Brexit", cert PG, starring all your favourites, release date 31 Oct. Millions sorely disappointed when it's pulled and blaming - well that's the million dollar question.
PS: Given it is arguably a PPB perhaps it should not be state funded. Ditto the Queen's Speech. Not sure she ought to be forced to sit there on a throne, fully robed up and crown affixed, reading out the Conservative manifesto for the upcoming election.
She may have a diplomatic sore throat and send Prince Andrew in her place.
Andrew will be there like a shot. He's heard the Commons has a bar where you can get your hands on a 15 year old Isla.
A factor in Beaconsfield is the demographic profile with 37.96% being AB compared with 22.9% for the UK as a whole. Polling data suggests that the higher social grades are much more likely to think Brexit was wrong than those further down the social spectrum.
So the seat is more likely to more pro-Remain than in June 2016.
The most notable, not to say bizarre manifestation of this campaign has been the ads on the traffic information gantries on the A1 saying (words to the effect of) "Things may be changing on Nov 1st as we leave the EU, make sure you have the right paperwork."
Surprised at that because that is the sort of thing which can cause accidents. Traffic signs are not meant to be wordy. Even worse is where they take a while to read AND get you fretting about things that have nothing to do with your immediate motoring experience.
EDIT: Blood on Gove's hands if it DOES cause pile-ups.
These have been up on the M5 for weeks and I have encountered no difficulties in reading them while passing at [speed deleted on legal advice] mph.
The best gantry message is "Belt up in the back". A very useful message applicable to my teenage children.
Yes, nothing wrong with that. It's snappy and it improves road safety. As compared to convoluted messages on Brexit - such as the example given - which do the opposite and arguably put lives at risk.
But the more serious and worrying point is that the government seem to be blurring the line between public information and propaganda.
Thinking ahead post 31 Oct, and assuming there is an extension, what then?
Current thinking is that there will be a VONC - but given that we won`t have exited on 31 Oct what would be the point? A GNU will not be necessary as an extension is already in the bag, Therefore a VONC to obtain a GNU is unlikely.
That leaves a VONC to secure a GE.
However, only Corbyn can call a VONC and if I were he I would only trigger a VONC if I was abslutely certain that BXP will be fully active in the GE (i.e. no pact with Tories). As he can`t be certain of this, he will not call a VONC and will instead sit on his hands and let the government limp on into the forseeable future.
Does anyone argue with my logic?
What if the EU grants an extension on the basis it will allow an election to break the deadlock? No promise of an election, no extension.
Boris could hardly accuse the EU of interfering if they get him the election he says he wants so badly.
A factor in Beaconsfield is the demographic profile with 37.96% being AB compared with 22.9% for the UK as a whole. Polling data suggests that the higher social grades are much more likely to think Brexit was wrong than those further down the social spectrum.
So the seat is more likely to more pro-Remain than in June 2016.
Grieve value at 5/6 Mike? @Tissue_Price is laying EVENS
A factor in Beaconsfield is the demographic profile with 37.96% being AB compared with 22.9% for the UK as a whole. Polling data suggests that the higher social grades are much more likely to think Brexit was wrong than those further down the social spectrum.
So the seat is more likely to more pro-Remain than in June 2016.
It wasn't just London; Bucks, Oxon, Berks and Surrey were pro-EU in 2016. Glos. would probably join them if there was a confirmatory referendum -
I can see why Johnson's rich backers want us out before anyone has time to reconsider and, based on the terms offered, answer the question: 'Are you sure?'
Even my PC asks me that question before it deletes files.
A factor in Beaconsfield is the demographic profile with 37.96% being AB compared with 22.9% for the UK as a whole. Polling data suggests that the higher social grades are much more likely to think Brexit was wrong than those further down the social spectrum.
So the seat is more likely to more pro-Remain than in June 2016.
I don't follow that logic unless there is compelling evidence that ABs have swung sharply since 2016.
A factor in Beaconsfield is the demographic profile with 37.96% being AB compared with 22.9% for the UK as a whole. Polling data suggests that the higher social grades are much more likely to think Brexit was wrong than those further down the social spectrum.
So the seat is more likely to more pro-Remain than in June 2016.
Sounds a little like a guarded olive branch to me... "keep it about Trump and you might get some cross party support". I might be reading too much into it though.
Exactly how I read it too. He had a similar message a few days ago.
Is there some way he ends up as POTUS via a late run?
I win £5K if he becomes president. I'm on him at very long odds (200/1). My reason is that if Trump doesn't stand and Sanders is the Democrat candidate then Kasich is the man to appeal to middle America. I've also laid him as Republican candidate at much shorter odds (25/1). The arbitrage has unfortunately disappeared.
These have been up on the M5 for weeks and I have encountered no difficulties in reading them while passing at [speed deleted on legal advice] mph.
OK, that is good to hear. Perhaps you are better than most at multi-tasking. Or perhaps you are not the type to let Brexit worries interfere with your driving.
But as we know with these things - road accidents - it's always the other guy.
Sounds a little like a guarded olive branch to me... "keep it about Trump and you might get some cross party support". I might be reading too much into it though.
Exactly how I read it too. He had a similar message a few days ago.
Is there some way he ends up as POTUS via a late run?
I win £5K if he becomes president. I'm on him at very long odds (200/1). My reason is that if Trump doesn't stand and Sanders is the Democrat candidate then Kasich is the man to appeal to middle America. I've also laid him as Republican candidate at much shorter odds (25/1). The arbitrage has unfortunately disappeared.
Those are a brilliant couple of bets taken together.
I am relieved at the decision of the Court of Session. The Benn Act does however raise a very difficult issue. If Parliament passes a law deliberately framed to play Gotcha with an individual - here the PM-there is bound to be resistance and consideration of breaking the law.This act is designed to constrain his negotiations with the EU.Then on 20th October to jeer at him in terms that he has applied to extend despite his earlier vow. That is cheap political point scoring through statute. Those who frame a law for that purpose are playing with fire. The pressure to break the law will ramp up and many will urge the PM to refuse to sign the letter. If in some future parliament for instance a Labour PM was directed by an ideological majority to sign a document abolishing the NHS would he comply? I doubt it. Many of those now lecturing the PM on his duty to sign the letter would take a different view when the boot was on the other foot. We are in dangerous territory here.
At first I thought your example completely ridiculous, but here is how it might play out.
1. Corbyn becomes PM with a Labour minority, dependent on support from regional parties. 2. A split develops between Corbyn and some of his MPs who take fright at the rapidly expanding budget deficit. 3. These rebel MPs - who might number 21, say - work with opposition parties to pass budget resolutions that bring a minimal degree of sanity to the government budget, because they are not prepared to put the leader of the Opposition, an extreme no-deal Leaver, into Number 10. 4. Corbyn denounces these budget resolutions as "a death warrant for the NHS", a characterisation disputed by most people, and vows to increase the NHS budget in line with his original plan "come what may". 5. Legal action is taken to ensure that Corbyn complies with the law.
I have no problem with expecting the government to comply with the law in both cases.
Parliament taking back control?
Why would anyone get upset? I thought that this was the whole point...
On Trump, the move out of Northern Syria represents the isolationist approach he touted, in contrast to much of the GOP establishment in the 2016 election. He could change his mind potentially if the Kurds can get out a propaganda picture of a dead child (I'm serious !) out killed by Turkish forces. Incredible that John Bolton worked with him.
I am relieved at the decision of the Court of Session. The Benn Act does however raise a very difficult issue. If Parliament passes a law deliberately framed to play Gotcha with an individual - here the PM-there is bound to be resistance and consideration of breaking the law.This act is designed to constrain his negotiations with the EU.Then on 20th October to jeer at him in terms that he has applied to extend despite his earlier vow. That is cheap political point scoring through statute. Those who frame a law for that purpose are playing with fire. The pressure to break the law will ramp up and many will urge the PM to refuse to sign the letter. If in some future parliament for instance a Labour PM was directed by an ideological majority to sign a document abolishing the NHS would he comply? I doubt it. Many of those now lecturing the PM on his duty to sign the letter would take a different view when the boot was on the other foot. We are in dangerous territory here.
At first I thought your example completely ridiculous, but here is how it might play out.
1. Corbyn becomes PM with a Labour minority, dependent on support from regional parties. 2. A split develops between Corbyn and some of his MPs who take fright at the rapidly expanding budget deficit. 3. These rebel MPs - who might number 21, say - work with opposition parties to pass budget resolutions that bring a minimal degree of sanity to the government budget, because they are not prepared to put the leader of the Opposition, an extreme no-deal Leaver, into Number 10. 4. Corbyn denounces these budget resolutions as "a death warrant for the NHS", a characterisation disputed by most people, and vows to increase the NHS budget in line with his original plan "come what may". 5. Legal action is taken to ensure that Corbyn complies with the law.
I have no problem with expecting the government to comply with the law in both cases.
Parliament taking back control?
Why would anyone get upset? I thought that this was the whole point...
I doubt there will be any minority governments anytime soon when the FTPA is in play - no fun at all.
Confidence and supply ain’t enough - needs full coalition agreement signed in blood.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
On Trump, the move out of Northern Syria represents the isolationist approach he touted, in contrast to much of the GOP establishment in the 2016 election. He could change his mind potentially if the Kurds can get out a propaganda picture of a dead child (I'm serious !) out killed by Turkish forces. Incredible that John Bolton worked with him.
Excepting Southport, I would expect every seat in Merseyside to stay Labour, and safe Labour at the next GE.
Birkenhead?
Labour.
Field has no chance. And no chance of splitting the vote either. Remember, most people don't even know who their MP is. They see Labour and vote for that 'person'.
My mum was in Liscard two years ago (Wallasey). She ran into Angela Eagle and questioned her about Corbyn. She was the only person in the busy town centre who knew who Angela Eagle was (or, at least was prepared to talk to her).
Excepting Southport, I would expect every seat in Merseyside to stay Labour, and safe Labour at the next GE.
Birkenhead?
Labour.
Field has no chance. And no chance of splitting the vote either. Remember, most people don't even know who their MP is. They see Labour and vote for that 'person'.
My mum was in Liscard two years ago (Wallasey). She ran into Angela Eagle and questioned her about Corbyn. She was the only person in the busy town centre who knew who Angela Eagle was (or, at least was prepared to talk to her).
Dick Taverne managed to hold on in February 1974 - as did Eddie Milne.Before that , SO Davies triumphed at Mertyr Tydfil in 1970.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
The problem is appointing someone with the confidence of the house or having 14 days before an election is called .
There is no need to call anyone of it is thought that they don't have the confidence of the house.
If nobody is thought to have confidence, then nobody needs to be called.
Given prior statements of Corbyn, Swinson and others thinking nobody has confidence is not unreasonable.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
The problem is appointing someone with the confidence of the house or having 14 days before an election is called .
There is no need to call anyone of it is thought that they don't have the confidence of the house.
If nobody is thought to have confidence, then nobody needs to be called.
Given prior statements of Corbyn, Swinson and others thinking nobody has confidence is not unreasonable.
They would have to demonstrate confidence through a formal vote then they would be invited.
I am having lunch in Trump's son's winery. Just out of curiousity.
It amazes me that anyone with that moron’s blood has the intellect required to run a complex and delicate operation like a winery. Presumably he hires the brains. And hopefully actually pays them. Is the wine any good?
I am having lunch in Trump's son's winery. Just out of curiousity.
It amazes me that anyone with that moron’s blood has the intellect required to run a complex and delicate operation like a winery. Presumably he hires the brains. And hopefully actually pays them. Is the wine any good?
Trump owns Turnberry which is a fantastic golf course - very big, very long - you’re gonna love it.
I am having lunch in Trump's son's winery. Just out of curiousity.
It amazes me that anyone with that moron’s blood has the intellect required to run a complex and delicate operation like a winery. Presumably he hires the brains. And hopefully actually pays them. Is the wine any good?
Trump owns Turnberry which is a fantastic golf course - very big, very long - you’re gonna love it.
But he didn’t design it nor tends the greens.
And it's only profitable because it's being propped up by federal money, in violation of US law...
UNS implies 16 gains from Labour offset by 17 losses to LDs and circa 10 to SNP - giving the Tories circa 307 with Labour circa 236 and LDs on circa 35.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
These have been up on the M5 for weeks and I have encountered no difficulties in reading them while passing at [speed deleted on legal advice] mph.
OK, that is good to hear. Perhaps you are better than most at multi-tasking. Or perhaps you are not the type to let Brexit worries interfere with your driving.
But as we know with these things - road accidents - it's always the other guy.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
It’s in an individual who is deemed capable of forming a government
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
Corbyn forms a minority government. Tories hold off while it suits them. See 1924.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
If it goes VONC followed by a Johnson resignation, and then Corbyn is appointed and forms a government, two things must happen within two weeks of the VONC for there not to have to be a general election. The first is that someone must table a VOC in the new government. The second is that the Ayes must win it.
"Soon we’ll all be cancelled Cancel culture is not about righting wrongs or making the world more tolerant — it's an addiction to power By Meghan Murphy"
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
I think the Institute of Government speculated that a Humble Address motion could be used as a way to test the support for an alternative PM without having to give them the keys to Number Ten for a formal vote of confidence.
The most notable, not to say bizarre manifestation of this campaign has been the ads on the traffic information gantries on the A1 saying (words to the effect of) "Things may be changing on Nov 1st as we leave the EU, make sure you have the right paperwork."
Surprised at that because that is the sort of thing which can cause accidents. Traffic signs are not meant to be wordy. Even worse is where they take a while to read AND get you fretting about things that have nothing to do with your immediate motoring experience.
EDIT: Blood on Gove's hands if it DOES cause pile-ups.
The best gantry message is "Belt up in the back". A very useful message applicable to my teenage children.
Didn't they have to stop the "tiredness kills" one because it was freaking out younger kids?
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
It could be argued that if it's not clear what kind of government the Commons wants then they might consider holding some kind of new-fangled vote on whether or not they'd back this or that option hypothetically, and they could probably do it if they wanted, but that wouldn't satisfy the FTPA which requires a VOC in the government, i.e. in an actual real live existing government, if a GE after a VONC is to be avoided. The Act specifies the exact words, namely "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government." That means a real government that is in office, perhaps "caretaking", but not a hypothetical one.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
If it goes VONC followed by a Johnson resignation, and then Corbyn is appointed and forms a government, two things must happen within two weeks of the VONC for there not to have to be a general election. The first is that someone must table a VOC in the new government. The second is that the Ayes must win it.
That does depend on Johnson resigning after VONC which is an interesting twist which I haven’t seen before. So FTPA kicks in BJ resigns does the FTPA Act still apply or what ?
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
I think the Institute of Government speculated that a Humble Address motion could be used as a way to test the support for an alternative PM without having to give them the keys to Number Ten for a formal vote of confidence.
Which is perfect for the current Parliament as it can have multiple humble addresses to show us what they don't want.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
It could be argued that if it's not clear what kind of government the Commons wants then they might consider holding some kind of new-fangled vote on whether or not they'd back this or that option hypothetically, and they could probably do it if they wanted, but that wouldn't satisfy the FTPA which requires a VOC in the government, i.e. in an actual real live existing government, if a GE after a VONC is to be avoided. The Act specifies the exact words, namely "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government." That means a real government that is in office, perhaps "caretaking", but not a hypothetical one.
Indeed, Johnson's position is entirely valid and logical in that as long as no one else commands a majority in the House he can remain PM.
Today's events have shown those who still think a WA can get through the Commons are a key bloc of votes not to be discounted yet. I'm not sure if the revised WA, were it agreed by the EU, would get through the Commons but it would have a much higher chance than the previous attempts.
It's not quite the Brady Amendment but there seem enough veils to ensure the ERG, the DUP and the ex-Conservative independents feel suitably clothed.
The problem is the proposal may not be acceptable to the EU though I suspect there's plenty of frantic talking behind the scenes. As usual, the litany of there being "a lot still to do" is heard which makes you wonder what everyone has been doing for the last two and a half years but brinkmanship us the name of the EU game.
So to the start of the final Act and next weekend's summit. Boris may not bother going to be humiliated though looking tough in front of the EU is never a bad idea electorally. The problem is a rejection of the "new" proposals leaves us with the old proposals which are "dead" apparently.
The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting and we will be left 12-14 days from exit but with time for the anti-No Deal majority to act if they can. It may well be they can't and we will drift to No Deal but I suspect not.
It's also interesting to look beneath some of the polling to see if the support for Boris will hold IF No Deal becomes inevitable later in the month.
Romney has clearly unhitched himself from the Trump train now, and is the most senior Republican to yet do so. Angling for another run in 2020 if Trump is deposed or decides not to run?
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
It could be argued that if it's not clear what kind of government the Commons wants then they might consider holding some kind of new-fangled vote on whether or not they'd back this or that option hypothetically, and they could probably do it if they wanted, but that wouldn't satisfy the FTPA which requires a VOC in the government, i.e. in an actual real live existing government, if a GE after a VONC is to be avoided. The Act specifies the exact words, namely "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government." That means a real government that is in office, perhaps "caretaking", but not a hypothetical one.
In 2010 Brown went to the Palace once the Conservatives and Lib Dems had an agreement as the two parties combined clearly had a majority.
Even if Corbyn had a signed agreement from the SNP and the Lib Dems it wouldn't give him a majority and so it would not be clear in the informal way in 2010.
Hence the idea of a Humble Address motion as a pretend vote of confidence to make it clear that there is an alternative to the incumbent PM.
The assumption is that the incumbent PM would then go to the Palace and advise the Queen to call for the MP named in the Humble Address, who would then form a new government and have to hold a successful vote of confidence to stop the election under the FTPA.
This then avoids the nonsense of the Queen potentially appointing several PMs in quick succession who each lose confidence votes.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM. Then they can form a government and hence be subject to a possible VONC, in the mean time the new PM wields executive power and if NC the gets to stay in place until the GE the date of which he chooses.
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
It could be argued that if it's not clear what kind of government the Commons wants then they might consider holding some kind of new-fangled vote on whether or not they'd back this or that option hypothetically, and they could probably do it if they wanted, but that wouldn't satisfy the FTPA which requires a VOC in the government, i.e. in an actual real live existing government, if a GE after a VONC is to be avoided. The Act specifies the exact words, namely "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government." That means a real government that is in office, perhaps "caretaking", but not a hypothetical one.
In 2010 Brown went to the Palace once the Conservatives and Lib Dems had an agreement as the two parties combined clearly had a majority.
Even if Corbyn had a signed agreement from the SNP and the Lib Dems it wouldn't give him a majority and so it would not be clear in the informal way in 2010.
Hence the idea of a Humble Address motion as a pretend vote of confidence to make it clear that there is an alternative to the incumbent PM.
The assumption is that the incumbent PM would then go to the Palace and advise the Queen to call for the MP named in the Humble Address, who would then form a new government and have to hold a successful vote of confidence to stop the election under the FTPA.
This then avoids the nonsense of the Queen potentially appointing several PMs in quick succession who each lose confidence votes.
In 2010 Brown could have strung out the process a fair bit longer had he been so inclined by presenting his own Queens Speech and then forcing the Tories & LibDems to combine to vote him down.
Politico: "At a time when Republicans and Democrats are sharply divided over impeachment, President Donald Trump is uniting Congress — in condemnation of his Syria policies."
Romney has clearly unhitched himself from the Trump train now, and is the most senior Republican to yet do so. Angling for another run in 2020 if Trump is deposed or decides not to run?
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
I think the Institute of Government speculated that a Humble Address motion could be used as a way to test the support for an alternative PM without having to give them the keys to Number Ten for a formal vote of confidence.
Which is perfect for the current Parliament as it can have multiple humble addresses to show us what they don't want.
Yes, that is a plausible way for it to work out - in which case we'd have an election with Johnson as PM.
It would be better than having the Queen appoint half a dozen different PMs on the off-chance that one of them would have the confidence of the House, or for any vote to demonstrate confidence to be blocked by the incumbent squatting in Number Ten.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
The Lord Privy Seal might not be on the list. How to define "HMG" would be a fascinating issue for the SC to have to decide.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
I'm not sure if the revised WA, were it agreed by the EU, would get through the Commons but it would have a much higher chance than the previous attempts.
Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?
Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.
Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.
A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.
So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.
I don't see how there can be vote of confidence in a Government that has yet to be formed.
It could be argued that if it's not clear what kind of government the Commons wants then they might consider holding some kind of new-fangled vote on whether or not they'd back this or that option hypothetically, and they could probably do it if they wanted, but that wouldn't satisfy the FTPA which requires a VOC in the government, i.e. in an actual real live existing government, if a GE after a VONC is to be avoided. The Act specifies the exact words, namely "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government." That means a real government that is in office, perhaps "caretaking", but not a hypothetical one.
In 2010 Brown went to the Palace once the Conservatives and Lib Dems had an agreement as the two parties combined clearly had a majority.
Even if Corbyn had a signed agreement from the SNP and the Lib Dems it wouldn't give him a majority and so it would not be clear in the informal way in 2010.
Hence the idea of a Humble Address motion as a pretend vote of confidence to make it clear that there is an alternative to the incumbent PM.
The assumption is that the incumbent PM would then go to the Palace and advise the Queen to call for the MP named in the Humble Address, who would then form a new government and have to hold a successful vote of confidence to stop the election under the FTPA.
This then avoids the nonsense of the Queen potentially appointing several PMs in quick succession who each lose confidence votes.
In 2010 Brown could have strung out the process a fair bit longer had he been so inclined by presenting his own Queens Speech and then forcing the Tories & LibDems to combine to vote him down.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
The new PM takes office in advance of the affirmative VOC. If he is denied the latter, his administration is very short lived!
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
No, that's not so. If appointed by HMQ then a PM is fully the PM until they die or resign.
I am having lunch in Trump's son's winery. Just out of curiousity.
It amazes me that anyone with that moron’s blood has the intellect required to run a complex and delicate operation like a winery. Presumably he hires the brains. And hopefully actually pays them. Is the wine any good?
Trump owns Turnberry which is a fantastic golf course - very big, very long - you’re gonna love it.
But he didn’t design it nor tends the greens.
There is that. On the other hand, Chateau de Shithead ought not to be the most attractive label.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
The new PM takes office in advance of the affirmative VOC. If he is denied the latter, his administration is very short lived!
But he can’t until he has a confidence vote passed in the commons.
Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.
Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.
A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.
So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.
The vitriol that will reverberate around Beaconsfield will be wondrous for onlookers. I don't see it favouring DG, particularly in the contest of the LibDems having stood aside. I'm looking forward to it hugely. A blood sport with metaphoric blood, who could possibly object?
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
The Lord Privy Seal might not be on the list. How to define "HMG" would be a fascinating issue for the SC to have to decide.
The commons could easily vote no confidence in the putitive PM regardless of who he appointed to a future cabinet.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
No, that's not so. If appointed by HMQ then a PM is fully the PM until they die or resign.
Yes there's a few. I struggle to understand the brain chemistry that allows this.
Tory, fine. Deal or No Deal Brexit, fine. Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage, fine.
But Donald Trump as US president?
No.
No.
The position on Turkey carries the stench of realpolitik. The YPG did much of the heavy lifting defeating ISIL and have ended up controlling much of the border area between Turkey and Syria which of course doesn't work for either Erdogan or Assad.
The other thing to remember is Turkey is important and I'll be controversial and say more important than the UK. Its geographic and strategic position near Iran, Russia and the Middle East has always made it a valuable ally for the West via its membership of NATO.
In terms of supporting US policy via-a-vis Iran as well as supporting a pro-US government in Baghdad while keeping an eye on Russian intentions in the region, being on good terms with Istanbul has never been so vital.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
The new PM takes office in advance of the affirmative VOC. If he is denied the latter, his administration is very short lived!
But he can’t until he has a confidence vote passed in the commons.
I disagree there. The Government must be formed by the new PM before the affirmative VOC - though it may not last long.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
No, that's not so. If appointed by HMQ then a PM is fully the PM until they die or resign.
FTPA the queen won’t appoint anyone until a vote in the has been passed in the commons. Until then BJ remains PM unless he resigns then corbyn will be invited to form government.
I'm not sure if the revised WA, were it agreed by the EU, would get through the Commons but it would have a much higher chance than the previous attempts.
Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?
It’s the one in the glovebox of the BMW being driven by a Prosecco manufacturer on her way to Westminster.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
No, that's not so. If appointed by HMQ then a PM is fully the PM until they die or resign.
FTPA the queen won’t appoint anyone until a vote in the has been passed in the commons. Until then BJ remains PM unless he resigns then corbyn will be invited to form government.
The FTPA says nothing about the process by which the Queen might appoint another PM.
It only says that a vote of confidence is required to stop an election. You can't vote confidence in a government that doesn't exist.
Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.
Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.
A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.
So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.
Job done.
Current polling says Boris wins the election. With a mandate to No Deal, if necessary.
Clarity required by an expert please. VONC passed what happens next, in who or what is a confidence vote required to be invited to form a government and also if BJ resigned having lost a confidence vote what happens next?
Is this the same WA that the EU has shredded to bits and then someone subsequently leaked to The Grauniad?
No, the original one rejected by the Commons three times but which may look very attractive as the cliff edge of No Deal beckons.
Thanks.
BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?
Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
No, that's not so. If appointed by HMQ then a PM is fully the PM until they die or resign.
Or, theoretically, get fired.
I'm including that under "resign" as I think HMQ would "request that the PM resigns".
Yes there's a few. I struggle to understand the brain chemistry that allows this.
Tory, fine. Deal or No Deal Brexit, fine. Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage, fine.
But Donald Trump as US president?
No.
No.
The position on Turkey carries the stench of realpolitik. The YPG did much of the heavy lifting defeating ISIL and have ended up controlling much of the border area between Turkey and Syria which of course doesn't work for either Erdogan or Assad.
The other thing to remember is Turkey is important and I'll be controversial and say more important than the UK. Its geographic and strategic position near Iran, Russia and the Middle East has always made it a valuable ally for the West via its membership of NATO.
In terms of supporting US policy via-a-vis Iran as well as supporting a pro-US government in Baghdad while keeping an eye on Russian intentions in the region, being on good terms with Istanbul has never been so vital.
Who would want to rely on this Turkish Administration? What price? Welcome to the EU?
Yes there's a few. I struggle to understand the brain chemistry that allows this.
Tory, fine. Deal or No Deal Brexit, fine. Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage, fine.
But Donald Trump as US president?
No.
No.
The position on Turkey carries the stench of realpolitik. The YPG did much of the heavy lifting defeating ISIL and have ended up controlling much of the border area between Turkey and Syria which of course doesn't work for either Erdogan or Assad.
The other thing to remember is Turkey is important and I'll be controversial and say more important than the UK. Its geographic and strategic position near Iran, Russia and the Middle East has always made it a valuable ally for the West via its membership of NATO.
In terms of supporting US policy via-a-vis Iran as well as supporting a pro-US government in Baghdad while keeping an eye on Russian intentions in the region, being on good terms with Istanbul has never been so vital.
In isolation that is fair - but you have to consider other things such as the S400's, the F35 sale (or otherwise) and not forgetting the move towards fundamental islam underway.
Interesting suggestion doing the rounds on twitter.
Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.
A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.
So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
But as discussed many times before, that's not how it works
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
It’s not if vonc is passed Johnson stay in place until HOC passes a vote of confidence in someone else who then becomes PM. They do not have to form a government before the vote just have a confidence vote. If he resigns the Queen will invite corbyn to form a government and he becomes PM until such time he is no confidence
No. The FTPA wording for the motion to cancel the 14-day countdown is "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". Therefore, there has to be a government in place for the House to have confidence in, which of course would have to be different personnel than the one that the House does not have confidence in.
.)
Agree with that. I imagine a new PM would have perhaps 72 hours before submitting the Government to an affirmative VOC.
If you are not PM you can’t appoint anyone therefore it is all about showing confidence in an individual through a voc before they become PM.
But he would have already have formed a Government before the Commons voted on an affirmative VOC.
How? At best it would be a list of names none of which would hold the seals of office or been confirmed by the Queen.
No, that's not so. If appointed by HMQ then a PM is fully the PM until they die or resign.
FTPA the queen won’t appoint anyone until a vote in the has been passed in the commons. Until then BJ remains PM unless he resigns then corbyn will be invited to form government.
Don't agree with that interpretation of the FTPA. If Johnson is defeated on VNOC, soundings are likely to be conducted by the Palace via Cabinet Secretary and party leaders to establish whether someone else is likely to be able to command the confidence of the Commons. If such evidence emerges, Johnson would be expected to resign and the new PM takes office prior to an affirmative VOC taking place.
Comments
From this we can infer:
(1) that Boris has absolutely no intention of stepping down as PM. If Parliament want someone else they are going to have to do it the hard way.
(2) the promises that he will not sign the letter or seek an extension have been exposed as complete bluster. To that extent the petition would seem to have done its job for good or ill.
(3) Boris has clearly decided that keeping control as PM is more valuable to him than resigning on principle. If a VONC is passed he will stay in No. 10 unless and until a vote of confidence is passed in someone else.
So the seat is more likely to more pro-Remain than in June 2016.
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1181123429044572160
But the more serious and worrying point is that the government seem to be blurring the line between public information and propaganda.
Boris could hardly accuse the EU of interfering if they get him the election he says he wants so badly.
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/almost-half-people-gloucestershire-would-2315291
I can see why Johnson's rich backers want us out before anyone has time to reconsider and, based on the terms offered, answer the question: 'Are you sure?'
Even my PC asks me that question before it deletes files.
Beaconsfield is older than the national average, which might be relevant.
But as we know with these things - road accidents - it's always the other guy.
Why would anyone get upset? I thought that this was the whole point...
He could change his mind potentially if the Kurds can get out a propaganda picture of a dead child (I'm serious !) out killed by Turkish forces.
Incredible that John Bolton worked with him.
Confidence and supply ain’t enough - needs full coalition agreement signed in blood.
The vote of confidence in someone else can only take place once someone else has formed a government - having been asked by the Queen to form a government - the present prime minister having necessarily resigned before that.
Hence the problem if the present prime minister wants to frustrate the process.
There is no need to call anyone of it is thought that they don't have the confidence of the house.
If nobody is thought to have confidence, then nobody needs to be called.
Given prior statements of Corbyn, Swinson and others thinking nobody has confidence is not unreasonable.
But he didn’t design it nor tends the greens.
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1181259231451848704?s=21
Too busy texting.
Interesting article:
"Soon we’ll all be cancelled
Cancel culture is not about righting wrongs or making the world more tolerant — it's an addiction to power
By Meghan Murphy"
https://unherd.com/2019/10/soon-well-all-be-cancelled/
Now, I don't think there's an actual definition of what constitutes "Her Majesty's Government" and while I doubt it means that the entire payroll vote needs to have been appointed, it would seem reasonable that at least the Great Offices such as the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, i.e. PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer at least, the Lord Chancellor, Attorney- and maybe Solicitor- General, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal and I should say at least one Secretary of State would need to have been appointed. (The Secretaries of State for technically share the historic office of Secretary of State and any one can act for another in case of absence or vacancy.)
Indeed, Johnson's position is entirely valid and logical in that as long as no one else commands a majority in the House he can remain PM.
Today's events have shown those who still think a WA can get through the Commons are a key bloc of votes not to be discounted yet. I'm not sure if the revised WA, were it agreed by the EU, would get through the Commons but it would have a much higher chance than the previous attempts.
It's not quite the Brady Amendment but there seem enough veils to ensure the ERG, the DUP and the ex-Conservative independents feel suitably clothed.
The problem is the proposal may not be acceptable to the EU though I suspect there's plenty of frantic talking behind the scenes. As usual, the litany of there being "a lot still to do" is heard which makes you wonder what everyone has been doing for the last two and a half years but brinkmanship us the name of the EU game.
So to the start of the final Act and next weekend's summit. Boris may not bother going to be humiliated though looking tough in front of the EU is never a bad idea electorally. The problem is a rejection of the "new" proposals leaves us with the old proposals which are "dead" apparently.
The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting and we will be left 12-14 days from exit but with time for the anti-No Deal majority to act if they can. It may well be they can't and we will drift to No Deal but I suspect not.
It's also interesting to look beneath some of the polling to see if the support for Boris will hold IF No Deal becomes inevitable later in the month.
Even if Corbyn had a signed agreement from the SNP and the Lib Dems it wouldn't give him a majority and so it would not be clear in the informal way in 2010.
Hence the idea of a Humble Address motion as a pretend vote of confidence to make it clear that there is an alternative to the incumbent PM.
The assumption is that the incumbent PM would then go to the Palace and advise the Queen to call for the MP named in the Humble Address, who would then form a new government and have to hold a successful vote of confidence to stop the election under the FTPA.
This then avoids the nonsense of the Queen potentially appointing several PMs in quick succession who each lose confidence votes.
It would be better than having the Queen appoint half a dozen different PMs on the off-chance that one of them would have the confidence of the House, or for any vote to demonstrate confidence to be blocked by the incumbent squatting in Number Ten.
Tory, fine. Deal or No Deal Brexit, fine. Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage, fine.
But Donald Trump as US president?
No.
No.
Instead of the Opposition parties squabbling, let them ALL do it. The joint leaders (Premiers) go to the Palace and to the EU, extend Article 50 and then call the election.
A SO24 might be needed, but I'm not so sure it even is. The confidence motion is in the Government, not in a Prime Minister.
So the Premiership is: Corbyn, Swinson, Blackford, Clarke and maybe a couple of others if needed.
Job done.
On the other hand, Chateau de Shithead ought not to be the most attractive label.
Even he thought woah!
The other thing to remember is Turkey is important and I'll be controversial and say more important than the UK. Its geographic and strategic position near Iran, Russia and the Middle East has always made it a valuable ally for the West via its membership of NATO.
In terms of supporting US policy via-a-vis Iran as well as supporting a pro-US government in Baghdad while keeping an eye on Russian intentions in the region, being on good terms with Istanbul has never been so vital.
It only says that a vote of confidence is required to stop an election. You can't vote confidence in a government that doesn't exist.
So there is a gap in the Act.
Where has that got this Brains Trust Premiership?
BTW - your other point that "... The EU will presumably offer another extension which Boris will presumably reject as the ditch looks so inviting ... " - not only would that put Boris in contempt of Parliament, but if I understand this morning's Court case, it only stopped because the PM reassured the Court that he would not frustrate the Benn Act. If he does, then surely he would be in Contempt or possibly even perjury if the reassurance was a sworn statement?
Perhaps one of our many lawyers could weigh in on this?
Istanbul is marching to its own tune right now.