I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
Except we now know there will only be 8 Tory losses in Scotland not 13 with the new Panelbase today.
So still a net Tory gain of 5 seats in the North and Scotland combined and that is ignoring Tory gains from Labour in the Midlands, Wales and London current polls project
We don't know anything. We have a pre-election poll.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
Because the deal is a sham being used as nothing more than a means to get us out on 31st October. Would you trust Johnson not to do something like that? If it’s a deal worth doing it’s a deal worth scrutinising properly and extending for.
You mean he might do it on the basis that breaking his promise about the date of leaving would be more damaging than forcing No Deal - even though the deal he had negotiated would already have been agreed with the EU and approved by the Commons?
I don't think he's the brightest man in the world, but I can't believe he'd be that stupid.
But I agree it would be very dangerous to forgo the extension and put ourselves in the position of having to pass all the legislation in 12 days. It would be better if they deferred Saturday's vote until next week.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
The 5 seats the Tories are projected to win in Scotland would be 5 times the number of Tory MPs from Scotland in 2015 when the Tories still won a majority across the UK so still some encouragement for Boris there, he is clearly more popular in Scotland than Cameron was even if he is not as popular in Scotland as May was
There is no comparison between 2015 and now. Cameron had not trashed the middle class and pro-business part of the Tory base and the LibDems were on their knees.
I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
Except we now know there will only be 8 Tory losses in Scotland not 13 with the new Panelbase today.
So still a net Tory gain of 5 seats in the North and Scotland combined and that is ignoring Tory gains from Labour in the Midlands, Wales and London current polls project
We don't know anything. We have a pre-election poll.
It never seems to dawn on HYUFD that he always knows exactly what's going to happen, but it's different from day to day.
Only a matter of time now and it will be a landslide when it comes.
Looks a cert now. If I were I Scot, I would be a switcher.
Brexit is very symbolic of how the Union is broken, it has no future.
The resilience of the pro-Union vote is remarkable. But the flow is all one way. I see that Billy Connolly - who used to be utterly scathing about the nationalists - has backed independence now.
Billy Connolly has always been left of centre and he was a Remainer so not that surprising, he is very much SNP demographic, great comedian though he is.
Garbage , he was dead against independence in 2014 but has come to his senses and realised that democracy should prevail against colonialism.
The perception has changed . Whereas before Brexit it looked like the SNP were a nationalist movement now it looks like they are the internationalists leaving the petty English Nationalists behind
Yes, the credibility of Unionists is destroyed by Brexit. It is not just the issue of membership itself, but also the contempt of the Brexiteers for Scottish opinion.
So, the libdems get a third fewer votes than labour, but 5x the seats.
So the SNP get 81% of the seats with 39% of the votes.
Or the DUP gets 100% of all the Northern Ireland MPs who actually sit at Westminster on 36% of the vote
Sinn Fein is perfectly entitled to take its seats whenever it complies with Commons practice
But such practice requires they swear allegiance to the Crown; you can see their point in objecting to that, given what they stand for.
The MP's oath should be about representing the best interests of all his or her constituents, not commiting allegiance to a family that is a hangover from feudal times.
I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
Except we now know there will only be 8 Tory losses in Scotland not 13 with the new Panelbase today.
So still a net Tory gain of 5 seats in the North and Scotland combined and that is ignoring Tory gains from Labour in the Midlands, Wales and London current polls project
We don't know anything. We have a pre-election poll.
It never seems to dawn on HYUFD that he always knows exactly what's going to happen, but it's different from day to day.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
Because the deal is a sham being used as nothing more than a means to get us out on 31st October. Would you trust Johnson not to do something like that? If it’s a deal worth doing it’s a deal worth scrutinising properly and extending for.
You mean he might do it on the basis that breaking his promise about the date of leaving would be more damaging than forcing No Deal - even though the deal he had negotiated would already have been agreed with the EU and approved by the Commons?
I don't think he's the brightest man in the world, but I can't believe he'd be that stupid.
But I agree it would be very dangerous to forgo the extension and put ourselves in the position of having to pass all the legislation in 12 days. It would be better if they deferred Saturday's vote until next week.
I suspect Johnson now genuinely wants a Deal. But I do not trust him because he is someone who has spent his entire adult life lying. An extension to properly scrutinise what he has agreed seems to be a very sensible way to proceed to me. That 19th October Commons sitting is very, very suspicious given all that’s happened
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
But I'm asking why he would want to do that.
Because his judgement is that no deal is better than another extension. So it’s his deal or no deal.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
Because the deal is a sham being used as nothing more than a means to get us out on 31st October. Would you trust Johnson not to do something like that? If it’s a deal worth doing it’s a deal worth scrutinising properly and extending for.
Yes to your point on scrutiny. But Boris surely does not want No Deal because he wants to be Prime Minister. No Deal via trickery would see him ousted within days if not hours.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
But I'm asking why he would want to do that.
Because his judgement is that no deal is better than another extension. So it’s his deal or no deal.
You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about. I was asking why he would want to repudiate his own deal after it had been agreed, and choose No Deal instead.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Betfair has it as a 1% chance, I am neither a backer or layer at the price, it sounds about right. Id imagine there are quite different interpretations as to whether a 1% chance = entirely possible.
To me it does, after all Leicester won the premier league, which wasnt even a 0.1% chance. People dont have a great natural grasp of statistics and the language around it is open to different interpretation.
I suspect Johnson now genuinely wants a Deal. But I do not trust him because he is someone who has spent his entire adult life lying. An extension to properly scrutinise what he has agreed seems to be a very sensible way to proceed to me. That 19th October Commons sitting is very, very suspicious given all that’s happened
UK parliament aside, if the proposed deal is meaningfully different from the previous ones you'd think the European Parliament would also want enough time to read it and talk about what's in it before they vote for it.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Betfair has it as a 1% chance, I am neither a backer or layer at the price, it sounds about right. Id imagine there are quite different interpretations as to whether a 1% chance = entirely possible.
To me it does, after all Leicester won the premier league, which wasnt even a 0.1% chance. People dont have a great natural grasp of statistics and the language around it is open to different interpretation.
If you make a percentage perdiction for a single outcome you only risk being wrong if you opt for 0% or 100%; any other percentage can never be shown to be 'wrong'.
Only a matter of time now and it will be a landslide when it comes.
Looks a cert now. If I were I Scot, I would be a switcher.
Brexit is very symbolic of how the Union is broken, it has no future.
The resilience of the pro-Union vote is remarkable. But the flow is all one way. I see that Billy Connolly - who used to be utterly scathing about the nationalists - has backed independence now.
Billy Connolly has always been left of centre and he was a Remainer so not that surprising, he is very much SNP demographic, great comedian though he is.
But he was vocally opposed you independence. Now he supports it. That’s rather the point.
Given 50% of Scots still oppose independence even today with Panelbase and Yes got 45% in 2014 before Brexit, we can say Billy Connolly just falls within the 5% of Scottish voters who put Scotland remaining in the EU above staying in the UK on a forced choice.
Even if they would prefer Scotland to stay in the UK and EU they prefer Scottish independence if English and Welsh voters want to Leave the EU.
As I said, the direction of travel is all one way. If you do not wish to accept that, so be it.
We were told by the SNP Brexit would guarantee Scottish independence, 50% for No to independence today even excluding Don't Knows shows that is far from the case
Only a matter of time now and it will be a landslide when it comes.
Looks a cert now. If I were I Scot, I would be a switcher.
Brexit is very symbolic of how the Union is broken, it has no future.
The resilience of the pro-Union vote is remarkable. But the flow is all one way. I see that Billy Connolly - who used to be utterly scathing about the nationalists - has backed independence now.
Billy Connolly has always been left of centre and he was a Remainer so not that surprising, he is very much SNP demographic, great comedian though he is.
But he was vocally opposed you independence. Now he supports it. That’s rather the point.
Given 50% of Scots still oppose independence even today with Panelbase and Yes got 45% in 2014 before Brexit, we can say Billy Connolly just falls within the 5% of Scottish voters who put Scotland remaining in the EU above staying in the UK on a forced choice.
Even if they would prefer Scotland to stay in the UK and EU they prefer Scottish independence if English and Welsh voters want to Leave the EU.
As I said, the direction of travel is all one way. If you do not wish to accept that, so be it.
We were told by the SNP Brexit would guarantee Scottish independence, 50% for No to independence today even excluding Don't Knows shows that is far from the case
I know this is usually used in a different context but.... we haven't left yet.
As with so many things related to Brexit, all these threats and promises can only be judged on their accuracy after we have actually left.
I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
Except we now know there will only be 8 Tory losses in Scotland not 13 with the new Panelbase today.
So still a net Tory gain of 5 seats in the North and Scotland combined and that is ignoring Tory gains from Labour in the Midlands, Wales and London current polls project
Only because you miss out Remain South East seats that will go yellow from Blue.
I suspect the Tories have to find 18-20 seats just to stand still and that assumes they win all the seats of the 22 Boris has kicked out.
The latest Opinium gives the Tories 62 net gains from Labour on UNS, even the latest Comres gives the Tories 19 net gains from Labour. Opinium has the Tories losing just 10 seats to the LDs on UNS, Comres has the Tories losing 13 seats to the LDs.
According to Panelbase today the Tories will only lose 8 seats to the SNP
'I will not countenance a Scots Independence referendum in the early years of a labour government'
Hello G, these losers pontificating that they will not allow a democratic vote is very helpful. Can you imagine that this absolute loser could try to dictate what a country can do or not do. Just surprised he did not say "Scotch"
Morning Malc. I love your 'Scotch' comment.
Today's poll gives labour one seat, maybe that should be zero
I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
Except we now know there will only be 8 Tory losses in Scotland not 13 with the new Panelbase today.
So still a net Tory gain of 5 seats in the North and Scotland combined and that is ignoring Tory gains from Labour in the Midlands, Wales and London current polls project
We don't know anything. We have a pre-election poll.
It never seems to dawn on HYUFD that he always knows exactly what's going to happen, but it's different from day to day.
So true hahaha!!!!
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
Yes, it’s very different. In the VonC situation, the PM would be expected to resign once it was clear either who the successor would be - someone who did enjoy the confidence of the House - or if no successor is apparent then we would have an election with the incumbent still as PM.
I think the 1930s was the last time a government simply resigned. There has to be a continuous government, so HMQ would need to appoint *someone* within a matter of hours. Unless it was immediately clear to her advisors who that person would be, I’d expect the existing LotO to be asked (and for him to be immediately subject to a vote of confidence). It would be a right mess.
So, the libdems get a third fewer votes than labour, but 5x the seats.
So the SNP get 81% of the seats with 39% of the votes.
Or the DUP gets 100% of all the Northern Ireland MPs who actually sit at Westminster on 36% of the vote
Sinn Fein is perfectly entitled to take its seats whenever it complies with Commons practice
Given the electorate are now placing so much emphasis on MPs being consistent with their manifesto and taking their seats requires breaking long standing pledges, are they "perfectly entitled" or "technically entitled"? It seems clear that whilst they are entitled, it is an imperfect entitlement, not a perfect one.
Only a matter of time now and it will be a landslide when it comes.
Looks a cert now. If I were I Scot, I would be a switcher.
Brexit is very symbolic of how the Union is broken, it has no future.
The resilience of the pro-Union vote is remarkable. But the flow is all one way. I see that Billy Connolly - who used to be utterly scathing about the nationalists - has backed independence now.
The UK is far less attractive than it was 5 years ago. Brexit has seriously undermined our USPs like stability, pragmatism and tolerance. Why be a a member of Boris’ Brexit Bedlam Britain?
Because of the Border.
Anyone paying attention to the Ireland border issue would be reckless to impose similar problems onto Scotland. Scottish Independence is easier to envisage if both Scotland and England are within the EU.
Re the rumble that Johnson might get a deal through and then deliberately no deal by tearing it up ... if enough people pass that suspicion around it will help kill off the deal. Quite smart work by the Remainers, you'd have to say.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Betfair has it as a 1% chance, I am neither a backer or layer at the price, it sounds about right. Id imagine there are quite different interpretations as to whether a 1% chance = entirely possible.
To me it does, after all Leicester won the premier league, which wasnt even a 0.1% chance. People dont have a great natural grasp of statistics and the language around it is open to different interpretation.
If you make a percentage perdiction for a single outcome you only risk being wrong if you opt for 0% or 100%; any other percentage can never be shown to be 'wrong'.
It can be shown to be wrong, even if not proven wrong. I could show that Leicester were not 99% to win the league that year beyond reasonable doubt quite easily. I can't mathematically prove it.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
But I'm asking why he would want to do that.
Because his judgement is that no deal is better than another extension. So it’s his deal or no deal.
You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about. I was asking why he would want to repudiate his own deal after it had been agreed, and choose No Deal instead.
If, for example, Parliament tries to amend the deal to add on a referendum or a further extension.
Or if he planned all along for no deal, and he’s presenting a deal purely to get around the Benn Act.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
QED.
A Brexiteer poster who is pretty much always good value and well worth reading.
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
If you just mentally add "I can imagine that maybe" to them they work a lot better. With that one weird trick they add quite a lot of value to the site as they're often at least plausible, and come from a perspective that nobody else here is really exploring.
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
If you just mentally add "I can imagine that maybe" to them they work a lot better. With that one weird trick they add quite a lot of value to the site as they're often at least plausible, and come from a perspective that nobody else here is really exploring.
That reminds me of the children's party game of sticking a tail on the donkey. Eventually if you do it often enough one time you'll hit the spot.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
The theory is that he can be in favour of no deal, and be presenting a deal purely to overcome the Benn Act.
The Benn Act means that here has to be what we used to call a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on the deal, and if that passes then the PM isn’t required to ask for an extension.
The potential loophole is that, if the single meaningful vote passes, there then needs to be legislation to implement the agreement, which could be withdrawn by government (maybe following an amendment for a referendum) and we leave on 31st with no deal if that legislation is not passed.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Betfair has it as a 1% chance, I am neither a backer or layer at the price, it sounds about right. Id imagine there are quite different interpretations as to whether a 1% chance = entirely possible.
To me it does, after all Leicester won the premier league, which wasnt even a 0.1% chance. People dont have a great natural grasp of statistics and the language around it is open to different interpretation.
If you make a percentage perdiction for a single outcome you only risk being wrong if you opt for 0% or 100%; any other percentage can never be shown to be 'wrong'.
It can be shown to be wrong, even if not proven wrong. I could show that Leicester were not 99% to win the league that year beyond reasonable doubt quite easily. I can't mathematically prove it.
It can 'feel' wrong. It can't be 'shown' to be wrong because, as you say, it can't be proven.
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
If you just mentally add "I can imagine that maybe" to them they work a lot better. With that one weird trick they add quite a lot of value to the site as they're often at least plausible, and come from a perspective that nobody else here is really exploring.
That reminds me of the children's party game of sticking a tail on the donkey. Eventually if you do it often enough one time you'll hit the spot.
Well I was one of the only ones on here predicting Boris would be next Tory leader and PM and I was correct and despite the fact the number of Boris supporters on here can be counted on 1 hand, the Tories still lead every poll and Boris still comfortably leads Corbyn as preferred PM
That reminds me of the children's party game of sticking a tail on the donkey. Eventually if you do it often enough one time you'll hit the spot.
That's definitely true of over-confident predictions but one of the more reliable things you can get from reading comments on this site isn't so much seeing somebody hit the right spot as working out where the possible spots are that you might be able to pin the tail on.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Betfair has it as a 1% chance, I am neither a backer or layer at the price, it sounds about right. Id imagine there are quite different interpretations as to whether a 1% chance = entirely possible.
To me it does, after all Leicester won the premier league, which wasnt even a 0.1% chance. People dont have a great natural grasp of statistics and the language around it is open to different interpretation.
If you make a percentage perdiction for a single outcome you only risk being wrong if you opt for 0% or 100%; any other percentage can never be shown to be 'wrong'.
It can be shown to be wrong, even if not proven wrong. I could show that Leicester were not 99% to win the league that year beyond reasonable doubt quite easily. I can't mathematically prove it.
It can 'feel' wrong. It can't be 'shown' to be wrong because, as you say, it can't be proven.
Shown is a very different burden of proof to proven. Even proven has different meanings, I can prove it to the satisfaction of a jury, I can't prove it mathematically.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
Priti Patel on Marr. That smirk is not a good look
There's not many people whom I look at and think they are pure evil, but Patel is one of them. If someone told me there was an MP who went around in the dead of night quietly sliding knives into the necks of sleeping homeless people, she would be my first, second and third guesses.
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
If you just mentally add "I can imagine that maybe" to them they work a lot better. With that one weird trick they add quite a lot of value to the site as they're often at least plausible, and come from a perspective that nobody else here is really exploring.
That reminds me of the children's party game of sticking a tail on the donkey. Eventually if you do it often enough one time you'll hit the spot.
Well I was one of the only ones on here predicting Boris would be next Tory leader and PM and I was correct and despite the fact the number of Boris supporters on here can be counted on 1 hand, the Tories still lead every poll and Boris still comfortably leads Corbyn as preferred PM
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
So, the libdems get a third fewer votes than labour, but 5x the seats.
So the SNP get 81% of the seats with 39% of the votes.
Or the DUP gets 100% of all the Northern Ireland MPs who actually sit at Westminster on 36% of the vote
Sinn Fein is perfectly entitled to take its seats whenever it complies with Commons practice
But such practice requires they swear allegiance to the Crown; you can see their point in objecting to that, given what they stand for.
The MP's oath should be about representing the best interests of all his or her constituents, not commiting allegiance to a family that is a hangover from feudal times.
The Oath is irrelevant to Sinn Fein. They don't accept that the Commons should have jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, so they won't sit in it.
I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
There are 36 Labour held seats which voted Leave where the Conservatives are within 10% of Labour. Some where Labour is more than 10% ahead also have an outside chance of turning blue. That's quite a lot of potential gains to set against 8 projected losses to the SNP and maybe 20 or so to the Libs.
A "net wash" is a realistic outcome. However, even if Johnson makes zero net gains, and ends up matching May's tally of 317 MPs as opposed to the 288 with the Conservative whip today, his position would be vastly stronger than it is now, with all those willing to defy him on Brexit having already been flushed out.
Priti Patel on Marr. That smirk is not a good look
There's not many people whom I look at and think they are pure evil, but Patel is one of them. If someone told me there was an MP who went around in the dead of night quietly sliding knives into the necks of sleeping homeless people, she would be my first, second and third guesses.
To be fair, she's my MP, and I had a problem over Dartford Crossing payments. She was very helpful.
It seems as if MPs will be asked to vote on a Johnson Deal without actually being able to scrutinise it. If they approve it, the Benn Act becomes redundant. At which point Johnson can repudiate the Deal and take the UK out with no deal on 31st October.
Why would he want to do that, if the deal passes?
Because the deal is a sham being used as nothing more than a means to get us out on 31st October. Would you trust Johnson not to do something like that? If it’s a deal worth doing it’s a deal worth scrutinising properly and extending for.
You mean he might do it on the basis that breaking his promise about the date of leaving would be more damaging than forcing No Deal - even though the deal he had negotiated would already have been agreed with the EU and approved by the Commons?
I don't think he's the brightest man in the world, but I can't believe he'd be that stupid.
But I agree it would be very dangerous to forgo the extension and put ourselves in the position of having to pass all the legislation in 12 days. It would be better if they deferred Saturday's vote until next week.
I suspect Johnson now genuinely wants a Deal. But I do not trust him because he is someone who has spent his entire adult life lying. An extension to properly scrutinise what he has agreed seems to be a very sensible way to proceed to me. That 19th October Commons sitting is very, very suspicious given all that’s happened
Isn't the 19th October sitting essentially a requirement of the dates in the Benn Act and those of the EU Summit?
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
He would say, entirely truthfully, that he doesn’t believe that anyone has the confidence of the House.
Priti Patel on Marr. That smirk is not a good look
There's not many people whom I look at and think they are pure evil, but Patel is one of them. If someone told me there was an MP who went around in the dead of night quietly sliding knives into the necks of sleeping homeless people, she would be my first, second and third guesses.
To be fair, she's my MP, and I had a problem over Dartford Crossing payments. She was very helpful.
To be fair, I don't know much about her. I'm realise my gut instinct is probably wrong, but I do have that gut instinct. I honestly would move heaven and earth to avoid being alone with her.
An extension to properly scrutinise what he has agreed seems to be a very sensible way to proceed to me. That 19th October Commons sitting is very, very suspicious given all that’s happened
Except it wouldn't be used for sober scrutiny of the deal.
It would be used for partisan attempts to humiliate the PM because he extended followed by using the remaining time to continue finding ways to overturn the result.
I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
Except we now know there will only be 8 Tory losses in Scotland not 13 with the new Panelbase today.
So still a net Tory gain of 5 seats in the North and Scotland combined and that is ignoring Tory gains from Labour in the Midlands, Wales and London current polls project
We don't know anything. We have a pre-election poll.
It never seems to dawn on HYUFD that he always knows exactly what's going to happen, but it's different from day to day.
So true hahaha!!!!
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
It's just his style. If he prefaced all his remarks with "I currently believe that.." it would be more honest but a bit boring.
I find HYUFD's posts useful as an insight into current Tory member thinking, which is relevant from a betting point of view. Remember his certainty on Boris getting the Tory leadership. I bet and won on Boris on that basis. Thank you HYUFD.
Priti Patel on Marr. That smirk is not a good look
There's not many people whom I look at and think they are pure evil, but Patel is one of them. If someone told me there was an MP who went around in the dead of night quietly sliding knives into the necks of sleeping homeless people, she would be my first, second and third guesses.
To be fair, she's my MP, and I had a problem over Dartford Crossing payments. She was very helpful.
To be fair, I don't know much about her. I'm realise my gut instinct is probably wrong, but I do have that gut instinct. I honestly would move heaven and earth to avoid being alone with her.
Face to face she can be quite pleasant, if only to look at. I've met her several times and I suspect that because I'm polite she thinks I'm a supporter. However, the last time we met she said something about 'Would you like Corbyn as Prime Minister?" and I said, slowly, something like 'Well.....' She looked horrified.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen in the next fortnight. If I did I’d be betting heavily!
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
He would say, entirely truthfully, that he doesn’t believe that anyone has the confidence of the House.
She would then send him away with a flea in his ear for proposing to leave the country without a government at a point of crisis.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Betfair has it as a 1% chance, I am neither a backer or layer at the price, it sounds about right. Id imagine there are quite different interpretations as to whether a 1% chance = entirely possible.
To me it does, after all Leicester won the premier league, which wasnt even a 0.1% chance. People dont have a great natural grasp of statistics and the language around it is open to different interpretation.
1% seems very very optimistic, think there is more chance of me being Pope as her being PM.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Deluded halfwit. Swinson I mean not you.
And there's no greater expert on "Deluded halfwits" than yourself.
Mike, last time you said that you had to eat humble pie as I was correct yet again. She is a duffer and is an extreme right wing Tory to boot , she will do nothing for Lib Dems.
Priti Patel on Marr. That smirk is not a good look
There's not many people whom I look at and think they are pure evil, but Patel is one of them. If someone told me there was an MP who went around in the dead of night quietly sliding knives into the necks of sleeping homeless people, she would be my first, second and third guesses.
To be fair, she's my MP, and I had a problem over Dartford Crossing payments. She was very helpful.
To be fair, I don't know much about her. I'm realise my gut instinct is probably wrong, but I do have that gut instinct. I honestly would move heaven and earth to avoid being alone with her.
Face to face she can be quite pleasant, if only to look at. I've met her several times and I suspect that because I'm polite she thinks I'm a supporter. However, the last time we met she said something about 'Would you like Corbyn as Prime Minister?" and I said, slowly, something like 'Well.....' She looked horrified.
Haha, if that had been me I'd have said "better him than you". Well, I wouldn't really because I'd probably be trying to climb a tree to get away from her, but I'd have been tempted. And I would have meant it sincerely. Anyone but Patel.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
He would say, entirely truthfully, that he doesn’t believe that anyone has the confidence of the House.
She would then send him away with a flea in his ear for proposing to leave the country without a government at a point of crisis.
He will have been left with no choice, he’s clearly lost control of Parliament, and is resigning because they are passing legislation over his head compelling him to do things with which he fundamentally disagrees.
He can’t be held in position against his will, as much as the Opposition are trying to make sure it’s his name on that letter for their own partisan advantage.
Priti Patel on Marr. That smirk is not a good look
There's not many people whom I look at and think they are pure evil, but Patel is one of them. If someone told me there was an MP who went around in the dead of night quietly sliding knives into the necks of sleeping homeless people, she would be my first, second and third guesses.
To be fair, she's my MP, and I had a problem over Dartford Crossing payments. She was very helpful.
To be fair, I don't know much about her. I'm realise my gut instinct is probably wrong, but I do have that gut instinct. I honestly would move heaven and earth to avoid being alone with her.
Face to face she can be quite pleasant, if only to look at. I've met her several times and I suspect that because I'm polite she thinks I'm a supporter. However, the last time we met she said something about 'Would you like Corbyn as Prime Minister?" and I said, slowly, something like 'Well.....' She looked horrified.
Haha, if that had been me I'd have said "better him than you". Well, I wouldn't really because I'd probably be trying to climb a tree to get away from her, but I'd have been tempted. And I would have meant it sincerely. Anyone but Patel.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
If he couldn't in good faith nominate anybody who would have the confidence of the house then he won't.
The opposition are putting an incredible amount of effort in to avoiding the two paths that are democratically legitimate in the eyes of voters...
Voting for a deal
Voting for a GE
They are, and already have, done tremendous damage to the reputation of the political class and yet are still intent on playing games to avoid either implementing the wish of over 17 million voters or facing them at the ballot box.
They can run for a little while longer but the day of reckoning is coming.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
He would say, entirely truthfully, that he doesn’t believe that anyone has the confidence of the House.
She would then send him away with a flea in his ear for proposing to leave the country without a government at a point of crisis.
He will have been left with no choice, he’s clearly lost control of Parliament, and is resigning because they are passing legislation over his head compelling him to do things with which he fundamentally disagrees.
He can’t be held in position against his will, as much as the Opposition are trying to make sure it’s his name on that letter for their own partisan advantage.
I think you’ll find HM determines what happens if Boris tries to use resignation for tactical political purposes. Once bitten.
So, the libdems get a third fewer votes than labour, but 5x the seats.
So the SNP get 81% of the seats with 39% of the votes.
Or the DUP gets 100% of all the Northern Ireland MPs who actually sit at Westminster on 36% of the vote
Sinn Fein is perfectly entitled to take its seats whenever it complies with Commons practice
But such practice requires they swear allegiance to the Crown; you can see their point in objecting to that, given what they stand for.
The MP's oath should be about representing the best interests of all his or her constituents, not commiting allegiance to a family that is a hangover from feudal times.
The Oath is irrelevant to Sinn Fein. They don't accept that the Commons should have jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, so they won't sit in it.
Is that right? I always thought it was the oath thing they objected to regarding Parliament.
'I will not countenance a Scots Independence referendum in the early years of a labour government'
Hello G, these losers pontificating that they will not allow a democratic vote is very helpful. Can you imagine that this absolute loser could try to dictate what a country can do or not do. Just surprised he did not say "Scotch"
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Deluded halfwit. Swinson I mean not you.
And there's no greater expert on "Deluded halfwits" than yourself.
*you, not yourself.
Long live the Grammar police!
I wouldn't correct just any old chump, it's only because he's a contributor. The quality of the writing on this site is pretty patchy and I don't think there's anything wrong with having high standards in writing a piece. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place for that.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
Now you are just making it up.
There always has to be a PM - Boris is that person until someone else is nominated.
Were the PM to die it's not usually a problem as there is little that a PM has to immediately do but in the current circumstances where we are discussing Boris resigning that that isn't the case.
So now MPs are going to be pressured by the right wing media to vote for a deal before scrutinizing it just so Bozo can deliver his stupid pledge .
If a technical extension is needed so be it . Instead we get more divisive nonsense peddled by the MOS.
Parliament should scrutinise things properly. I do worry that Benn and co have been a bit too clever pushing through legislation in a day rather than parliament have the guts to remove Johnson. Granted its brief legislation, and it has happened on rare occasion in the past, but if Boris has the numbers on something he might argue the urgency to push through something more complex without scrutiny.
Priti Patel on Marr. That smirk is not a good look
There's not many people whom I look at and think they are pure evil, but Patel is one of them. If someone told me there was an MP who went around in the dead of night quietly sliding knives into the necks of sleeping homeless people, she would be my first, second and third guesses.
To be fair, she's my MP, and I had a problem over Dartford Crossing payments. She was very helpful.
To be fair, I don't know much about her. I'm realise my gut instinct is probably wrong, but I do have that gut instinct. I honestly would move heaven and earth to avoid being alone with her.
Face to face she can be quite pleasant, if only to look at. I've met her several times and I suspect that because I'm polite she thinks I'm a supporter. However, the last time we met she said something about 'Would you like Corbyn as Prime Minister?" and I said, slowly, something like 'Well.....' She looked horrified.
Haha, if that had been me I'd have said "better him than you". Well, I wouldn't really because I'd probably be trying to climb a tree to get away from her, but I'd have been tempted. And I would have meant it sincerely. Anyone but Patel.
Francois? Bone?
Terrible choices, but I mean it. Literally anyone but Patel. It's wholly irrational, but she creeps me out more than anyone else. She's in Jimmy Savile territory of creepiness.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
No. As others have pointed out in the past on here, there have been previous occasions of up to 11 days where there was no PM. The idea that 'there is always a PM' in the same way as 'there is always a Monarch' is a myth.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
He would say, entirely truthfully, that he doesn’t believe that anyone has the confidence of the House.
She would then send him away with a flea in his ear for proposing to leave the country without a government at a point of crisis.
He will have been left with no choice, he’s clearly lost control of Parliament, and is resigning because they are passing legislation over his head compelling him to do things with which he fundamentally disagrees.
He can’t be held in position against his will, as much as the Opposition are trying to make sure it’s his name on that letter for their own partisan advantage.
I think you’ll find HM determines what happens if Boris tries to use resignation for tactical political purposes. Once bitten.
The *whole point* of the position of Prime Minister, is that he or she is the head of government by virtue of having the confidence of the House of Commons.
If he no longer has that confidence, then he has little choice but to resign.
So, the libdems get a third fewer votes than labour, but 5x the seats.
So the SNP get 81% of the seats with 39% of the votes.
Or the DUP gets 100% of all the Northern Ireland MPs who actually sit at Westminster on 36% of the vote
Sinn Fein is perfectly entitled to take its seats whenever it complies with Commons practice
But such practice requires they swear allegiance to the Crown; you can see their point in objecting to that, given what they stand for.
The MP's oath should be about representing the best interests of all his or her constituents, not commiting allegiance to a family that is a hangover from feudal times.
The Oath is irrelevant to Sinn Fein. They don't accept that the Commons should have jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, so they won't sit in it.
Is that right? I always thought it was the oath thing they objected to regarding Parliament.
One of the current Sinn Fein MPs wrote an article setting out their abstentionist policy. It doesn't mention the Oath at all, or indeed the Royal Family.
There always has to be a PM - Boris is that person until someone else is nominated.
Were the PM to die it's not usually a problem as there is little that a PM has to immediately do but in the current circumstances where we are discussing Boris resigning that that isn't the case.
Your second sentence directly contradicts your first.
If the government resigns and the outgoing PM cannot in good faith recommend a replacement who would command confidence then there would have to be a GE in the event that an alternative couldn't find the votes in parliament.
Nowhere have I read that a PM who has resigned would be forced against their will to remain in post. Or rather I haven't read how an unwilling individual could be forced to stay as PM.
It just wouldn't happen regardless of how much the opposition would scream.
Only a matter of time now and it will be a landslide when it comes.
Probably, but you were mocking and laughing at the idea the tories would win anywhere near the Westminster seats they did and were just plain wrong despite your certainty. I think you're right on this, but if things get a bit more stable, and that's a big if, who knows.
What is certain is very high SNP and Indy support for the foreseeable future.
No Deal in 2019 now 7.6 on BFx, starting to look value again imo.
Incidentally the BFX minimal deal is the one to pick surely?
.
But the prime minister suddenly resigning is very different from a vote of no confidence, isn't it? The Queen's government must be carried on, so there has to be a new prime minister.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
The mechanism is to refuse resignation until a successor is nominated.
That doesn’t work if he resigns on a point of principle though, to avoid being in contempt of court.
So he had better nominate someone. He wouldn’t put his personal feelings above HM and put her in a difficult spot (again) now would he?
He would say, entirely truthfully, that he doesn’t believe that anyone has the confidence of the House.
She would then send him away with a flea in his ear for proposing to leave the country without a government at a point of crisis.
He will have been left with no choice, he’s clearly lost control of Parliament, and is resigning because they are passing legislation over his head compelling him to do things with which he fundamentally disagrees.
He can’t be held in position against his will, as much as the Opposition are trying to make sure it’s his name on that letter for their own partisan advantage.
I think you’ll find HM determines what happens if Boris tries to use resignation for tactical political purposes. Once bitten.
The *whole point* of the position of Prime Minister, is that he or she is the head of government by virtue of having the confidence of the House of Commons.
If he no longer has that confidence, then he has little choice but to resign.
The current PM hasnt had the confidence of the house for several weeks, it just hasnt been expressed, yet he has not resigned. An honourable PM would have done so.
Jo Swinson thinks it is entirely possible that the Lib Dems could be a majority government with 'me' as Prime Minister
Deluded halfwit. Swinson I mean not you.
And there's no greater expert on "Deluded halfwits" than yourself.
*you, not yourself.
Long live the Grammar police!
I wouldn't correct just any old chump, it's only because he's a contributor. The quality of the writing on this site is pretty patchy and I don't think there's anything wrong with having high standards in writing a piece. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place for that.
Agree about the need for grammatically correct contributions; not convinced yet in this case. Although I have, of course, looked at the quoted site. I suspect there's still a difference between acceptable grammar in different forms of English. Especially in the spoken language.
I keep coming back to that bloke on Week in Westminster. He put it thus: there are 26 so called Northern Labour leave seats of which 13 have no chance of turning blue. Which leaves 13 possible Cons gains on the whole brexit more important than party loyalty thing. This is balanced by the 13 possible Cons losses in Scotland.
So net net a wash and Cons need to look elsewhere for their OM.
Except we now know there will only be 8 Tory losses in Scotland not 13 with the new Panelbase today.
So still a net Tory gain of 5 seats in the North and Scotland combined and that is ignoring Tory gains from Labour in the Midlands, Wales and London current polls project
We don't know anything. We have a pre-election poll.
It never seems to dawn on HYUFD that he always knows exactly what's going to happen, but it's different from day to day.
So true hahaha!!!!
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
It's just his style. If he prefaced all his remarks with "I currently believe that.." it would be more honest but a bit boring.
I find HYUFD's posts useful as an insight into current Tory member thinking, which is relevant from a betting point of view. Remember his certainty on Boris getting the Tory leadership. I bet and won on Boris on that basis. Thank you HYUFD.
Thank you, it is clear where I stand and I nail my colours to the mast so you can take me or leave me as you wish
He would say, entirely truthfully, that he doesn’t believe that anyone has the confidence of the House.
I would fully expect under those circumstances that the Queen would ask the Leader of the Opposition to become PM even if not recommended and even if they have not displayed they can command the support of the House.
Their first act, legally, would have to be to apply for an extension. Their next act, I believe, would have to be to have a Queen's Speech.
I think these two actions are dictated by law and cannot be ignored - someone hopefully will correct me on this if I am wrong.
At some point there will then be a VONC.
The minimum time for a GE is 25 working days. In that time Corbyn would remain PM. I am not sure on what he could or could not do during that time.
I don't really see this playing out any other way if Boris resigns unless Corbyn refuses to become PM in which case I presume the option would pass to the next pargets party leader. Prime Minister Blackford anyone?
Comments
I don't think he's the brightest man in the world, but I can't believe he'd be that stupid.
But I agree it would be very dangerous to forgo the extension and put ourselves in the position of having to pass all the legislation in 12 days. It would be better if they deferred Saturday's vote until next week.
I think the PM wants to get a deal passed followed by an election (that would likely give him a majority).
I think that almost every MP who’s not currently in a major party wants to avoid an election (as they’re likely to lose their seats).
I think that most of the Opposition can’t see past the tactical aim of getting PM Johnson to sign the extension letter (because he’s promised not to).
I still think that the government resigns if finally ordered by a court to send the letter, which will trigger a major constitutional crisis as *someone* would need to be quickly appointed as PM, and I’m not sure any named individual has the confidence of the House.
To summarise, industrial quantities of popcorn!
The past is indeed another country!
The MP's oath should be about representing the best interests of all his or her constituents, not commiting allegiance to a family that is a hangover from feudal times.
To me it does, after all Leicester won the premier league, which wasnt even a 0.1% chance. People dont have a great natural grasp of statistics and the language around it is open to different interpretation.
https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/1183261426548432896?s=21
As with so many things related to Brexit, all these threats and promises can only be judged on their accuracy after we have actually left.
According to Panelbase today the Tories will only lose 8 seats to the SNP
I usually skip straight past HYUFD's strident cheerleading but I couldn't help but notice the other day the adamant post that Hungary would veto the extension request and we'd Brexit on 31/10 with No Deal as a result.
Now I see we are told in no uncertain terms that the Tories 'WILL only lose 8 seats in Scotland.'
I don't mind determined Brexiteer posters - Richard Tyndall is always good value, but HYUFD's posts are ... well, there's no need for me to be horrible.
I think the 1930s was the last time a government simply resigned. There has to be a continuous government, so HMQ would need to appoint *someone* within a matter of hours. Unless it was immediately clear to her advisors who that person would be, I’d expect the existing LotO to be asked (and for him to be immediately subject to a vote of confidence). It would be a right mess.
Anyone paying attention to the Ireland border issue would be reckless to impose similar problems onto Scotland. Scottish Independence is easier to envisage if both Scotland and England are within the EU.
That said I think you are correct in practice to the extent that if Boris resigned the Queen would have to move fairly quickly to appoint someone in his place. The problem is that there is no clear mechanism for how that is done.
Or if he planned all along for no deal, and he’s presenting a deal purely to get around the Benn Act.
A Brexiteer poster who is pretty much always good value and well worth reading.
Apologies for appearing horribly patronising
A "net wash" is a realistic outcome. However, even if Johnson makes zero net gains, and ends up matching May's tally of 317 MPs as opposed to the 288 with the Conservative whip today, his position would be vastly stronger than it is now, with all those willing to defy him on Brexit having already been flushed out.
As an aside I have been saying for weeks that the nuclear option is the government resigning.
I have yet to read a convincing argument that this isn't the best move for Boris should the opposition refuse to back the deal offered.
Firstly they don’t. Lady Herman sits too.
And secondly, Sinn Fein could turn up. That they choose not to, isn’t the DUPs fault.
It would be used for partisan attempts to humiliate the PM because he extended followed by using the remaining time to continue finding ways to overturn the result.
Rinse and repeat.
I find HYUFD's posts useful as an insight into current Tory member thinking, which is relevant from a betting point of view. Remember his certainty on Boris getting the Tory leadership. I bet and won on Boris on that basis. Thank you HYUFD.
She looked horrified.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/10/japan-post-race-analysis-2019.html
Bit sleepy, so it may be riddled with errors as well as spoilers.
He can’t be held in position against his will, as much as the Opposition are trying to make sure it’s his name on that letter for their own partisan advantage.
The opposition are putting an incredible amount of effort in to avoiding the two paths that are democratically legitimate in the eyes of voters...
Voting for a deal
Voting for a GE
They are, and already have, done tremendous damage to the reputation of the political class and yet are still intent on playing games to avoid either implementing the wish of over 17 million voters or facing them at the ballot box.
They can run for a little while longer but the day of reckoning is coming.
http://grammartips.homestead.com/self.html
What alternative options are you suggesting HMQ has that she would plausibly use?
Were the PM to die it's not usually a problem as there is little that a PM has to immediately do but in the current circumstances where we are discussing Boris resigning that that isn't the case.
How that could work under the FTPA though I'm not sure.
Have a good morning.
If he no longer has that confidence, then he has little choice but to resign.
If the government resigns and the outgoing PM cannot in good faith recommend a replacement who would command confidence then there would have to be a GE in the event that an alternative couldn't find the votes in parliament.
Nowhere have I read that a PM who has resigned would be forced against their will to remain in post. Or rather I haven't read how an unwilling individual could be forced to stay as PM.
It just wouldn't happen regardless of how much the opposition would scream.
What is certain is very high SNP and Indy support for the foreseeable future.
I suspect there's still a difference between acceptable grammar in different forms of English. Especially in the spoken language.
Their first act, legally, would have to be to apply for an extension.
Their next act, I believe, would have to be to have a Queen's Speech.
I think these two actions are dictated by law and cannot be ignored - someone hopefully will correct me on this if I am wrong.
At some point there will then be a VONC.
The minimum time for a GE is 25 working days. In that time Corbyn would remain PM. I am not sure on what he could or could not do during that time.
I don't really see this playing out any other way if Boris resigns unless Corbyn refuses to become PM in which case I presume the option would pass to the next pargets party leader. Prime Minister Blackford anyone?