Then I wish SLD well as the Union needs them. But the LD vote looks very clustered there, even more than England, so we need massive swings in seats for a third time (following those places which went LD - SNP - Tory)
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
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.
LOL, so now it’s the PM’s fault that the Opposition won’t table a vote of confidence against the government..?
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.
Its symbolic and they could cross their fingers or make clear they only say it to meet an obligation as several mps already do.
The SF stance is perfectly acceptable but the apologist whinging about the oath preventing from others is tiresome because SF could easily overcome that as described above whilst retaining their principles. They choose to make their stand, change the oath and I'd bet theyd still not sit as the stand is much more effective and clear that way.
Bottom line it's not really about the oath, imo. It's about not sitting and oath changing takes away a pretext but doesnt really change that not sitting is a powerful and effective message and why would they abandon that?
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...
Don’t you find that a bit fiddly when you change them ?
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
But at those times the PM didn't need to do anything immediately. So this time things are different - do you really think Boris wants Prince Charles carrying a letter to the EU..
Jo Swinson and Ruth Davidson are very different politicans. However both are young, female, centrist and ' Unionist '. Both campaigned for Remain. One left the leadership of their party just as another assumed it. Looking at the Panelbase it will be very interesting to see going forward if Jo can inherit Ruth's niche supporters.
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.
It always seems to be women that the left pick up on as their most vilified hate figures.
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?
Yes, that’s how I think it has to play out. If Boris resigns then Corbyn gets first shout, unless Corbyn decides to nominate someone else such as a grandee with the confidence of the House.
But at those times the PM didn't need to do anything immediately. So this time things are different - do you really think Boris wants Prince Charles carrying a letter to the EU..
I would be interested to hear why you think HMQ would choose to send Prince Charles to deliver the extension letter when she could make Corbyn do it?
Only a matter of time now and it will be a landslide when it comes.
+1
People forget the last 24 hours before the 2015 GE when Clegg took a bus from one end of the country to the other pronouncing how the LDs were on the verge of a breakthrough. That went well.....
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.
Good article, sets out the view very clearly. Not sure what I think of it, but it's clear that Sinn Fein are unlikely to change that policy any time soon
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.
pffff… Look what happened to the Tories in Canada...
Leading half the current polls?
In the 90s when they went down to around 4 seats from 176.. Remember that well as I was a trader at Scotia bank..very weird .
Yes that was a disaster for the Canadian Tories then but the new Canadian Tories are a combination of the old Tories ie the Progressive Conservatives who were routed in 1993 under Kim Campbell and the former populist right Reform Party who overtook the old Tories to form the main opposition to the Liberals across Canada from 1993 until 2003.
The Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, which emerged from the Reform Party, merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada in 2003 which returned to power under Stephen Harper in 2006 and is the party Andrew Scheer now leads.
It was rather like if the Tories had stuck with May post extension, been routed at the next general election and overtaken by the Brexit Party and the Tories then merged with the Brexit Party 10 years later to form a new more right of centre party
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?
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
But at those times the PM didn't need to do anything immediately. So this time things are different - do you really think Boris wants Prince Charles carrying a letter to the EU..
I think the problem is that like so many of us on here you are confusing what you would like to have happen with what legally or constitutionally has to happen.
I do not believe for a second that the Queen would refuse to allow Boris to resign. She would then have to choose a successor. If he recommends someone (and he could be cheeky and recommend Corbyn knowing how difficult a position it would put him in) then she would almost certainly accept that. If not then I would assume (but don't know) that her Privy Council would recommend she ask Corbyn to form a Government. Things then proceed as I set out below.
What the GE outcome of all of that would be I have no idea.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
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
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.
I remember when support for independence was sub-20% and support for the SNP was sub-15%. It’s really not that long ago.
The ground has shifted, and is still shifting. I know how Unionists could save the situation, but I am confident they won’t. Because:
- they lack the mental strength necessary to change their behaviour - the necessary courses of action are not easy, in fact they would take immense energy and effort - too many formerly Unionist people, throughout the Union, have become disillusioned and some would even welcome dissolution now - although I know what they need to do, they don’t; and I’m not about to tell them.
Was the fieldwork done before we went into 'deal likely' mode? I suspect so. When we're out with a deal, the Tories will make those points back, and possibly a few more besides.
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
But at those times the PM didn't need to do anything immediately. So this time things are different - do you really think Boris wants Prince Charles carrying a letter to the EU..
I think the problem is that like so many of us on here you are confusing what you would like to have happen with what legally or constitutionally has to happen.
I do not believe for a second that the Queen would refuse to allow Boris to resign. She would then have to choose a successor. If he recommends someone (and he could be cheeky and recommend Corbyn knowing how difficult a position it would put him in) then she would almost certainly accept that. If not then I would assume (but don't know) that her Privy Council would recommend she ask Corbyn to form a Government. Things then proceed as I set out below.
What the GE outcome of all of that would be I have no idea.
Legally if you resign your job when can you begin to work at your new company?
For most people notice has to be served while the company tries to find a replacement.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
Quite. Their objection is to the whole concept of a “British” Parliament that rules over “Ireland”, it’s not something over which they’re ever going to change their minds.
Was the fieldwork done before we went into 'deal likely' mode? I suspect so. When we're out with a deal, the Tories will make those points back, and possibly a few more besides.
The triumph of hope over expectation. There’s something tragic about watching a losing team lose.
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.
It always seems to be women that the left pick up on as their most vilified hate figures.
Can you really claim that with a straight face given the panoply of choice in the current Tory party, most of whose reviled figures are male ?
In any event, there is no affirmative action in this case - Patel has earned the accolade entirely on merit.
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
But at those times the PM didn't need to do anything immediately. So this time things are different - do you really think Boris wants Prince Charles carrying a letter to the EU..
I think the problem is that like so many of us on here you are confusing what you would like to have happen with what legally or constitutionally has to happen.
I do not believe for a second that the Queen would refuse to allow Boris to resign. She would then have to choose a successor. If he recommends someone (and he could be cheeky and recommend Corbyn knowing how difficult a position it would put him in) then she would almost certainly accept that. If not then I would assume (but don't know) that her Privy Council would recommend she ask Corbyn to form a Government. Things then proceed as I set out below.
What the GE outcome of all of that would be I have no idea.
Legally if you resign your job when can you begin to work at your new company?
For most people notice has to be served while the company tries to find a replacement.
That doesn't wash in this case as we know that PMs and politicians can resign with immediate effect. And have done often in the past.
As I say I think you are trying to claim a legal constraint to fit your own wishes.
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
Leave you? You voted REMAIN in 2016!
I thought you voted Leave? You were certainly a cheerleader for them for long enough.
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.
It always seems to be women that the left pick up on as their most vilified hate figures.
First, I'm not left wing. Second, the phenomenon you describe is real but transcends political boundaries. The hatred of Dianne Abbott from the far right is driven both by her gender and her ethnicity. Third, it's heartening to see you adopting feminist principles, but it should be noted that most of the time I criticise politicians on here, the unifying aspect is their toxic right-wing nationalism. Hence Boris, Mogg, Farage, Modi, Trump, and, yes, Patel. Women can be equally as loathsome as men, as Patel proves. Fourth, as a floating voter, I made a pledge a number of years ago to choose the women when I'm swithering between candidates. That kicked in this May when I couldn't make up my mind who to vote for in the European election. Fifth, perhaps more of a coincidence than anything else, but the last time I voted for a man was in the 2010 general election. Every single local and general election since then, I've voted for women.
Just so you know. I do not wish to discourage you from spotting and calling out possible misogyny, but your radar is a little off today.
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
But at those times the PM didn't need to do anything immediately. So this time things are different - do you really think Boris wants Prince Charles carrying a letter to the EU..
I think the problem is that like so many of us on here you are confusing what you would like to have happen with what legally or constitutionally has to happen.
I do not believe for a second that the Queen would refuse to allow Boris to resign. She would then have to choose a successor. If he recommends someone (and he could be cheeky and recommend Corbyn knowing how difficult a position it would put him in) then she would almost certainly accept that. If not then I would assume (but don't know) that her Privy Council would recommend she ask Corbyn to form a Government. Things then proceed as I set out below.
What the GE outcome of all of that would be I have no idea.
Legally if you resign your job when can you begin to work at your new company?
For most people notice has to be served while the company tries to find a replacement.
That depends entirely on the contract. Government ministers have no such contract, and can be hired and fired at will. (They do get three months’ pay when they lose their job though, even David Laws).
Hodges blistering in the Mail this morning. ERG, DUP, Spartans, Respect-the-Deal Labour MPs (yes, you Lisa Nandy!): this is it, vote Johnson's Thornton House Pact next Saturday or Brexit is over.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
All ammunition to my theory that Corbyn is going to resign as leader before calling a VONC. There is no way he is going to go down to such an ignominious defeat when his party has all the cards at the moment.
Even if he were such a megalowmaniac not to see it -which I don't think he is-his backers wouldn't put up with it. A two month Labour leadership contest followed by a VONC and an election early next year and Labour would be in with a chance.
Why would he do that given that his polling position in relation to the Tories is far stronger than at the outset of the 2017 election?
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.
It always seems to be women that the left pick up on as their most vilified hate figures.
First, I'm not left wing. Second, the phenomenon you describe is real but transcends political boundaries. The hatred of Dianne Abbott from the far right is driven both by her gender and her ethnicity. Third, it's heartening to see you adopting feminist principles, but it should be noted that most of the time I criticise politicians on here, the unifying aspect is their toxic right-wing nationalism. Hence Boris, Mogg, Farage, Modi, Trump, and, yes, Patel. Women can be equally as loathsome as men, as Patel proves. Fourth, as a floating voter, I made a pledge a number of years ago to choose the women when I'm swithering between candidates. That kicked in this May when I couldn't make up my mind who to vote for in the European election. Fifth, perhaps more of a coincidence than anything else, but the last time I voted for a man was in the 2010 general election. Every single local and general election since then, I've voted for women.
Just so you know. I do not wish to discourage you from spotting and calling out possible misogyny, but your radar is a little off today.
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
Should have changed FPTP has the price of coalition. No half baked AV referendum.
Indeed. However, IIRC, AV was all Cameron and the Tories would agree to.
Bless. We have subsequently learned that Dave is a push over. The LDs could have held out for a lot more.
He might not have been such a push-over at that time. Whilst he was PM, IIRC, he had a remarkable run of things going right for him. That would have helped to create an expectation that things would always work out the way he wanted them to.
I see HYUFD is framing the SCons 'only' losing 2/3 of their seats as a good result; marvellous stuff.
Wings Over Scotland will be disappointed at these numbers, his constant theme nowadays is that the SNP are doing it all wrong.
Really? Every time I stumble across his feed it looks for all the world like the only thing he's got left is transphobia. I remember a time when his contribution to politics was actually interesting, but these days...
Was the fieldwork done before we went into 'deal likely' mode? I suspect so. When we're out with a deal, the Tories will make those points back, and possibly a few more besides.
The triumph of hope over expectation. There’s something tragic about watching a losing team lose.
Well, I bow to your superior knowledge on that front.
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.
It always seems to be women that the left pick up on as their most vilified hate figures.
First, I'm not left wing. Second, the phenomenon you describe is real but transcends political boundaries. The hatred of Dianne Abbott from the far right is driven both by her gender and her ethnicity. Third, it's heartening to see you adopting feminist principles, but it should be noted that most of the time I criticise politicians on here, the unifying aspect is their toxic right-wing nationalism. Hence Boris, Mogg, Farage, Modi, Trump, and, yes, Patel. Women can be equally as loathsome as men, as Patel proves. Fourth, as a floating voter, I made a pledge a number of years ago to choose the women when I'm swithering between candidates. That kicked in this May when I couldn't make up my mind who to vote for in the European election. Fifth, perhaps more of a coincidence than anything else, but the last time I voted for a man was in the 2010 general election. Every single local and general election since then, I've voted for women.
Just so you know. I do not wish to discourage you from spotting and calling out possible misogyny, but your radar is a little off today.
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.
It always seems to be women that the left pick up on as their most vilified hate figures.
First, I'm not left wing. Second, the phenomenon you describe is real but transcends political boundaries. The hatred of Dianne Abbott from the far right is driven both by her gender and her ethnicity. Third, it's heartening to see you adopting feminist principles, but it should be noted that most of the time I criticise politicians on here, the unifying aspect is their toxic right-wing nationalism. Hence Boris, Mogg, Farage, Modi, Trump, and, yes, Patel. Women can be equally as loathsome as men, as Patel proves. Fourth, as a floating voter, I made a pledge a number of years ago to choose the women when I'm swithering between candidates. That kicked in this May when I couldn't make up my mind who to vote for in the European election. Fifth, perhaps more of a coincidence than anything else, but the last time I voted for a man was in the 2010 general election. Every single local and general election since then, I've voted for women.
Just so you know. I do not wish to discourage you from spotting and calling out possible misogyny, but your radar is a little off today.
Thanks for that totally non-defensive response.
It’s a very generous response to a ridiculous post; I was less 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.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
How do atheists square their beliefs with the Oath?
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
No, you just make clear to people you are only saying it for legal obligation's sake or don't really mean it, as republican MPs manage already.
I respect SF's stance, and I think it undermines their stance to think they really want to sit but they cannot figure a way to metaphorically cross their fingers in order to take up their seats. Their position is much more powerful as a stand against the parliament than because they are merely too stubborn to say 'I say these words purely to take up a seat for my constituents (swears oath).
I see HYUFD is framing the SCons 'only' losing 2/3 of their seats as a good result; marvellous stuff.
I'll defend HYUFD on that at least - sure that is actually a bad result, but retaining 1/3 of the current seats really would be remarkable. I struggle to believe it is possible, but if they managed it, wow.
I see HYUFD is framing the SCons 'only' losing 2/3 of their seats as a good result; marvellous stuff.
Wings Over Scotland will be disappointed at these numbers, his constant theme nowadays is that the SNP are doing it all wrong.
The SNP forecast to get 8 fewer seats than they got in their peak of 2015 with Panelbase today, the Tories 4 more Scottish MPs than they got from 1997 to 2017.
TSE and others have asked me to guess Labour support for the putative deal, as I got it right the last couple of times. We don't really know what the deal is, if it materialises, but assuming it's as described (Irish Sea border, no hard commitment to EU guarantees of social and environmental rules), I think Labour support will be under 5 (not even Kate Hoey will support it if the DUP don't). The lack of social alignment guarantees is what's alienating Labour pro-Dealers, even resolutely centrist ones, and the 19 who looked possible are sounding distinctly less keen:
I don't think there's a majority for a referendum on it either, though. Labour's view is that we should have a referendum where we can live with either outcome, and I don't think Labour can live with this one. If Boris pulls out some social guarantees, that could change.
Dominic Cummings must have wargamed that it is better to have Jacob Rees-Mogg inside the Cabinet tent pissing out, rather than leaving him to fester and plot with the ERG. JRM stepped down on being appointed Leader of the House. Steve Baker replaced JRM as ERG big cheese (his second stint).
I see HYUFD is framing the SCons 'only' losing 2/3 of their seats as a good result; marvellous stuff.
Wings Over Scotland will be disappointed at these numbers, his constant theme nowadays is that the SNP are doing it all wrong.
Really? Every time I stumble across his feed it looks for all the world like the only thing he's got left is transphobia. I remember a time when his contribution to politics was actually interesting, but these days...
Well, transgender issues is one of the things he believes the SNP are doing wrong.
He was/maybe still is a pretty sharp cookie, but if one believes the SNP have taken their eye off the indy ball over trans issues, I'm not sure threatening to set up a rival party that would be similarly obsessed over the matter from the opposite POV is a coherent move.
SNP only projected to get 48 seats then ie still well down on the 56 seats they got at their peak in 2015 while the Scottish Tories on 5 seats projected still well up on the number they got at every general election from 1997 to 2017, so that is encouraging for Boris and his chances of an overall Tory majority. The LDs will also be pleased they are forecast to gain a seat in Scotland.
Disaster for Scottish Labour though as they slump back to just the 1 seat they got in 2015, losing 6 current Labour seats
On the other hand, Labour was not polling at 20% in Scotland in April 2017 - more like 13% /14% - yet on Polling Day the party managed over 27%. These are far from being good figures for Labour but they actually rather imply more stability in its vote share in Scotland than in GB as a whole - ie a fall of circa 7% compared with circa 16% across GB. The poll also confirms my longstanding view that if - and it is a big 'if' - Labour recoves much of its lost ground in the course of an election campaign , its Scotland vote share could end up at circa 30% - with gains there being likely.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
The Oath could read: "I swear that the Tories are tossers and the English are eejits." and Sinn Fein still wouldn't take their seats in a British Parliament claiming jurisdiction over Ireland.
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.
It always seems to be women that the left pick up on as their most vilified hate figures.
First, I'm not left wing. Second, the phenomenon you describe is real but transcends political boundaries. The hatred of Dianne Abbott from the far right is driven both by her gender and her ethnicity. Third, it's heartening to see you adopting feminist principles, but it should be noted that most of the time I criticise politicians on here, the unifying aspect is their toxic right-wing nationalism. Hence Boris, Mogg, Farage, Modi, Trump, and, yes, Patel. Women can be equally as loathsome as men, as Patel proves. Fourth, as a floating voter, I made a pledge a number of years ago to choose the women when I'm swithering between candidates. That kicked in this May when I couldn't make up my mind who to vote for in the European election. Fifth, perhaps more of a coincidence than anything else, but the last time I voted for a man was in the 2010 general election. Every single local and general election since then, I've voted for women.
Just so you know. I do not wish to discourage you from spotting and calling out possible misogyny, but your radar is a little off today.
Thanks for that totally non-defensive response.
He made a very measured, reasoned and reasonable response to your blatant lie. In my experience, you’re not worth spending two seconds on, let alone composing a lengthy, well-written post.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
No, you just make clear to people you are only saying it for legal obligation's sake or don't really mean it, as republican MPs manage already.
I respect SF's stance, and I think it undermines their stance to think they really want to sit but they cannot figure a way to metaphorically cross their fingers in order to take up their seats. Their position is much more powerful as a stand against the parliament than because they are merely too stubborn to say 'I say these words purely to take up a seat for my constituents (swears oath).
Mr. kle4, a referendum between a Boris Johnson Deal and Remain would almost certainly be won by Remain.
I do think advocates of such significantly underestimate the long term political damage they'd cause (you can vote any way you like, but it's only pretend unless you agree with your MPs), but in the short term all the problems would belong to the Conservatives.
If they tack sceptically, they're wide open to people annoyed by the endless blather and just want a resolution one way or another. If they go for the "We accept the second referendum result" line, there's a risk of being outflanked by BP.
If we do get another referendum I'll be looking keenly for markets on Remain, and by certain margins.
I'm losing the thread on all this. Cummings is Boris's boss. Perhaps Boris has two bosses. Or is Cummings reporting to Trump directly. Then of course Putin is Trump's boss.
I see HYUFD is framing the SCons 'only' losing 2/3 of their seats as a good result; marvellous stuff.
I'll defend HYUFD on that at least - sure that is actually a bad result, but retaining 1/3 of the current seats really would be remarkable. I struggle to believe it is possible, but if they managed it, wow.
Yes, Boris winning more Scottish Tory seats still than Cameron managed in either 2010 or 2015 pre the Brexit vote
Which referendum do our house Nats think they will win by the bigger margin ? The next initial one or the confirmatory one after 4 years of agreeing a deal ?
TSE and others have asked me to guess Labour support for the putative deal, as I got it right the last couple of times. We don't really know what the deal is, if it materialises, but assuming it's as described (Irish Sea border, no hard commitment to EU guarantees of social and environmental rules), I think Labour support will be under 5 (not even Kate Hoey will support it if the DUP don't). The lack of social alignment guarantees is what's alienating Labour pro-Dealers, even resolutely centrist ones, and the 19 who looked possible are sounding distinctly less keen:
I don't think there's a majority for a referendum on it either, though. Labour's view is that we should have a referendum where we can live with either outcome, and I don't think Labour can live with this one. If Boris pulls out some social guarantees, that could change.
This sounds like the uncertainty will just be prolonged by more can kicking.
the 19 who looked possible are sounding distinctly less keen:
Quelle surprise. Rinse and repeat. I wish they'd stop their posturing, it is one of the more irritating parts of the Brexit deal optimism cycle, along with waiting to see what the DUP will say, and seeing which people shift between needing a GE or referendum as a reason to say no.
We know parliament doesn't want anything to pass, let's just get to the referendum already. I know people say there are not the numbers yet, but it is getting pretty ridiculous.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
No, you just make clear to people you are only saying it for legal obligation's sake or don't really mean it, as republican MPs manage already.
I respect SF's stance, and I think it undermines their stance to think they really want to sit but they cannot figure a way to metaphorically cross their fingers in order to take up their seats. Their position is much more powerful as a stand against the parliament than because they are merely too stubborn to say 'I say these words purely to take up a seat for my constituents (swears oath).
One is actually principled, the other stubborn.
But they take their seats at the hated Stormont!
The Northern Ireland Assembly is elected by people living in a part of Ireland to make laws for that part of Ireland. An entirely different setup to a British Parliament making laws for a part of Ireland.
I see HYUFD is framing the SCons 'only' losing 2/3 of their seats as a good result; marvellous stuff.
Wings Over Scotland will be disappointed at these numbers, his constant theme nowadays is that the SNP are doing it all wrong.
Really? Every time I stumble across his feed it looks for all the world like the only thing he's got left is transphobia. I remember a time when his contribution to politics was actually interesting, but these days...
Well, transgender issues is one of the things he believes the SNP are doing wrong.
He was/maybe still is a pretty sharp cookie, but if one believes the SNP have taken their eye off the indy ball over trans issues, I'm not sure threatening to set up a rival party that would be similarly obsessed over the matter from the opposite POV is a coherent move.
I take quite a relaxed view on people setting up parties. Wings has a good social media platform and a PR system allows for nuance. In general the more the merrier. I think they'd crash and burn though, and I mean really badly. There's a risk that Wings destroys its own readership if it gets nasty in its campaigning. Personally, I wouldn't miss Wings 2019 if it just died out. Wings 2014 was a great contribution to the media landscape, but that Wings has already died.
SNP only projected to get 48 seats then ie still well down on the 56 seats they got at their peak in 2015 while the Scottish Tories on 5 seats projected still well up on the number they got at every general election from 1997 to 2017, so that is encouraging for Boris and his chances of an overall Tory majority. The LDs will also be pleased they are forecast to gain a seat in Scotland.
Disaster for Scottish Labour though as they slump back to just the 1 seat they got in 2015, losing 6 current Labour seats
On the other hand, Labour was not polling at 20% in Scotland in April 2017 - more like 13% /14% - yet on Polling Day the party managed over 27%. These are far from being good figures for Labour but they actually rather imply more stability in its vote share in Scotland than in GB as a whole - ie a fall of circa 7% compared with circa 16% across GB. The poll also confirms my longstanding view that if - and it is a big 'if' - Labour recoves much of its lost ground in the course of an election campaign , its Scotland vote share could end up at circa 30% - with gains there being likely.
Personally Justin even I might cheer Labour gains from the SNP as I did in 2017, given both Labour and SNP MPs will vote against a Tory PM you might as well at least support the one who is Unionist
Mr. kle4, a referendum between a Boris Johnson Deal and Remain would almost certainly be won by Remain.
Yes it would. But if a GE is feared, and no deal of any kind will pass, it's where we will eventually end up so why cock about? Even for leavers you might as well get it done, so the counter counter revolution can begin.
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
Boris can’t resign
He can asked to be relieved of office but it’s up to the Queen
I suspect she might not want to have no PM for an indefinite period of time
Usually there is an obvious successor / it might just take a couple of days (eg Asquith) to confirm a coalition
Which referendum do our house Nats think they will win by the bigger margin ? The next initial one or the confirmatory one after 4 years of agreeing a deal ?
As someone who is neither nat nor yoon, I predict the latter.
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
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.
Its symbolic and they could cross their fingers or make clear they only say it to meet an obligation as several mps already do.
The SF stance is perfectly acceptable but the apologist whinging about the oath preventing from others is tiresome because SF could easily overcome that as described above whilst retaining their principles. They choose to make their stand, change the oath and I'd bet theyd still not sit as the stand is much more effective and clear that way.
Bottom line it's not really about the oath, imo. It's about not sitting and oath changing takes away a pretext but doesnt really change that not sitting is a powerful and effective message and why would they abandon that?
It’s not the path per se, but the fact that they don’t regard the Queen as their Head of State. That’s more fundamental than - say - Skinner (who i believe crosses his fingers)
India have won the second Test against South Africa by more than an innings. They currently have a huge lead in the early stages of the World Test Championship.
I wonder whether this may save Test cricket, if India can win this first iteration of the competition and boost the popularity of multi-day two innings cricket matches among Indian cricket followers.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
There have been many Brexit unicorns, but the idea of Sinn Fein taking up their Westminster seats has been by far the most unicorny of all.
Given the ways they could get around the technical wording of the oath, or justify it, it would a bit insulting to them to suggest their principles were based on some symbolic wording plenty dont mean when they say it, and not against the institution proper .
The oath says: 'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
How do atheists square their beliefs with the Oath?
I didn't put both forms in the quote, so here it is.... 'I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.'
Post, if I'm not mistaken. Charles Bradlaugh in Victoria's reign.
SNP only projected to get 48 seats then ie still well down on the 56 seats they got at their peak in 2015 while the Scottish Tories on 5 seats projected still well up on the number they got at every general election from 1997 to 2017, so that is encouraging for Boris and his chances of an overall Tory majority. The LDs will also be pleased they are forecast to gain a seat in Scotland.
Disaster for Scottish Labour though as they slump back to just the 1 seat they got in 2015, losing 6 current Labour seats
On the other hand, Labour was not polling at 20% in Scotland in April 2017 - more like 13% /14% - yet on Polling Day the party managed over 27%. These are far from being good figures for Labour but they actually rather imply more stability in its vote share in Scotland than in GB as a whole - ie a fall of circa 7% compared with circa 16% across GB. The poll also confirms my longstanding view that if - and it is a big 'if' - Labour recoves much of its lost ground in the course of an election campaign , its Scotland vote share could end up at circa 30% - with gains there being likely.
Personally Justin even I might cheer Labour gains from the SNP as I did in 2017, given both Labour and SNP MPs will vote against a Tory PM you might as well at least support the one who is Unionist
Likewise I would vote Tory - rather than SNP or Plaid.
I'm losing the thread on all this. Cummings is Boris's boss. Perhaps Boris has two bosses. Or is Cummings reporting to Trump directly. Then of course Putin is Trump's boss.
I'm losing the thread on all this. Cummings is Boris's boss. Perhaps Boris has two bosses. Or is Cummings reporting to Trump directly. Then of course Putin is Trump's boss.
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
Boris can’t resign
He can asked to be relieved of office but it’s up to the Queen
I suspect she might not want to have no PM for an indefinite period of time
Usually there is an obvious successor / it might just take a couple of days (eg Asquith) to confirm a coalition
All ammunition to my theory that Corbyn is going to resign as leader before calling a VONC. There is no way he is going to go down to such an ignominious defeat when his party has all the cards at the moment.
Even if he were such a megalowmaniac not to see it -which I don't think he is-his backers wouldn't put up with it. A two month Labour leadership contest followed by a VONC and an election early next year and Labour would be in with a chance.
Why would he do that given that his polling position in relation to the Tories is far stronger than at the outset of the 2017 election?
Because the circumstances are different. Last time Corbyn got the votes of anti- Leavers many because they knew he couldn't win. He won't get them this time.
Mr. kle4, a referendum between a Boris Johnson Deal and Remain would almost certainly be won by Remain.
I do think advocates of such significantly underestimate the long term political damage they'd cause (you can vote any way you like, but it's only pretend unless you agree with your MPs), but in the short term all the problems would belong to the Conservatives.
If they tack sceptically, they're wide open to people annoyed by the endless blather and just want a resolution one way or another. If they go for the "We accept the second referendum result" line, there's a risk of being outflanked by BP.
If we do get another referendum I'll be looking keenly for markets on Remain, and by certain margins.
Do you think we are NOT politically damaged already?
I'm losing the thread on all this. Cummings is Boris's boss. Perhaps Boris has two bosses. Or is Cummings reporting to Trump directly. Then of course Putin is Trump's boss.
So who is running Putin?
The Queen. We all suspected she was the evil mastermind ruling the world.
I wish politicians would not claim their preferred choice now is the 'only' option, at least if they do not caveat it by saying only 'reasonable' option or something. What they plan to do might be the best option remaining, but whatever that is it would still be a choice and it not the only option, that makes it seem like they are forced into whatever choice they make.
Mr. kle4, a referendum between a Boris Johnson Deal and Remain would almost certainly be won by Remain.
I do think advocates of such significantly underestimate the long term political damage they'd cause (you can vote any way you like, but it's only pretend unless you agree with your MPs), but in the short term all the problems would belong to the Conservatives.
If they tack sceptically, they're wide open to people annoyed by the endless blather and just want a resolution one way or another. If they go for the "We accept the second referendum result" line, there's a risk of being outflanked by BP.
If we do get another referendum I'll be looking keenly for markets on Remain, and by certain margins.
If Remain won any EUref2 against a Boris Deal say 55% to 45%, Boris would just become an Alex Salmond for Leavers, cry 'betrayal' and that 45% would become a Tory landslide under FPTP just as the SNP converted a 55% to 45% defeat for Yes in the 2014 referendum to a 2015 SNP general election landslide under FPTP.
Mr. kle4, a referendum between a Boris Johnson Deal and Remain would almost certainly be won by Remain.
I do think advocates of such significantly underestimate the long term political damage they'd cause (you can vote any way you like, but it's only pretend unless you agree with your MPs), but in the short term all the problems would belong to the Conservatives.
If they tack sceptically, they're wide open to people annoyed by the endless blather and just want a resolution one way or another. If they go for the "We accept the second referendum result" line, there's a risk of being outflanked by BP.
If we do get another referendum I'll be looking keenly for markets on Remain, and by certain margins.
Do you think we are NOT politically damaged already?
Nothing compared to what will happen if we have another referendum before the first has been enacted.
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.
Simply not true. AS I said there have been several occasions where there has been no PM for a number of days. Boris resigning would simply mean someone else has to be chosen.
Boris can’t resign
He can asked to be relieved of office but it’s up to the Queen
I suspect she might not want to have no PM for an indefinite period of time
Usually there is an obvious successor / it might just take a couple of days (eg Asquith) to confirm a coalition
Here there isn’t an obvious successor
Ooh, really? Even if the PM wishes to resign to avoid being held in contempt of court, over a law passed by Parliament over his own objection?
Yes it’s a right mess, but there’s definitely precedent for the PM being allowed to resign without a clear successor being named.
Mr. kle4, a referendum between a Boris Johnson Deal and Remain would almost certainly be won by Remain.
I do think advocates of such significantly underestimate the long term political damage they'd cause (you can vote any way you like, but it's only pretend unless you agree with your MPs), but in the short term all the problems would belong to the Conservatives.
If they tack sceptically, they're wide open to people annoyed by the endless blather and just want a resolution one way or another. If they go for the "We accept the second referendum result" line, there's a risk of being outflanked by BP.
If we do get another referendum I'll be looking keenly for markets on Remain, and by certain margins.
If Remain won any EUred2 against a Boris Deal say 55% to 45%, Boris would just become an Alex Salmond for Leavers, cry 'betrayal' and that 45% would become a Tory landslide under FPTP
Comments
Silence is very deafening
Remember that well as I was a trader at Scotia bank..very weird .
The SF stance is perfectly acceptable but the apologist whinging about the oath preventing from others is tiresome because SF could easily overcome that as described above whilst retaining their principles. They choose to make their stand, change the oath and I'd bet theyd still not sit as the stand is much more effective and clear that way.
Bottom line it's not really about the oath, imo. It's about not sitting and oath changing takes away a pretext but doesnt really change that not sitting is a powerful and effective message and why would they abandon that?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/12/plea-brexiteers-must-trust-boris/
That went well.....
The Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, which emerged from the Reform Party, merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada in 2003 which returned to power under Stephen Harper in 2006 and is the party Andrew Scheer now leads.
It was rather like if the Tories had stuck with May post extension, been routed at the next general election and overtaken by the Brexit Party and the Tories then merged with the Brexit Party 10 years later to form a new more right of centre party
I do not believe for a second that the Queen would refuse to allow Boris to resign. She would then have to choose a successor. If he recommends someone (and he could be cheeky and recommend Corbyn knowing how difficult a position it would put him in) then she would almost certainly accept that. If not then I would assume (but don't know) that her Privy Council would recommend she ask Corbyn to form a Government. Things then proceed as I set out below.
What the GE outcome of all of that would be I have no idea.
The ground has shifted, and is still shifting. I know how Unionists could save the situation, but I am confident they won’t. Because:
- they lack the mental strength necessary to change their behaviour
- the necessary courses of action are not easy, in fact they would take immense energy and effort
- too many formerly Unionist people, throughout the Union, have become disillusioned and some would even welcome dissolution now
- although I know what they need to do, they don’t; and I’m not about to tell them.
Wings Over Scotland will be disappointed at these numbers, his constant theme nowadays is that the SNP are doing it all wrong.
For most people notice has to be served while the company tries to find a replacement.
In any event, there is no affirmative action in this case - Patel has earned the accolade entirely on merit.
As I say I think you are trying to claim a legal constraint to fit your own wishes.
Second, the phenomenon you describe is real but transcends political boundaries. The hatred of Dianne Abbott from the far right is driven both by her gender and her ethnicity.
Third, it's heartening to see you adopting feminist principles, but it should be noted that most of the time I criticise politicians on here, the unifying aspect is their toxic right-wing nationalism. Hence Boris, Mogg, Farage, Modi, Trump, and, yes, Patel. Women can be equally as loathsome as men, as Patel proves.
Fourth, as a floating voter, I made a pledge a number of years ago to choose the women when I'm swithering between candidates. That kicked in this May when I couldn't make up my mind who to vote for in the European election.
Fifth, perhaps more of a coincidence than anything else, but the last time I voted for a man was in the 2010 general election. Every single local and general election since then, I've voted for women.
Just so you know. I do not wish to discourage you from spotting and calling out possible misogyny, but your radar is a little off today.
I think he is right.
'I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.'
Which, if you're a) a Republican and b) want to remove your constituency from the clutches of 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors' are surely a bit difficult to get round.
Good morning, everyone.
I remember a time when his contribution to politics was actually interesting, but these days...
https://twitter.com/naebD/status/1183314777726210050?s=20
If you want to talk about real hatred:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/threat-hostility-rise-female-mps-paula-sherriff-tracy-brabin-boris-johnson-brexit
Why not vote against?
Say you like leaving the EU in principle but the deal's terrible as it stands.
Or, if a Lib Dem, just oppose leaving the EU altogether.
And if it looks like passing, tack on a referendum.
I respect SF's stance, and I think it undermines their stance to think they really want to sit but they cannot figure a way to metaphorically cross their fingers in order to take up their seats. Their position is much more powerful as a stand against the parliament than because they are merely too stubborn to say 'I say these words purely to take up a seat for my constituents (swears oath).
One is actually principled, the other stubborn.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1183304465782394882
MPs will do that if they think they will be rewarded for doing so. Enough people want remain that they would be right.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/13/labour-destroyed-if-leave-mps-help-boris-johnson-win-brexit-majority
I don't think there's a majority for a referendum on it either, though. Labour's view is that we should have a referendum where we can live with either outcome, and I don't think Labour can live with this one. If Boris pulls out some social guarantees, that could change.
He was/maybe still is a pretty sharp cookie, but if one believes the SNP have taken their eye off the indy ball over trans issues, I'm not sure threatening to set up a rival party that would be similarly obsessed over the matter from the opposite POV is a coherent move.
"It will also be modelled on a Disraelian desire to boost the condition of everyone – it will be neither for the many nor the few but for all."
That might be a line we will see again in the GE.
I do think advocates of such significantly underestimate the long term political damage they'd cause (you can vote any way you like, but it's only pretend unless you agree with your MPs), but in the short term all the problems would belong to the Conservatives.
If they tack sceptically, they're wide open to people annoyed by the endless blather and just want a resolution one way or another. If they go for the "We accept the second referendum result" line, there's a risk of being outflanked by BP.
If we do get another referendum I'll be looking keenly for markets on Remain, and by certain margins.
So who is running Putin?
I'm green either way on a referendum this year. Got about 6 on one not happening and 1.75 on it going ahead.
We know parliament doesn't want anything to pass, let's just get to the referendum already. I know people say there are not the numbers yet, but it is getting pretty ridiculous.
I think they'd crash and burn though, and I mean really badly. There's a risk that Wings destroys its own readership if it gets nasty in its campaigning. Personally, I wouldn't miss Wings 2019 if it just died out. Wings 2014 was a great contribution to the media landscape, but that Wings has already died.
He can asked to be relieved of office but it’s up to the Queen
I suspect she might not want to have no PM for an indefinite period of time
Usually there is an obvious successor / it might just take a couple of days (eg Asquith) to confirm a coalition
Here there isn’t an obvious successor
Shameless.
Frit: ✓
Third time of asking: ✓
FREEEEDOMMM: ✓
I wonder whether this may save Test cricket, if India can win this first iteration of the competition and boost the popularity of multi-day two innings cricket matches among Indian cricket followers.
'I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.'
Post, if I'm not mistaken. Charles Bradlaugh in Victoria's reign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin
I miss living in Scotland!
"Prosperity for all."
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!
Yes it’s a right mess, but there’s definitely precedent for the PM being allowed to resign without a clear successor being named.