I haven't read all the comments, so apologies if someone had already made this point, but I think the entire premise of David's article is wrong.
My understanding is this: If the Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the government, the government and the PM do not automatically leave their posts. What happens (and this is no change compared with before the Fixed Term Act) is that the PM is obliged to offer her resignation to Her Majesty. Her Majesty is not obliged to accept it. Crucially, Theresa May would remain PM, and her ministers remain in post, until such time as Her Majesty accepts the resignation or dismisses them, and appoints someone else.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House. If there was no likelihood of anyone else winning a confidence vote, all that happens is that Theresa May remains in place and, 14 days later, the election is called. There's no need to call on a superannuated mandarin.
Edit: It's just like the situation after the 2010 election. Brown remained PM until Her Maj was advised that that nice Mr Cameron was likely to command the confidence of the House.
I'm struck by just how slow the BBC were to realise what a good result it was going to be for the Conservatives (relative to the polling). The funniest thing I've seen on it so far is an interview with Malcolm Rifkind (3:38:40). He's not my favourite politician but his line "but all of your predictions have been turning out to be wrong" was a gem!
I was the first person to put it on YouTube, although this is a better quality that someone else has subsequently uploaded. I think it's the best ever general election show from any broadcaster. David Dimbleby was absolutely on top form in 1992. He never quite attained the same heights again.
Surely it's obvious that getting very drunk puts you in a vulnerable position (to robbery, as well as other sorts of crime)?
On a more serious note.
A number of years ago I was drinking in a pub in Newbury. A new age traveler stole a leather jacket. Belonging to a biker. With an ornamental design on it. Said design being that on about 50% of the jackets in the pub.
Was what happened next the fault of the new age traveler, the biker, society, capitalism etc?
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The reference to incredibly popular books and movies indicates they are out of touch from the common folk? Or is it the themes of the works they reference which indicate their eliteness?
Genuinely confused over here.
The themes and choice of the quote about 'shire-folk', which is certainly not a descriptor that could ever apply to Hannan. He is romanticising a people that he longs to be truly part of but never can.
Hannan does have form for this: his references to "that hideous strength" are a nod to the CS Lewis book of the same name, and (if memory serves) he's referenced Screwtape as well. He has a rather child-like view of the world ("isn't it better to do business with your friends" is not a sentence that should be said by an adult) and it does comes across
With all the Tolkien stuff from Hannan and Moore it's more apparent than ever that Brexiteers are the political descendants of the likes of Tony Benn. An out of touch elite who look at the common folk as if they were a different species whose power and dignity should be admired with awe and reverence from a safe distance.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The reference to incredibly popular books and movies indicates they are out of touch from the common folk? Or is it the themes of the works they reference which indicate their eliteness?
Genuinely confused over here.
The themes and choice of the quote about 'shire-folk', which is certainly not a descriptor that could ever apply to Hannan. He is romanticising a people that he longs to be truly part of but never can.
Well, he certainly is often guilty of romanticising elements, you have me there.
There is nothing wrong with a bit of romanticising. Compared with the outright fantasies that William perpetuates about the EU it is positively mild.
I see that the Comres tables from the Telegraph poll are now out. There is Voting Intention data included which on the basis of the weighted figures appears to result in:
I see that the Comres tables from the Telegraph poll are now out. There is Voting Intention data included which on the basis of the weighted figures appears to result in:
Con 38.3% Lab 29.1% LD 10.2% UKIP 9.7% SNP 4.6%
I thought we weren't suppose to take any notice of ComRes voting intention numbers unless they explicitly say so, because they are messing about with the weightings.
I see that the Comres tables from the Telegraph poll are now out. There is Voting Intention data included which on the basis of the weighted figures appears to result in:
Con 38.3% Lab 29.1% LD 10.2% UKIP 9.7% SNP 4.6%
I thought we weren't suppose to take any notice of ComRes voting intention numbers unless they explicitly say so, because they are messing about with the weightings.
That may still be so - but they did start publishing Voting Intention polls again last month. Doubtless TSE will advise.
I see that the Comres tables from the Telegraph poll are now out. There is Voting Intention data included which on the basis of the weighted figures appears to result in:
Con 38.3% Lab 29.1% LD 10.2% UKIP 9.7% SNP 4.6%
I thought we weren't suppose to take any notice of ComRes voting intention numbers unless they explicitly say so, because they are messing about with the weightings.
That may still be so - but they did start publishing Voting Intention polls again last month. Doubtless TSE will advise.
The fact they didn't announce it this time implies to me ignore.
In practice, the most important of Her Majesty's advisers is of course the existing PM. That's why the normal procedure is for the outgoing PM to go the palace and advise the Queen on whom she should appoint as the next PM.
In the current parliament, I imagine that Theresa May would advise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in a position to win a confidence vote. No doubt, as a courtesy and a democratic protection, Jeremy Corbyn would be asked if he thought he could do so.
In practice, the most important of Her Majesty's advisers is of course the existing PM. That's why the normal procedure is for the outgoing PM to go the palace and advise the Queen on whom she should appoint as the next PM.
In the current parliament, I imagine that Theresa May would advise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in a position to win a confidence vote. No doubt, as a courtesy and a democratic protection, Jeremy Corbyn would be asked if he thought he could do so.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House.
Just who are her advisors ?
I assume the Privy Council.
I doubt that has been true for a very long time indeed, probably centuries. I would imagine that the principle advisor would, as Mr Navabi said, be the existing PM. Of the others, with the exception of Phil the Greek, I doubt if anyone outside the circle would recognise the names.
In practice, the most important of Her Majesty's advisers is of course the existing PM. That's why the normal procedure is for the outgoing PM to go the palace and advise the Queen on whom she should appoint as the next PM.
In the current parliament, I imagine that Theresa May would advise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in a position to win a confidence vote. No doubt, as a courtesy and a democratic protection, Jeremy Corbyn would be asked if he thought he could do so.
Morbid question but what would happen in the hypothetical situation that the PM dies in office suddenly (like John Smith) while Parliament has no clear situation. EG if we are in the middle of a General Election campaign so there is theoretically no Parliament.
Or after a General Election which resulted in a Hung Parliament but no clear coalition has arisen yet? EG if Gordon Brown had a fatal heart attack on Friday 7 May 2010.
EDIT: In America this is simplified with the 25th Amendment combined with a staggered inauguration months after the election, apart from a post-election but pre-inauguration situation but one assumes it would go to the victorious Veep nominee. But it seems less clear here with our instantaneous changes.
In practice, the most important of Her Majesty's advisers is of course the existing PM. That's why the normal procedure is for the outgoing PM to go the palace and advise the Queen on whom she should appoint as the next PM.
In the current parliament, I imagine that Theresa May would advise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in a position to win a confidence vote. No doubt, as a courtesy and a democratic protection, Jeremy Corbyn would be asked if he thought he could do so.
What if Corbyn said he could?
Maybe he could surprise us all by getting his budget through the house :>
Haven't the time to read the comments before a new thread appears, but I'm wondering how many people have commented on the possibilities were we to have GOD as our PM.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House.
Just who are her advisors ?
I assume the Privy Council.
I doubt that has been true for a very long time indeed, probably centuries. I would imagine that the principle advisor would, as Mr Navabi said, be the existing PM. Of the others, with the exception of Phil the Greek, I doubt if anyone outside the circle would recognise the names.
With the usual caveats, according to Wikipedia the Privy Council is still very active and is specifically supposed to advise the Queen on such constitutional matters. It's formal duty is to advise the Queen on all matters related to the Royal Prerogative.
In practice, the most important of Her Majesty's advisers is of course the existing PM. That's why the normal procedure is for the outgoing PM to go the palace and advise the Queen on whom she should appoint as the next PM.
In the current parliament, I imagine that Theresa May would advise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in a position to win a confidence vote. No doubt, as a courtesy and a democratic protection, Jeremy Corbyn would be asked if he thought he could do so.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House.
Just who are her advisors ?
I assume the Privy Council.
I doubt that has been true for a very long time indeed, probably centuries. I would imagine that the principle advisor would, as Mr Navabi said, be the existing PM. Of the others, with the exception of Phil the Greek, I doubt if anyone outside the circle would recognise the names.
With the usual caveats, according to Wikipedia the Privy Council is still very active and is specifically supposed to advise the Queen on such constitutional matters. It's formal duty is to advise the Queen on all matters related to the Royal Prerogative.
The Privy Council has more than 600 members including a lot of failed old has beens. I doubt it could advise anyone of anything.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House.
Just who are her advisors ?
I assume the Privy Council.
I doubt that has been true for a very long time indeed, probably centuries. I would imagine that the principle advisor would, as Mr Navabi said, be the existing PM. Of the others, with the exception of Phil the Greek, I doubt if anyone outside the circle would recognise the names.
With the usual caveats, according to Wikipedia the Privy Council is still very active and is specifically supposed to advise the Queen on such constitutional matters. It's formal duty is to advise the Queen on all matters related to the Royal Prerogative.
In theory. There are around 600 privy councillors in practice though, about as many as there are MPs. The idea they're all consulted doesn't work.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House.
Just who are her advisors ?
I assume the Privy Council.
I doubt that has been true for a very long time indeed, probably centuries. I would imagine that the principle advisor would, as Mr Navabi said, be the existing PM. Of the others, with the exception of Phil the Greek, I doubt if anyone outside the circle would recognise the names.
With the usual caveats, according to Wikipedia the Privy Council is still very active and is specifically supposed to advise the Queen on such constitutional matters. It's formal duty is to advise the Queen on all matters related to the Royal Prerogative.
The Privy Council has more than 600 members including a lot of failed old has beens. I doubt it could advise anyone of anything.
Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, to name two.
Right, a rugby match follows for the next two hours!
Haven't the time to read the comments before a new thread appears, but I'm wondering how many people have commented on the possibilities were we to have GOD as our PM.
I wonder if anyone has ever talked to Gus O'Donnell in a phone box on their way home?
In practice, the most important of Her Majesty's advisers is of course the existing PM. That's why the normal procedure is for the outgoing PM to go the palace and advise the Queen on whom she should appoint as the next PM.
In the current parliament, I imagine that Theresa May would advise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in a position to win a confidence vote. No doubt, as a courtesy and a democratic protection, Jeremy Corbyn would be asked if he thought he could do so.
Morbid question but what would happen in the hypothetical situation that the PM dies in office suddenly (like John Smith) while Parliament has no clear situation. EG if we are in the middle of a General Election campaign so there is theoretically no Parliament.
Or after a General Election which resulted in a Hung Parliament but no clear coalition has arisen yet? EG if Gordon Brown had a fatal heart attack on Friday 7 May 2010.
EDIT: In America this is simplified with the 25th Amendment combined with a staggered inauguration months after the election, apart from a post-election but pre-inauguration situation but one assumes it would go to the victorious Veep nominee. But it seems less clear here with our instantaneous changes.
I believe the Cabinet would choose an interim leader. The process by which the party in question appoints/elects a permanent leader would be instigated. It is likely that if the PM has been killed by a terror attack, then COBRA would be convened under the chair of Home Secretary. This group would probably be the ones who started the process of the Cabinet appointing an interim PM. I guess Home Sec would effectively be in charge for a very short period.
Did you read the judgement? It's well worth your time, and goes into considerable detail as to why Ms Monroe won the case. In particular, it says that hurt feelings are irrelevant to libel actions.
I see there's a story which shows Samuel L Jackson doesn't understand what acting is, in questioning casting British actors in roles about US race relations as they won't feel or understand the issues as much.
Christ only knows how actors have ever managed to portray historical figures from places they have no connection to, or appropriately portray a character to reflect themes they may or may not have much experience of directly. Pretend to?
Did you read the judgement? It's well worth your time, and goes into considerable detail as to why Ms Monroe won the case. In particular, it says that hurt feelings are irrelevant to libel actions.
I browsed it. I am a very bad reader of anything over about 10 pages!
It's unpleasant (as I suspect Ms Monroe is), but is it libellous?
Is there a specific untruth it is telling, or is a matter of opinion?
Ms Monroe won her case because - basically - Katie Hopkins thought she was someone else and carelessly made the assertion that she had been involved in, or publicly condoned, the desecration of the memorial. Libel needs specificity.
So, I can say that David Cameron is a windbag and a cancer on society and that the way he used his son to gain sympathy sickened me. But those are just my opinions. I can't libel someone with those.
I see there's a story which shows Samuel L Jackson doesn't understand what acting is, in questioning casting British actors in roles about US race relations as they won't feel or understand the issues as much.
Christ only knows how actors have ever managed to portray historical figures from places they have no connection to, or appropriately portray a character to reflect themes they may or may not have much experience of directly. Pretend to?
Isn't there a famous quote from Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman during the making of Marathon Man along the lines of "it's called acting dear boy", when Hoffman was using method acting to get into character?
Unbelievable comment by Corbyn, he has no authority whatsoever to be changing long standing Labour policy on the hoof.
Corbyn has not just totally undermined Kezia Dugdale's recent efforts to shore up the SLab position opposing another Indy Ref, he has just driven a wrecking ball through her attempts to rebuild the Labour party North of the border! Kezia was only on BBC QuestionTime three days ago opposing another Indy Ref.
It's unpleasant (as I suspect Ms Monroe is), but is it libellous?
Is there a specific untruth it is telling, or is a matter of opinion?
Ms Monroe won her case because - basically - Katie Hopkins thought she was someone else and carelessly made the assertion that she had been involved in, or publicly condoned, the desecration of the memorial. Libel needs specificity.
So Hopkins could perhaps have said she felt Monroe was the sort of person who would condone desecration of a memorial, but could not so bluntly accuse her of doing it or having already condoned it, because she had not done either of those things?
I see there's a story which shows Samuel L Jackson doesn't understand what acting is, in questioning casting British actors in roles about US race relations as they won't feel or understand the issues as much.
Christ only knows how actors have ever managed to portray historical figures from places they have no connection to, or appropriately portray a character to reflect themes they may or may not have much experience of directly. Pretend to?
I see there's a story which shows Samuel L Jackson doesn't understand what acting is, in questioning casting British actors in roles about US race relations as they won't feel or understand the issues as much.
Christ only knows how actors have ever managed to portray historical figures from places they have no connection to, or appropriately portray a character to reflect themes they may or may not have much experience of directly. Pretend to?
Isn't there a famous quote from Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman during the making of Marathon Man along the lines of "it's called acting dear boy", when Hoffman was using method acting to get into character?
The story I heard about that was Hoffman running for a mile, or some ridiculous distance, to arrive in a scene in order to appear appropriately winded from running, rather than just pretend to have been.
I do have some great respect for some method acting, and I can see how having a connection to the material and themes and history could make it easier for someone to act as directed for a certain role, but at the end of the day its all pretend, people are able to portray realistic nazis without any connection to the role, and as impressive as it can be for someone to go really method, is it even really acting if, for instance, you allow yourself to be actually punched in the face to portray being punched in the face, rather than just pretend to be?
Idiots commenting on rugby songs seems to be a thing now. Chris Bryant was whining about Delilah a year or two ago.
Actually surprised it has taken this long - I've seen american comedies make as the joke a white person singing Swing Low and getting dark looks. It certainly is divorcing it from its original context. But how offensive are people really finding it?
Not content with having no connection with most of the Scottish electorate, Jezza has now managed to piss off the remains of SLab.
Oddly enough, as with Brexit it is probably him recognizing the inevitable.
Next thing we know he'll be acknowledging the Tories will probably win in 2020, unless something changes soon.
Corbyn "disappointed" to have lost the 2020 general election by over 300 seats, but adds he has created a cracking batch of apple and blackcurrant jam.
Cameron staked his future on winning the EU ref - Corbyn gave lukewarm support and ensured his downfall.
May has staked her future on preserving the union - Corbyn is giving lukewarm support and will ensure her downfall.
He's cannier than he looks. Maybe.
Given he officially supports both Unions, that's not canny it's downright malevolent. That or else he operates on the principle that in order for the country to rise from the ashes, it must first be reduced to ash.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House.
Just who are her advisors ?
I assume the Privy Council.
I doubt that has been true for a very long time indeed, probably centuries. I would imagine that the principle advisor would, as Mr Navabi said, be the existing PM. Of the others, with the exception of Phil the Greek, I doubt if anyone outside the circle would recognise the names.
And definitely wrong.
The Privy Council is not a plenary body. But ministers, shadow ministers and other selected politicians from within parliament advise the monarch by virtue of being Privy Councillors. The monarch is advised and by her prerogative the monarch acts.
The informality suggested above is more apparent than real. This is a correographed routine of the highest refinement and as the stakes rise the faux informality melts away.
I see there's a story which shows Samuel L Jackson doesn't understand what acting is, in questioning casting British actors in roles about US race relations as they won't feel or understand the issues as much.
Christ only knows how actors have ever managed to portray historical figures from places they have no connection to, or appropriately portray a character to reflect themes they may or may not have much experience of directly. Pretend to?
Isn't there a famous quote from Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman during the making of Marathon Man along the lines of "it's called acting dear boy", when Hoffman was using method acting to get into character?
The story I heard about that was Hoffman running for a mile, or some ridiculous distance, to arrive in a scene in order to appear appropriately winded from running, rather than just pretend to have been.
I do have some great respect for some method acting, and I can see how having a connection to the material and themes and history could make it easier for someone to act as directed for a certain role, but at the end of the day its all pretend, people are able to portray realistic nazis without any connection to the role, and as impressive as it can be for someone to go really method, is it even really acting if, for instance, you allow yourself to be actually punched in the face to portray being punched in the face, rather than just pretend to be?
I suppose it isn't, but then again, does it matter? Its whatever makes the show better for the viewer reckon
I see there's a story which shows Samuel L Jackson doesn't understand what acting is, in questioning casting British actors in roles about US race relations as they won't feel or understand the issues as much.
Christ only knows how actors have ever managed to portray historical figures from places they have no connection to, or appropriately portray a character to reflect themes they may or may not have much experience of directly. Pretend to?
Isn't there a famous quote from Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman during the making of Marathon Man along the lines of "it's called acting dear boy", when Hoffman was using method acting to get into character?
The story I heard about that was Hoffman running for a mile, or some ridiculous distance, to arrive in a scene in order to appear appropriately winded from running, rather than just pretend to have been.
I do have some great respect for some method acting, and I can see how having a connection to the material and themes and history could make it easier for someone to act as directed for a certain role, but at the end of the day its all pretend, people are able to portray realistic nazis without any connection to the role, and as impressive as it can be for someone to go really method, is it even really acting if, for instance, you allow yourself to be actually punched in the face to portray being punched in the face, rather than just pretend to be?
I suppose it isn't, but then again, does it matter? Its whatever makes the show better for the viewer reckon
Well yes, but that's the point - does doing it 'for real' make it better than pretending? And if it looks the same, then the guy pretending is the better actor - same effect for us the audience, so it doesn't matter, that's why Jackson's comments make no sense, since for all I knew from the trailers the guy from GetOut was an american, and yet he thinks it matters what the actor knows about the american experience to do the role.
Mr. Quidder, it is now impossible for Scotland to win.
Nice try, Mr.D. - but even a combination of you and SeanT holding a half time black mass, with strange dancing thrown in, probably isn't going to jinx this one.
Mr. Quidder, it is now impossible for Scotland to win.
Nice try, Mr.D. - but even a combination of you and SeanT holding a half time black mass, with strange dancing thrown in, probably isn't going to jinx this one.
However, if Mr. Dancer could be persuaded to put a bet on England then that could well see Scotland romping home.
Comments
My understanding is this: If the Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the government, the government and the PM do not automatically leave their posts. What happens (and this is no change compared with before the Fixed Term Act) is that the PM is obliged to offer her resignation to Her Majesty. Her Majesty is not obliged to accept it. Crucially, Theresa May would remain PM, and her ministers remain in post, until such time as Her Majesty accepts the resignation or dismisses them, and appoints someone else.
So, what would happen is that Her Majesty's advisers would take soundings to see if anyone else could command the confidence of the House. If there was no likelihood of anyone else winning a confidence vote, all that happens is that Theresa May remains in place and, 14 days later, the election is called. There's no need to call on a superannuated mandarin.
Edit: It's just like the situation after the 2010 election. Brown remained PM until Her Maj was advised that that nice Mr Cameron was likely to command the confidence of the House.
A number of years ago I was drinking in a pub in Newbury. A new age traveler stole a leather jacket. Belonging to a biker. With an ornamental design on it. Said design being that on about 50% of the jackets in the pub.
Was what happened next the fault of the new age traveler, the biker, society, capitalism etc?
Con 38.3% Lab 29.1% LD 10.2% UKIP 9.7% SNP 4.6%
In the current parliament, I imagine that Theresa May would advise that the Leader of the Opposition was not in a position to win a confidence vote. No doubt, as a courtesy and a democratic protection, Jeremy Corbyn would be asked if he thought he could do so.
What if Corbyn said he could?
Or after a General Election which resulted in a Hung Parliament but no clear coalition has arisen yet? EG if Gordon Brown had a fatal heart attack on Friday 7 May 2010.
EDIT: In America this is simplified with the 25th Amendment combined with a staggered inauguration months after the election, apart from a post-election but pre-inauguration situation but one assumes it would go to the victorious Veep nominee. But it seems less clear here with our instantaneous changes.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Right, a rugby match follows for the next two hours!
https://twitter.com/gemmacdoyle/status/840583160438104064
Not content with having no connection with most of the Scottish electorate, Jezza has now managed to piss off the remains of SLab.
.
http://gemmanashartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/141124jackmonroetweet1.jpg
There is some constitutional haziness about all this: Peter Bone raised in Parliament a few years ago - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-25136574
Christ only knows how actors have ever managed to portray historical figures from places they have no connection to, or appropriately portray a character to reflect themes they may or may not have much experience of directly. Pretend to?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39192560/samuel-l-jackson-dont-cast-british-actors-in-films-about-us-race-relations
Next thing we know he'll be acknowledging the Tories will probably win in 2020, unless something changes soon.
Is there a specific untruth it is telling, or is a matter of opinion?
Ms Monroe won her case because - basically - Katie Hopkins thought she was someone else and carelessly made the assertion that she had been involved in, or publicly condoned, the desecration of the memorial. Libel needs specificity.
So, I can say that David Cameron is a windbag and a cancer on society and that the way he used his son to gain sympathy sickened me. But those are just my opinions. I can't libel someone with those.
May has staked her future on preserving the union - Corbyn is giving lukewarm support and will ensure her downfall.
He's cannier than he looks. Maybe.
Idiots commenting on rugby songs seems to be a thing now. Chris Bryant was whining about Delilah a year or two ago.
I do have some great respect for some method acting, and I can see how having a connection to the material and themes and history could make it easier for someone to act as directed for a certain role, but at the end of the day its all pretend, people are able to portray realistic nazis without any connection to the role, and as impressive as it can be for someone to go really method, is it even really acting if, for instance, you allow yourself to be actually punched in the face to portray being punched in the face, rather than just pretend to be?
The Privy Council is not a plenary body. But ministers, shadow ministers and other selected politicians from within parliament advise the monarch by virtue of being Privy Councillors. The monarch is advised and by her prerogative the monarch acts.
The informality suggested above is more apparent than real. This is a correographed routine of the highest refinement and as the stakes rise the faux informality melts away.
@alexmassie: Corbyn has been 'leader' long enough for his incompetence to now be understood as malevolence.