politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The July plot to oust Mrs May
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The July plot to oust Mrs May
‘That was a dress rehearsal. Next time Theresa is toast’
Comments
-
First like Scotland in the cricket.0
-
Piano wire at the ready.0
-
PB swallowed my comment. And for once it wasn't 'first'
But to summarise: if the Tory Brexiteers force May out, they're handing the keys of no.10 to Corbyn and his followers.0 -
In a stroke of sheer genius, Mr Eagles, we have three threads on Vanilla forums. I'm just hoping his is the right one!
FPT
England to chase 372 to win.
That was a mighty impressive innings from Calum Macleod. However, England do have considerable firepower right down to no. 10 and I think they will feel this is gettable.
Am I the only person who thinks a bowler averaging 41 after 12 tests and 47 after 28 ODIs already in his late twenties with a long injury history isn't really an international standard bowler, rather someone who should be discarded?
(Oh and NZ women might still squeak 400 at Malahide.)0 -
FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?0 -
I tell a lie. It's now up to 4.
Wtf is going on with bloody Vanilla?!!!0 -
Anyway, so my brilliant wisdom from one of the many phantom threads isn't lost:
It's in the Sunday Times and from Tim Shipman.
Are we really going to take it that seriously?
I think they would be wary of ousting her unless they have a clear, plausible, better and more Brexitty alternative in place, and they haven't got anyone who matches even one of those criteria right now0 -
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.0 -
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?0 -
Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.0 -
On topic - a key may be in the Immigration bill with Javid reportedly ripping up the “open and generous offer” the EU would have simply banked anyway - if they want to treat us like a “third country” then we should reciprocate - only considering an “open and generous offer”’after any trade deal is agreed.0
-
-
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
July 20th 1969 was the first moon landing.
Pause.
I know that's not relevant to anything, I just wanted to point it out...
0 -
I would have respected his right to form a government. Wouldn’t you?murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?0 -
Tim is fantastically well connected.ydoethur said:Anyway, so my brilliant wisdom from one of the many phantom threads isn't lost:
It's in the Sunday Times and from Tim Shipman.
Are we really going to take it that seriously?
I think they would be wary of ousting her unless they have a clear, plausible, better and more Brexitty alternative in place, and they haven't got anyone who matches even one of those criteria right now
He's produced the two best books on politics in recent years.0 -
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.0
-
You might find a closer parallel on 20th July 1944.viewcode said:July 20th 1969 was the first moon landing.
Pause.
I know that's not relevant to anything, I just wanted to point it out...0 -
He's produced two books. They are not properly referenced or indexed and questions have been raised about their accuracy. They're compared with among others, Guilty Men and the work of Anthony Seldon, neither of which should be considered a compliment. He's also not a fan of May. Finally and most importantly I'm losing count of how many times the Brexiteers have threatened to topple May, so even if he is sincere in his reporting his sources have a massive credibility problem.TheScreamingEagles said:
Tim is fantastically well connected.ydoethur said:Anyway, so my brilliant wisdom from one of the many phantom threads isn't lost:
It's in the Sunday Times and from Tim Shipman.
Are we really going to take it that seriously?
I think they would be wary of ousting her unless they have a clear, plausible, better and more Brexitty alternative in place, and they haven't got anyone who matches even one of those criteria right now
He's produced the two best books on politics in recent years.0 -
Who won a referendum.Stark_Dawning said:What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.
What does that make their opponents other than “more of the above”?0 -
NZ Women 418 ao off 49.5 overs.
Seems to be a day for massive scores (we won't mention the Kent score). Will that make Scotland's bowlers nervous?0 -
Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.ydoethur said:
Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.0 -
I think that seems fair, with the proviso that I think if her numbers are that low she would also need the public support of a very large majority of the cabinet. Recent scandals have somewhat reduced her top team and she can't afford much more wastage. If Hammond went, I think she would have to go too.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
Hmm. I can’t see the reason to delay. Which makes me suspect the headbangers are all piss and wind.
They almost certainly have the numbers to trigger a vote of no confidence. Do they have the numbers to win it? And if they win it, who comes next? I suspect the answers to these two important questions are No and TBD. So Theresa May has good chances of limping on for quite a while yet.0 -
I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.CarlottaVance said:
Who won a referendum.Stark_Dawning said:What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.
What does that make their opponents other than “more of the above”?0 -
I know.DecrepitJohnL said:
You might find a closer parallel on 20th July 1944.viewcode said:July 20th 1969 was the first moon landing.
Pause.
I know that's not relevant to anything, I just wanted to point it out...
I was being humorous.
Ho. Ho. Ho. 0 -
If she wins she can't be challenged for a year. A win is a win in those circumstances.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
Her authority may be ethereal but it's not exactly made of titanium now, is it?0 -
If they go now there's no guarantee the withdrawal bill will pass (let alone receive Royal Assent)AlastairMeeks said:Hmm. I can’t see the reason to delay. Which makes me suspect the headbangers are all piss and wind.
They almost certainly have the numbers to trigger a vote of no confidence. Do they have the numbers to win it? And if they win it, who comes next? I suspect the answers to these two important questions are No and TBD. So Theresa May has good chances of limping on for quite a while yet.
Heck the whole Tory disclipline falls apart and the Commons votes to keep us in The Customs Union.0 -
I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.justin124 said:
Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.ydoethur said:
Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.0 -
Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.0
-
Tykejohnno Quagmire.Tykejohnno said:I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.
Giggity. 0 -
+1Stark_Dawning said:Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.
0 -
I've just skimmed Dominic Cummings's "essay" (book, more like), Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities. There is no doubting that he's bright (thanks to a couple of years spent reading while living in a "bunker" on his dad's farm (source), but he's all over the place intellectually and he's possibly internally still trying to show off to Oxford tutor Robin Lane Fox (who has a number of family connections that will be well known to students of the byways of the English far right). David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
Never mind for the moment who sorted Cummings out with the Russian gig after he graduated. A key to his status lies in his full name:
Dominic Mckenzie Cummings
is an anagram of
iz nice nice Dugin sock mmmm
which must surely refer to this guy: Aleksandr Dugin.
Odysseanism as a sockpuppet for Fourth Wayism?
0 -
Not just witless shits, but played by the Kremlin too.Stark_Dawning said:Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.
0 -
Yes, the idea that May could be fatally wounded by seeing off the ERG in a confidence vote doesn’t apply in the present circumstances.AlastairMeeks said:
If she wins she can't be challenged for a year. A win is a win in those circumstances.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
Her authority may be ethereal but it's not exactly made of titanium now, is it?0 -
Lolviewcode said:
Tykejohnno Quagmire.Tykejohnno said:I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.
Giggity.0 -
Tykejohnno said:
Lolviewcode said:
Tykejohnno Quagmire.Tykejohnno said:I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.
Giggity. 0 -
Respected his right to form a Government and supporting him are two different things!CarlottaVance said:
I would have respected his right to form a government. Wouldn’t you?murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?0 -
I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .ydoethur said:
I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.justin124 said:
Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.ydoethur said:
Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.0 -
Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...viewcode said:
Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.MaxPB said:Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.
0 -
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.ydoethur said:
I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.justin124 said:
Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.ydoethur said:
Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:
Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.0 -
Don't be silly. He has a butler for things like that...ydoethur said:
Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...viewcode said:
Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.MaxPB said:Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.
0 -
I'm fairly sure he wouldn't accept my non-acquiescenceYorkcity said:
I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .ydoethur said:
I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.justin124 said:
Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.ydoethur said:
Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.
Incidentally I was very surprised on flicking through some population figures to find York weighs in at over 200,000 people. I had no idea it was that large, although admittedly I don't know it very well. I always thought it was roughly comparable to Worcester but it's more than twice the size. Are there big areas the tourists don't see or are there just a lot of people living very tightly packed together?0 -
Gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'have you served her ladyship?'viewcode said:
Don't be silly. He has a butler for things like that...ydoethur said:
Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...viewcode said:
Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.MaxPB said:Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.
0 -
Which is why your analogy was fatuous in the first place. I’m pleased you’ve worked that out.murali_s said:
Respected his right to form a Government and supporting him are two different things!CarlottaVance said:
I would have respected his right to form a government. Wouldn’t you?murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?0 -
False comparison. What you want is situation equivalent to Corbyn being elected PM and before he has even had time to put together his first cabinet he should be deposed because the electorate 'made the wrong choice'.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Those of us who actually believe in democracy would reserve the right to criticise him (as and when he did things we disagreed with him) and to campaign to defeat him at the next election. But we would not deny his absolute right to be PM and take the actions he saw fit as long as they were in accordance with the constitution and the law.
Democracy is a process not a result.0 -
LOL. This from the side that got beaten by a bus.Stark_Dawning said:Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.
0 -
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently unaware of) states that if there is no realistic prospect of a government commanding the majority of the House of Commons, the Government resigns.justin124 said:
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
I did note that where there is a single defining issue and two smaller parties with a majority between them campaigned ont he same side over that issue there is no issue with them forming a legitimate government, but that was of course not the case in 2010 where in several crucial areas, notably tax, the Liberal Democrats were actually quite a lot closer to the Conservatives than Labour.
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!0 -
One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)Purple said:David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.
0 -
If you wanted to make that a pun, you could say we were 'crushed by a bus.'Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. This from the side that got beaten by a bus.Stark_Dawning said:Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.
0 -
ydoethur said:
Gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'have you served her ladyship?'viewcode said:
Don't be silly. He has a butler for things like that...ydoethur said:
Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...viewcode said:
Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.MaxPB said:Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.
0 -
I suppose it comes down to who is given the right to try and form a government first. Under your example is it the incumbent or is it the party with the largest number of seats?justin124 said:
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
I don't know what the constitutional position is and I am not sure which would be the better way as I can see arguments on both sides.0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:justin124 said:ydoethur said:
Constitutionally it is always the incumbent. There is no requirement for the PM to resign until defeated onthe Queens Speech. The FTPA might also now mean that under such circumstances a Vote of No Confidence would have to be passed.justin124 said:
I suppose it comes down to who is given the right to try and form a government first. Under your example is it the incumbent or is it the party with the largest number of seats?ydoethur said:
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:
I don't know what the constitutional position is and I am not sure which would be the better way as I can see arguments on both sides.0 -
Afternoon all,
Yeh, yeh, yeh. More anonymous quotes from ERG wingnuts. Pretty sure we can ignore them and carry on arguing about Brexit.0 -
Ireland women, chasing the small matter of 419 to win, off to a brilliant start - 3/1 after one over.
England meanwhile galloping along at 51 without loss after 6 overs. Coetzer now turning to spin.
Wouldn't it be perfect if Scotland could find a spinner called Alistair Campbell? Would definitely be a mystery spinner of course, very deceptive in bowlingweapons of mass destructiongooglies!0 -
Must we? It's much more fun to talk about cricket, Rees-Mogg's butler and Stanley Baldwin's Electoral record.rottenborough said:Afternoon all,
Yeh, yeh, yeh. More anonymous quotes from ERG wingnuts. Pretty sure we can ignore them and carry on arguing about Brexit.0 -
But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.ydoethur said:
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently unaware of) states that if there is no realistic prospect of a government commanding the majority of the House of Commons, the Government resigns.justin124 said:
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
I did note that where there is a single defining issue and two smaller parties with a majority between them campaigned ont he same side over that issue there is no issue with them forming a legitimate government, but that was of course not the case in 2010 where in several crucial areas, notably tax, the Liberal Democrats were actually quite a lot closer to the Conservatives than Labour.
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!0 -
I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
I'm on @justin124's side here: the sitting Prime Minister has the right to try to form a government. In any case, as in 2010, in practice negotiations between different plausible governments take place in parallel.
The aim is to find a government that commands the confidence of Parliament. In a hung Parliament that may not necessarily be led by the party with most votes or most seats. It may also require a change of leader within a party if a particular leader is especially controversial, as I have previously noted.0 -
Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.Purple said:
I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.justin124 said:
But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.ydoethur said:
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently unaware of) states that if there is no realistic prospect of a government commanding the majority of the House of Commons, the Government resigns.justin124 said:
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
I did note that where there is a single defining issue and two smaller parties with a majority between them campaigned ont he same side over that issue there is no issue with them forming a legitimate government, but that was of course not the case in 2010 where in several crucial areas, notably tax, the Liberal Democrats were actually quite a lot closer to the Conservatives than Labour.
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.
The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.0 -
In the nicest possible way, could the ERG just fuck off? If the Government had a majority of 100, they could force through whatever Singapore-on-Thames Brexit they wanted, and I'd applaud them. But in a minority position dependent on the DUP, their job is to keep the Corbyn disaster out by accepting whatever they need to accept to prevent both the Government and the economy from collapsing.
Simple as that. Are they really too stupid to understand the reality of their position?0 -
Several Cabinet ministers resigning would leave her unable to form a cabinet given the losses she's already experienced.AlastairMeeks said:
Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.Purple said:
I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
0 -
Over 9 - 25 runs from Bairstow. 50 off 27 balls.
I said England would fancy their chances, I didn't expect a start like this. For Scotland to win I think from here they need to bowl them out. 280 off 40 is a target to knock off for fun in the T20 age.
Edit - Bairstow now 75 off 34! Blink and you miss it!!!0 -
Totally off topic...how long can Eoin Morgan continue to have a place in the England ODI team? Just to keep him in, we could end up having to drop somebody like Woakes.0
-
Yes.blueblue said:In the nicest possible way, could the ERG just fuck off? If the Government had a majority of 100, they could force through whatever Singapore-on-Thames Brexit they wanted, and I'd applaud them. But in a minority position dependent on the DUP, their job is to keep the Corbyn disaster out by accepting whatever they need to accept to prevent both the Government and the economy from collapsing.
Simple as that. Are they really too stupid to understand the reality of their position?0 -
Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.ydoethur said:
Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.justin124 said:
But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.ydoethur said:
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparentlyjustin124 said:
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.
The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.0 -
She could fill the great offices of state with Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan, and she’d be untouchable for a year.ydoethur said:
Several Cabinet ministers resigning would leave her unable to form a cabinet given the losses she's already experienced.AlastairMeeks said:
Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.Purple said:
I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
It wouldn't happen. They would simply look like bad losers. And they're all as weak as water anyway.ydoethur said:
Several Cabinet ministers resigning would leave her unable to form a cabinet given the losses she's already experienced.AlastairMeeks said:
Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.Purple said:
I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.ydoethur said:
How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.Sean_F said:
If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.
May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.0 -
That's not the size of the settlement of York, but includes the population of the administrative area of the local council which is about 110, square miles.ydoethur said:
I'm fairly sure he wouldn't accept my non-acquiescenceYorkcity said:
I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .ydoethur said:
I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless veryjustin124 said:
Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.ydoethur said:
Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.murali_s said:
Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...CarlottaVance said:FPT:
I did.murali_s said:
I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?CarlottaVance said:
Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
I also support democracy.
Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.
Incidentally I was very surprised on flicking through some population figures to find York weighs in at over 200,000 people. I had no idea it was that large, although admittedly I don't know it very well. I always thought it was roughly comparable to Worcester but it's more than twice the size. Are there big areas the tourists don't see or are there just a lot of people living very tightly packed together?0 -
Our entire constitution is based on precedents.justin124 said:
Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.ydoethur said:
Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.justin124 said:
But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.ydoethur said:
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparentlyjustin124 said:
I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.
The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?0 -
I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .
I'm fairly sure he wouldn't accept my non-acquiescence
Incidentally I was very surprised on flicking through some population figures to find York weighs in at over 200,000 people. I had no idea it was that large, although admittedly I don't know it very well. I always thought it was roughly comparable to Worcester but it's more than twice the size. Are there big areas the tourists don't see or are there just a lot of people living very tightly packed together?
Yes you are correct , outside the city centre , where the tourists go.There are very large suburbs, which used to be villages years ago.For example Heslington , then in the sixties the University of York was built and now it is part of the larger York area.
I live a couple of miles from York Minster , but just outside the boundary of the York Central Parliamentary seat.So just in York Outer.However all the major suburbs around the walled city are in the City of York Council area.0 -
If MPs challenge May on 20 July then if she loses they'll all have to cancel their summer holidays as it'll take a day or two for no confidence vote - if she loses it's then several days for nominations and then MPs ballots at Westminster every Tue and Thur.
But everyone goes on holiday on 24 July!
Doesn't seem a likely time does it?
Does anyone even stop for a minute to think their predictions through?0 -
Cheersjustin124 said:
Constitutionally it is always the incumbent. There is no requirement for the PM to resign until defeated onthe Queens Speech. The FTPA might also now mean that under such circumstances a Vote of No Confidence would have to be passed.
That makes sense.0 -
A precedent has to have been followed over an extended period before a constitutional convention can be claimed to have been created. I am aware of no example to date of Baldwin's decision being followed automatically . Heath failed to do so after the February 1974 election as did Brown in 2010.ydoethur said:
Our entire constitution is based on precedents.justin124 said:
Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.ydoethur said:
Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.justin124 said:
But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.ydoethur said:
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparentlyjustin124 said:
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.
The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?0 -
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.0
-
That's perfect timing for TMay. Vote for her or stay behind after school. She should send in a letter herself.MikeL said:If MPs challenge May on 20 July then if she loses they'll all have to cancel their summer holidays as it'll take a day or two for no confidence vote - if she loses it's then several days for nominations and then MPs ballots at Westminster every Tue and Thur.
But everyone goes on holiday on 24 July!
Doesn't seem a likely time does it?
Does anyone even stop for a minute to think their predictions through?0 -
Are you really telling us that Conservative MPs would choose this time of all times to indulge in a leadership election? Or would it be deliberate ploy to fritter time away until the A50 expires & we crash out as so many are expecting anyway?
Who do they want to become PM instead? There doesn't seem to be anyone head & shoulders above the rest and, even if there were, why should he or she want to pick up such a poisoned chalice?
Seems to me like a death wish, a desire to see what sort of a job Mr Corbyn can make of it all.
Good afternoon, everyone.
@NickPalmer: Many thanks for a very interesting article on the previous thread. I'd only just finished reading the header when this new thread appeared.0 -
Todays Tesco Strawberries score is a record breaking 11 (eleven!).
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Fife
Staffordshire
Leicestershire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
Essex
Kent
Surrey
Somerset
That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.
0 -
It looks indulgent.collegeman7 said:Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.
(I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
0 -
"as good a Brexit deal as possible".YBarddCwsc said:
It looks indulgent.collegeman7 said:Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.
(I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
Surely that is the reason for an insurrection, not to stop one. The problem being that even the Cabinet Brexit committee cannot agree what constitutes a "good deal"0 -
It really, really doesn't. A single precedent is enough in law. For example, the precedent that the Sovereign could not appoint or dismiss administrations at will was established by the Bedchamber Crisis.justin124 said:
A precedent has to have been followed over an extended period before a constitutional convention can be claimed to have been created.ydoethur said:
Our entire constitution is based on precedents.justin124 said:
Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.ydoethur said:
Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.justin124 said:
But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.ydoethur said:
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparentlyjustin124 said:
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.
The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?0 -
I think (as voiced by the Guardian yesterday) the Great Strawberry Famine is no longer the top concern.another_richard said:Todays Tesco Strawberries score is a record breaking 11 (eleven!).
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Fife
Staffordshire
Leicestershire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
Essex
Kent
Surrey
Somerset
That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.
It is the Great Au Pair Famine.
What use are strawberries in abundance, if there is no free labour from Gudrun to prepare them & serve them to your children.0 -
Do say. What connections to the far right are you referring to?Purple said:I've just skimmed Dominic Cummings's "essay" (book, more like), Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities. There is no doubting that he's bright (thanks to a couple of years spent reading while living in a "bunker" on his dad's farm (source), but he's all over the place intellectually and he's possibly internally still trying to show off to Oxford tutor Robin Lane Fox (who has a number of family connections that will be well known to students of the byways of the English far right). David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
Never mind for the moment who sorted Cummings out with the Russian gig after he graduated. A key to his status lies in his full name:
Dominic Mckenzie Cummings
is an anagram of
iz nice nice Dugin sock mmmm
which must surely refer to this guy: Aleksandr Dugin.
Odysseanism as a sockpuppet for Fourth Wayism?0 -
Thanks. That makes sense now.Yorkcity said:Yes you are correct , outside the city centre , where the tourists go.There are very large suburbs, which used to be villages years ago.For example Heslington , then in the sixties the University of York was built and now it is part of the larger York area.
I live a couple of miles from York Minster , but just outside the boundary of the York Central Parliamentary seat.So just in York Outer.However all the major suburbs around the walled city are in the City of York Council area.
Although I don't know it very well, from what I have seen you live in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, and I've seen quite a number.0 -
If May were overthrown and replaced by someone more vigorous in pursuing what people voted for in 2016, this would not make a Corbyn premiership more likely at all. The FYP act would mean that there would be no general election before 2022, Tory MPs would certainly not precipitate one in a vote of confidence nor would the DUP do so, and Corbyn simply does not have the numbers in the Commons to become PM without an election.
How does replacing May make a Corbyn premiership more likely? It is nonsense to argue that it does.0 -
For OGH’s sake I would be wary of calling people in public life “traitors”Purple said:
One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)Purple said:David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.0 -
There is no good deal (either for Remainers or Leavers).Foxy said:
"as good a Brexit deal as possible".YBarddCwsc said:
It looks indulgent.collegeman7 said:Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.
(I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
Surely that is the reason for an insurrection, not to stop one. The problem being that even the Cabinet Brexit committee cannot agree what constitutes a "good deal"
The country is split pretty much 50:50.
With those numbers, we can’t stay in the EU and make it work for us. And we can’t leave and make it work for us.
May has a shitty hand, but the cards in the hand remain the same whoever is holding them, and whether they want to take us out or keep us in.
0 -
The Tory Leavers are now toxic nationally. By keeping them on some kind of leash, Theresa is at least getting a bit of respect. Were she to go and a Leaver take over, then the country's disgust and fury would know no limits. The Tory Leavers make Corbyn look palatable.collegeman7 said:Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
0 -
While we all appreciate the information, is it a good use of your time?another_richard said:Todays Tesco Strawberries score is a record breaking 11 (eleven!).
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Fife
Staffordshire
Leicestershire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
Essex
Kent
Surrey
Somerset
That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.0 -
Cheers , I appreciate it more as I get older.Took it for granted as a young man.ydoethur said:
Thanks. That makes sense now.Yorkcity said:Yes you are correct , outside the city centre , where the tourists go.There are very large suburbs, which used to be villages years ago.For example Heslington , then in the sixties the University of York was built and now it is part of the larger York area.
I live a couple of miles from York Minster , but just outside the boundary of the York Central Parliamentary seat.So just in York Outer.However all the major suburbs around the walled city are in the City of York Council area.
Although I don't know it very well, from what I have seen you live in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, and I've seen quite a number.0 -
1) Mrs May is oustedcollegeman7 said:Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.0
