politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A confidence vote to get rid of PM Johnson could happen next w
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A confidence vote to get rid of PM Johnson could happen next week
A leading SNP MP, Stewart Hosie, has told the BBC that there could be a confidence vote in Johnson as early as next week.
Comments
-
As per the end of the last thread, this LibDem fantasy is for the birds. There will not be a GNU because, as the header shows, it is too complicated. Jo Swinson needs to support, or at least not oppose, a minority Labour government limited to extending Article 50 and calling an election.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to concede a different nominal prime minister for the few weeks this would take, I'd suggest looking at the Corbynista wing of the party and not recycled red Tories, as Corbyn probably sees them. Laura Pidcock, RLB or even Dawn Butler are possible, but probably Corbyn himself.
Jo Swinson is not the kingmaker here. She does not have the numbers, and if rumours that Corbyn and his handlers are at best relaxed about Brexit, she does not even have anything Corbyn particularly wants because Boris will call an election at some point anyway.
ETA: I'd agree on the VoNC though.0 -
Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.0 -
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.0 -
I'm not sure how practical the VONC and getting a replacement in is given the various numbers. Problem is if you drop Corbyn then some Labour MPs (ones who want to stick around for the next election) who would vote support Corbyn might not support a different caretaker PM as they are supportive of Brexit.
Which isn't to say Corbyn is able to get the numbers either, I've never been convinced the idea is workable. I think it's even less likely if you rule out Corbyn though.0 -
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.0 -
Isn't that the dream scenario for Boris? Someone else gets the blame for the extension and come the election he can hoover up all those Brexit party votes?Northstar said:
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.0 -
In theory I guess so. In practice I think different dynamics might take hold. The big flaw in the Cummings master plan is really just traditional British aversion to extreme politics kicking in and denying Boris a majority. It’s why the Lib Dem revoke policy is important - currently all the electorate’s choices are extreme ones.RobD said:
Isn't that the dream scenario for Boris? Someone else gets the blame for the extension and come the election he can hoover up all those Brexit party votes?Northstar said:
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.0 -
Bercow would be provocative.
0 -
That is the fascinating part, which should mean an active betting market. Everyone wants an election because they think they can win it. Clearly, not all can be right. Paradoxically, they can all be wrong.Northstar said:
In theory I guess so. In practice I think different dynamics might take hold. The big flaw in the Cummings master plan is really just traditional British aversion to extreme politics kicking in and denying Boris a majority. It’s why the Lib Dem revoke policy is important - currently all the electorate’s choices are extreme ones.RobD said:
Isn't that the dream scenario for Boris? Someone else gets the blame for the extension and come the election he can hoover up all those Brexit party votes?Northstar said:
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.0 -
It was Lord Pannick QC wot won it, according to David Starkey for MoS.
Starkey thinks Pannick misled the court about the historical context of the legal precedents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516507/DAVID-STARKEY-historic-Supreme-Court-judgement.html0 -
Yep.RobD said:
Isn't that the dream scenario for Boris? Someone else gets the blame for the extension and come the election he can hoover up all those Brexit party votes?Northstar said:
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.0 -
I'm told that a VONC next week is unlikely and that this is hopecasting by the SNP. The view is to wait until October 19th. Please don't press me for my source.
Which is a shame, as I'd like to be certain of preventing No Deal and the Opposition are, in my opinion, playing a dangerous game. Their thinking is that the Benn Act looks watertight. Hmmm.
If there's a coalition gov't I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn accepting ANY other Labour figure. I really cannot. So, with due respect to Mike, I can't see Margaret Beckett being appointed. But I'd like to be proved wrong about that as she'd do the job admirably.
Clearly it needs to be someone with no parliamentary future. So hence my tip months ago of Ken Clarke. He would pull in the tory rebels and thus make up the numbers, but would Labour back him? Or, rather, would Corbyn back him? Again, hmmm.
John Bercow is a very interesting idea. He'd love it! It might fuel the anti-establishment Brexit meme. He would be a hate figure for evermore amongst Brexiteers. The idea is delicious but probably quite incendiary. It has some plausibility though. I think he'd get the backing of the remainer coalition.
Getting all the opposition to agree to one compromise figure is going to be extremely hard. But it might be what's needed to ensure No Deal Brexit is thrown out.0 -
Spare us from historians playing at being lawyers.DecrepitJohnL said:It was Lord Pannick QC wot won it, according to David Starkey for MoS.
Starkey thinks Pannick misled the court about the historical context of the legal precedents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516507/DAVID-STARKEY-historic-Supreme-Court-judgement.html0 -
I generally like David Starky, but this is just tosh.DecrepitJohnL said:It was Lord Pannick QC wot won it, according to David Starkey for MoS.
Starkey thinks Pannick misled the court about the historical context of the legal precedents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516507/DAVID-STARKEY-historic-Supreme-Court-judgement.html0 -
"A new government made up of all the opposition parties groupings including the Tories MPs axed by Johnson would then take over the reins of government to take the country past the October 31st Article 50 deadline."
And then?
Whooopeeeee! We have got beyond 31st October without Brexit having happened. Hahahahahaha! Take that, Boris!
So? You have achieved what, exactly? (Other than an ongoing cost of a billion a month, of course.)
The Remainer Coup will have secured nothing positive. No progress towards Brexit being delivered. Nothing to show the EU - just beholding to them for yet ANOTHER extension. Nothing to show the 17.4m voters. Or the even bigger number who sit back, looking askance that you have no plan as to what you are doing next.
But the Remainer Coup will own every piece of bad news. Every job loss, every investment decision put on hold. All without a democratic mandate for its actions.
In short, it will have taken hold of the ticking parcel. But you've taken Boris's chair way. So he won't be there when it goes off.
BOOOOOOOOM.
Now what?2 -
I know "spirit" went out of Westminster politics quite a while ago, but isn't a VoNC at this point against the spirit of the Benn act?
Shouldn't the HoC first vote on Johnson's "deal" (if he gets one) beforehand?-1 -
We demolish Brexit and rebuild the prosperity and peace of this country before you nutters tried to wreck it.MarqueeMark said:
BOOOOOOOOM.
Now what?
It's what the majority in this country now wish for. Kick the whole stupid idea into touch. It was always a mad obsessive misplaced cult of the Tory party which Cameron idiotically attempted to resolve. To the great cost of this nation.
You had your chance of Brexit. It was Mrs May's deal. When the Brexiteers like Johnson and Rees-Mogg refused to back it, Brexit died. So don't blame remainers.0 -
rcs1000 said:
I generally like David Starky, but this is just tosh.DecrepitJohnL said:It was Lord Pannick QC wot won it, according to David Starkey for MoS.
Starkey thinks Pannick misled the court about the historical context of the legal precedents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516507/DAVID-STARKEY-historic-Supreme-Court-judgement.html
Yep and hardly a solid court-standard argument in the fantastically peer reviewed, erm, Mail on Sunday.0 -
FPT:
Naughty. How dare they steal their campaign techniques from the Lib Dems.williamglenn said:Tory boys on tour.
https://twitter.com/femi_sorry/status/1178081653018767360?s=21
https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/resources/images/9804785.png
Remarkably (or not), the chap is a member of the Overview and Scrutiny committee of St Helens Council.
"Cllr Smith has since apologised for taking the leaflets.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that he removed two Labour leaflets from two properties that were in “poor condition” before pushing his own through the letterbox."
0 -
A good example of why calls for moderate language in political discussion at the minute are unlikely to be heeded...Mysticrose said:
We demolish Brexit and rebuild the prosperity and peace of this country before you nutters tried to wreck it.MarqueeMark said:
BOOOOOOOOM.
Now what?
It's what the majority in this country now wish for. Kick the whole stupid idea into touch. It was always a mad obsessive misplaced cult of the Tory party which Cameron idiotically attempted to resolve. To the great cost of this nation.
You had your chance of Brexit. It was Mrs May's deal. When the Brexiteers like Johnson and Rees-Mogg refused to back it, Brexit died. So don't blame remainers.
I agree though that May’s deal was perfectly acceptable, and am equally hacked off with both the ERG and labour leavers for failing to compromise.
Genuine question - if it (May’s deal) came back what do you think the Caroline Flints of the world would do? I’m guessing vote against given Boris’ complete unwillingness to reach out...0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Quite sure October will be amongst the most fraught political months we've ever seen.
On a happier note, I'll shortly peruse the F1 markets to see if anything leaps out.0 -
Agree; Swinson is wrong not to support either a minority Labour Government, or a 'coalition' headed by Corbyn, designed to let passions cool a bit, get us past Christmas and into the New Year and a late January/early February election.DecrepitJohnL said:As per the end of the last thread, this LibDem fantasy is for the birds. There will not be a GNU because, as the header shows, it is too complicated. Jo Swinson needs to support, or at least not oppose, a minority Labour government limited to extending Article 50 and calling an election.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to concede a different nominal prime minister for the few weeks this would take, I'd suggest looking at the Corbynista wing of the party and not recycled red Tories, as Corbyn probably sees them. Laura Pidcock, RLB or even Dawn Butler are possible, but probably Corbyn himself.
Jo Swinson is not the kingmaker here. She does not have the numbers, and if rumours that Corbyn and his handlers are at best relaxed about Brexit, she does not even have anything Corbyn particularly wants because Boris will call an election at some point anyway.
ETA: I'd agree on the VoNC though.
What ought such a coalition do; extend the Brexit deadline, possibly re-introduce May's deal and tell the DUP to go whatsit itself, sort out the fall-out from the Windrush affair and the (similar0 problems EU citizens living here have, and, perhaps, given that it is a coalition, introduce STV for, perhaps as a first step, Local Government elections
Could try and be positive towards Iran, too, and get Mrs Ratcliffe and the other prisoners home.0 -
Top notch whataboutery.MattW said:FPT:
Naughty. How dare they steal their campaign techniques from the Lib Dems.williamglenn said:Tory boys on tour.
https://twitter.com/femi_sorry/status/1178081653018767360?s=21
https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/resources/images/9804785.png
Remarkably (or not), the chap is a member of the Overview and Scrutiny committee of St Helens Council.
"Cllr Smith has since apologised for taking the leaflets.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that he removed two Labour leaflets from two properties that were in “poor condition” before pushing his own through the letterbox."0 -
Not much on Betfair so far. Leclerc 1.8 to win, Lewis 4, Vettel 7, Bottas 25, SC 1.5, Max Top6 1.24.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Quite sure October will be amongst the most fraught political months we've ever seen.
On a happier note, I'll shortly peruse the F1 markets to see if anything leaps out.0 -
I agree with Mystic Rose that the SNP are hopecasting and post-Oct 17 is the period to expect a VONC, if Johnson doesn't find some jiggery-pokery to freeze Parliament. But the Betfair 69% sounds good. I don't see the market, though - does someone have a link?0
-
Yet more remain twisting of principles with this "100% of the spoils" nonsense. Because Leave only got 52% we somehow shouldn't leave? Presumably if Remain had won 52% of the vote you'd have been arguing we should leave, at least a bit?!
It was a binary decision, leave or remain. Leave won.1 -
An alternative govt will have a difficult job establishing its authority after the hysteria whipped up by Johnson’s scorched Earth campaigning. It’s hard to see how it will turn out. The noise coming from the right will be deafening. But if the new government can Move decisively and reset the tone in a significant way, it may yet succeed. High risk.0
-
Leave never specified a destination. Clearly we need somewhere to land. That said, Arguably we have implemented the referendum precisely by creating an eternal state of leaving the EU.Gasman said:Yet more remain twisting of principles with this "100% of the spoils" nonsense. Because Leave only got 52% we somehow shouldn't leave? Presumably if Remain had won 52% of the vote you'd have been arguing we should leave, at least a bit?!
It was a binary decision, leave or remain. Leave won.0 -
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"
1 -
Mr. Sandpit, of those, Vettel strikes me as most tempting.
Ferrari's straight line speed will be advantageous throughout the race.1 -
Do any parties get 5% in each of England, NI, Wales and Scotland?eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"
Edit
I think I misread your comment.0 -
I don't think any do.philiph said:
Do any parties get 5% in each of England, NI, Wales and Scotland?eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"0 -
You have to have people at the top of parties who accept that they're not going to get all their own way, and no-one else.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"
One of our Parliamentary problems is down to Churchill. When the House was bombed during WWII and needed rebuilding it was suggested that instead of the confrontational arrangement we had before, and have now, with the sheep on one side and the goats the other, the place should be rebuilt as a semi-circle, with everyone facing the Speaker. As happens in most other legislatures.
Churchill was, apparently, dead against the idea and insisted on the rebuild being in the traditional form.0 -
I don't think it's a problem. The confrontational nature of the commons is a good thing, ensuring that there is a strong rivalry and debate about the issues of the day. Who wants everyone in a hemicycle singing kumbaya every day?OldKingCole said:
You have to have people at the top of parties who accept that they're not going to get all their own way, and no-one else.
One of our Parliamentary problems is down to Churchill. When the House was bombed during WWII and needed rebuilding it was suggested that instead of the confrontational arrangement we had before, and have now, with the sheep on one side and the goats the other, the place should be rebuilt as a semi-circle, with everyone facing the Speaker. As happens in most other legislatures.
Churchill was, apparently, dead against the idea and insisted on the rebuild being in the traditional form.1 -
Do we think there’s anything to the Sunday Times story on Boris, or is it that their leading on the sex rather than the money means they can’t nail him on the money - which would be the real scandal?
Also it looks like no papers have run with the potential Royal scandal that’s been circulating online (not Andrew), so that probably couldn’t be stood up either.0 -
The question was a binary one but the closeness of the result (it was advisory after all) should determine the type of leave we get.Gasman said:Yet more remain twisting of principles with this "100% of the spoils" nonsense. Because Leave only got 52% we somehow shouldn't leave? Presumably if Remain had won 52% of the vote you'd have been arguing we should leave, at least a bit?!
It was a binary decision, leave or remain. Leave won.
EFTA would come closest to respecting the referendum result. No Deal does not and will therefore be opposed tooth and nail1 -
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"0 -
F1: not taken by much in the markets...0
-
The issue with this comment is that it assumes Corbyn would 'let passions cook a bit.' Given he is an even more divisive, dishonest and reviled figure than Johnson, this strikes me as a very bold assumption.OldKingCole said:
Agree; Swinson is wrong not to support either a minority Labour Government, or a 'coalition' headed by Corbyn, designed to let passions cool a bit, get us past Christmas and into the New Year and a late January/early February election.DecrepitJohnL said:As per the end of the last thread, this LibDem fantasy is for the birds. There will not be a GNU because, as the header shows, it is too complicated. Jo Swinson needs to support, or at least not oppose, a minority Labour government limited to extending Article 50 and calling an election.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to concede a different nominal prime minister for the few weeks this would take, I'd suggest looking at the Corbynista wing of the party and not recycled red Tories, as Corbyn probably sees them. Laura Pidcock, RLB or even Dawn Butler are possible, but probably Corbyn himself.
Jo Swinson is not the kingmaker here. She does not have the numbers, and if rumours that Corbyn and his handlers are at best relaxed about Brexit, she does not even have anything Corbyn particularly wants because Boris will call an election at some point anyway.
ETA: I'd agree on the VoNC though.
What ought such a coalition do; extend the Brexit deadline, possibly re-introduce May's deal and tell the DUP to go whatsit itself, sort out the fall-out from the Windrush affair and the (similar0 problems EU citizens living here have, and, perhaps, given that it is a coalition, introduce STV for, perhaps as a first step, Local Government elections
Could try and be positive towards Iran, too, and get Mrs Ratcliffe and the other prisoners home.
Moreover, since if he is to be trusted he is committing to a policy the Liberal Democrats have ruled out, they would struggle to explain their support of him to their supporters.
Finally, putting a 71 year old extremist in power, even temporarily, would immediately lose the Liberal Democrats any Tory Remainers who have drifted to them faute de mieux, plus of course all the Jewish votes they are allegedly piling up in London.
Corbyn is always the problem with an alternative government. Boris Johnson with a beard and less brain. But because he is also stubborn he won't let another figure take power.
This is why I think a VONC won't be put forward. It would lead to an election which the opposition are foolishly trying to avoid.0 -
Not to mention the constant backroom dealing after elections to form a working coalition. Who knows what you are going to end up.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"0 -
Yeah, nothing much around, as if they’re all predicting a boring race with not much happening. But a mid-race safety car could play into Mercedes’ hands though, and it could still rain. Maybe I go with yesterday’s thinking and spray around a dozen £1 or £2 bets at odds-against, in the random hope that two or three of them come in!Morris_Dancer said:F1: not taken by much in the markets...
0 -
In systems designed for proportional representation the coalition position is negotiated before the electionRobD said:
Not to mention the constant backroom dealing after elections to form a working coalition. Who knows what you are going to end up.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"0 -
Otherwise known as the binning of the manifestoes, so we’d always end up with some mushy stitch-up by the politicians - politicians who would forget quickly that they are supposed to work for us.RobD said:
Not to mention the constant backroom dealing after elections to form a working coalition. Who knows what you are going to end up.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"0 -
We’re already there. The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.1 -
I'm reminded of how long recent Belgian governments took to form.Tabman said:
In systems designed for proportional representation the coalition position is negotiated before the electionRobD said:
Not to mention the constant backroom dealing after elections to form a working coalition. Who knows what you are going to end up.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"0 -
So let’s have an election then.Jonathan said:
We’re already there. The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.0 -
In fairness, the unanswerable response to that is, 'totally unlike now, you mean?'Sandpit said:Otherwise known as the binning of the manifestoes, so we’d always end up with some mushy stitch-up by the politicians - politicians who would forget quickly that they are supposed to work for us.
2 -
What if that is not how people react?RobD said:
Isn't that the dream scenario for Boris? Someone else gets the blame for the extension and come the election he can hoover up all those Brexit party votes?Northstar said:
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.
Clearly the 48% (likely to be more) of Remainers won't.
What if the reaction of Leavers is contempt for the bumbling fool who never won a vote during the shortest ever premiership? I think it far from guaranteed that the Tories would benefit.
I reckon a Remain Alliance govt would last until spring.0 -
No government has been elected with 17M votes, let alone 68M.Jonathan said:
We’re already there. The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
Yup. I'm 100% rattled by the rise of authoritarianism in this country. You rattle me. You scare the shit out of me. I have no problem admitting that. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the methods and history of authoritarianism is rightly frightened right now.SunnyJim said:
Hahaha...rattled much?Noo said:
Canvassing for Labour? Why would I do that when I don't even vote for them?
You thick fuck.
But understand this. My fear of the likes of you will not be manifest in capitulation. I will never submit to your stinking, toxic vision of what this country should be. ¡No pasarán!
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.0 -
That's an even better reason for making sure Jeremy Corbyn isn't leading it. He's already said he'd never prorogue Parliament, so he would effectively be abolishing elections...Foxy said:
What if that is not how people react?RobD said:
Isn't that the dream scenario for Boris? Someone else gets the blame for the extension and come the election he can hoover up all those Brexit party votes?Northstar said:
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.
Clearly the 48% (likely to be more) of Remainers won't.
What if the reaction of Leavers is contempt for the bumbling fool who never won a vote during the shortest ever premiership? I think it far from guaranteed that the Tories would benefit.
I reckon a Remain Alliance govt would last until spring.0 -
It's not really comparable because Belgium has six layers of government with an asymmetric devolutionary settlement based on both geography and language. So there was still plenty of government to go round even if the federal government was en congé for a few months.RobD said:
I'm reminded of how long recent Belgian governments took to form.
0 -
Thankfully that 48% will be split between two parties competing for the same set of voters.Foxy said:
What if that is not how people react?RobD said:
Isn't that the dream scenario for Boris? Someone else gets the blame for the extension and come the election he can hoover up all those Brexit party votes?Northstar said:
Finally some cross party consensus, eh?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes, and that is why it will probably happen. Boris wants it as much as the opposition parties. They disagree on the details but in principle, everyone wants the same thing.Northstar said:Looks like ‘empower someone else to ask for the extension’ legislation is being discussed as the more likely next step for the rebel alliance. Quicker and simpler than a GNU, with the same effect?
I suspect Boris would be delighted either way.
Clearly the 48% (likely to be more) of Remainers won't.
What if the reaction of Leavers is contempt for the bumbling fool who never won a vote during the shortest ever premiership? I think it far from guaranteed that the Tories would benefit.
I reckon a Remain Alliance govt would last until spring.0 -
If it isn't an example of backroom dealing after an election in a PR system, I don't know what is.Dura_Ace said:
It's not really comparable because Belgium has six layers of government with an asymmetric devolutionary settlement based on both geography and language. So there was still plenty of government to go round even if the federal government was en congé for a few months.RobD said:
I'm reminded of how long recent Belgian governments took to form.0 -
VONC after 31/10 extension sorted no need to form any GNU, election will then be automatically triggered leaving Johnson the decision to go on 19/12 or delay to New Year which is why it’s likely that the EU offer an extension to 31/3 to avoid a post 31/1 election date tempting ABDPydoethur said:
The issue with this comment is that it assumes Corbyn would 'let passions cook a bit.' Given he is an even more divisive, dishonest and reviled figure than Johnson, this strikes me as a very bold assumption.OldKingCole said:
Agree; Swinson is wrong not to support either a minority Labour Government, or a 'coalition' headed by Corbyn, designed to let passions cool a bit, get us past Christmas and into the New Year and a late January/early February election.DecrepitJohnL said:As per the end of the last thread, this LibDem fantasy is for the birds. There will not be a GNU because, as the header shows, it is too complicated. Jo Swinson needs to support, or at least not oppose, a minority Labour government limited to extending Article 50 and calling an election.
If Jeremy Corbyn were to concede a different nominal prime minister for the few weeks this would take, I'd suggest looking at the Corbynista wing of the party and not recycled red Tories, as Corbyn probably sees them. Laura Pidcock, RLB or even Dawn Butler are possible, but probably Corbyn himself.
Jo Swinson is not the kingmaker here. She does not have the numbers, and if rumours that Corbyn and his handlers are at best relaxed about Brexit, she does not even have anything Corbyn particularly wants because Boris will call an election at some point anyway.
ETA: I'd agree on the VoNC though.
What ought such a coalition do; extend the Brexit deadline, possibly re-introduce May's deal and tell the DUP to go whatsit itself, sort out the fall-out from the Windrush affair and the (similar0 problems EU citizens living here have, and, perhaps, given that it is a coalition, introduce STV for, perhaps as a first step, Local Government elections
Could try and be positive towards Iran, too, and get Mrs Ratcliffe and the other prisoners home.
Moreover, since if he is to be trusted he is committing to a policy the Liberal Democrats have ruled out, they would struggle to explain their support of him to their supporters.
Finally, putting a 71 year old extremist in power, even temporarily, would immediately lose the Liberal Democrats any Tory Remainers who have drifted to them faute de mieux, plus of course all the Jewish votes they are allegedly piling up in London.
Corbyn is always the problem with an alternative government. Boris Johnson with a beard and less brain. But because he is also stubborn he won't let another figure take power.
This is why I think a VONC won't be put forward. It would lead to an election which the opposition are foolishly trying to avoid.0 -
Although in 1931 the Conservatives got 55% of the vote on a 76% turnout.RobD said:No government has been elected with 17M votes, let alone 68M.
Not that that ended particularly well...
In any case, that is a misunderstanding of the comment, I think. There are not 68m voters in the UK anyway.0 -
I agree with this, Corbyn won't want to risk handing the party over to another Labour faction, and a Corbyn mini-me doesn't really help get wider support.Mysticrose said:
If there's a coalition gov't I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn accepting ANY other Labour figure. I really cannot. So, with due respect to Mike, I can't see Margaret Beckett being appointed. But I'd like to be proved wrong about that as she'd do the job admirably.
Clearly it needs to be someone with no parliamentary future. So hence my tip months ago of Ken Clarke. He would pull in the tory rebels and thus make up the numbers, but would Labour back him? Or, rather, would Corbyn back him? Again, hmmm.
John Bercow is a very interesting idea. He'd love it! It might fuel the anti-establishment Brexit meme. He would be a hate figure for evermore amongst Brexiteers. The idea is delicious but probably quite incendiary. It has some plausibility though. I think he'd get the backing of the remainer coalition.
Getting all the opposition to agree to one compromise figure is going to be extremely hard. But it might be what's needed to ensure No Deal Brexit is thrown out.
I go on about this but I reckon Sylvia Hermon would be ideal: She's not in any of the factions or parties, she voted for the WA every time (which makes it easier to sell the operation as stopping No Deal not stopping Brexit), and she has a great backstory about bringing people together for peace etc etc. I think she'd be a much better temporary figurehead than Bercow, who comes over as much too pleased with himself for a job like this.
That said, better to wait a bit until the deadline gets closer, Boris has had to put his "renegotiation" cards on the table, and it feels more like a proper emergency.2 -
Betting Post
F1: still need to check the article, but put a tiny sum on Vettel to lead lap 1 on Betfair (around 5.8 or 5.9 right now).
Surprised he was down to 4 on Ladbrokes, so that's rather nicer. Off-chance that the slipstream and good start could see him pass Leclerc early on.1 -
You're probably right, but would somebody as tribal as Corbyn - who is a supporter of the IRA - support a Northern Irish Unionist?edmundintokyo said:
I agree with this, Corbyn won't want to risk handing the party over to another Labour faction, and a Corbyn mini-me doesn't really help get wider support.Mysticrose said:
If there's a coalition gov't I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn accepting ANY other Labour figure. I really cannot. So, with due respect to Mike, I can't see Margaret Beckett being appointed. But I'd like to be proved wrong about that as she'd do the job admirably.
Clearly it needs to be someone with no parliamentary future. So hence my tip months ago of Ken Clarke. He would pull in the tory rebels and thus make up the numbers, but would Labour back him? Or, rather, would Corbyn back him? Again, hmmm.
John Bercow is a very interesting idea. He'd love it! It might fuel the anti-establishment Brexit meme. He would be a hate figure for evermore amongst Brexiteers. The idea is delicious but probably quite incendiary. It has some plausibility though. I think he'd get the backing of the remainer coalition.
Getting all the opposition to agree to one compromise figure is going to be extremely hard. But it might be what's needed to ensure No Deal Brexit is thrown out.
I go on about this but I reckon Sylvia Hermon would be ideal: She's not in any of the factions or parties, she voted for the WA every time (which makes it easier to sell the operation as stopping No Deal not stopping Brexit), and she has a great backstory about bringing people together for peace etc etc. I think she'd be a much better temporary figurehead than Bercow, who comes over as much too pleased with himself for a job like this.
That said, better to wait a bit until the deadline gets closer, Boris has had to put his "renegotiation" cards on the table, and it feels more like a proper emergency.
Because if not the same problems apply.0 -
Dear PB'ers
What happens if Boris calls his own VoNC / VoC? He says "If you want to stop No Deal, vote me out"
Can only the Leader of the Opposition call a VoNC?
What will be the impact on the Labour vote when it becomes ever more obvious that Corbyn is trying to engineer No Deal, for his own Party's benefit?
Can Swinson sustain the "No Corbyn" argument if there is a chance No Deal can be stopped?
I remain yours, continually confused
John Wheatley
0 -
F1: pre-race ramble:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/09/russia-pre-race-2019.html1 -
For an official VoNC only the official Leader of the Opposition (i.e. Corbyn) can call a vote.JohnWheatley said:Dear PB'ers
What happens if Boris calls his own VoNC / VoC? He says "If you want to stop No Deal, vote me out"
Can only the Leader of the Opposition call a VoNC?
What will be the impact on the Labour vote when it becomes ever more obvious that Corbyn is trying to engineer No Deal, for his own Party's benefit?
Can Swinson sustain the "No Corbyn" argument if there is a chance No Deal can be stopped?
I remain yours, continually confused
John Wheatley0 -
James Callaghan called two? three? VONC in himself in the late 70's.JohnWheatley said:Dear PB'ers
What happens if Boris calls his own VoNC / VoC? He says "If you want to stop No Deal, vote me out"
Can only the Leader of the Opposition call a VoNC?
What will be the impact on the Labour vote when it becomes ever more obvious that Corbyn is trying to engineer No Deal, for his own Party's benefit?
Can Swinson sustain the "No Corbyn" argument if there is a chance No Deal can be stopped?
I remain yours, continually confused
John Wheatley0 -
Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.RobD said:
No government has been elected with 17M votes, let alone 68M.Jonathan said:
We’re already there. The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.MarqueeMark said:
No, it's the consequence of a system that would have been designed to allow minority parties to have a disproportionate voice. It is not just overturning the problems of FPTP, it is twistng the dial even further the other way. The views of the tens of millions suborned to the views of a few million. Which would pull people to the extremes.eristdoof said:
Put a 5% vote share minimum within each country to be allowed any seats in Parliament.MarqueeMark said:
To a system where your power potentially becomes more powerful the less seats you have.ozymandias said:
I never thought I would ever think this but I’m slowly, very slowly coming round to the idea of PR.Noo said:
We need to protect against an authoritarian executive. Absolutely. We also need to protect against an elective dictatorship either in itself or derived from parliament.
The possibility of gaining an absolute majority on as little as 35% of the popular vote is absurd.
Likewise a parliament running from putting itself to a general election as the country is ungovernable is also absurd.
I need more nudging away from FPTP but I’m getting there.
If you want to lie awake with worry for democracy in this country, imagine the power broking that goes on with this possible scenario:
Tories 170,
Labour 150,
LibDems 120,
Brexit 80,
Greens 40,
SNP 20,
NI Unionists 7,
Plaid 6,
Sinn Fein 7,
NI Alliance 4,
National Front 20,
Yorkshire First 8,
Mebyon Kernow 2,
Ratepayers 16.
And if the tories and Labour can only get enough support to win 170 and 150 MPs then that is "the will of the people"
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.0 -
Although I panned the idea of a Corbyn mini-me it occurs to me that you have to think about Team Corbyn's moves in the context of the Labour succession.
If Corbyn can say, OK, I know other parties have reservations about me but I could support X, then X becomes PM whether of a GoNAfaE or a GNU, that person is then a shoo-in for next Labour leader. So they move into Number 10, Corbyn resigns, Team Corbyn has just regenerated with another 10 years in charge of Labour, and also better propects for the GE.1 -
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.0 -
Do you disagree that this govt needs to look to the 68M rather than the 17M?ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.1 -
Risible on so many levels.Jonathan said:The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.
Where was your howling outrage when Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on 35.2% of the vote from 9.5m voters? And then went on to hand over the baton to Gordon Brown - without a sniff of involvement of democracy.
Or is it just a case of It's OK If It's Labour?1 -
So you disagree that he government should care more about the 68M than the 17M? Interesting.MarqueeMark said:
Risible on so many levels.Jonathan said:The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.
Where was your howling outrage when Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on 35.2% of the vote from 9.5m voters? And then went on to hand over the baton to Gordon Brown - without a sniff of involvement of democracy.
Or is it just a case of It's OK If It's Labour?0 -
There wasn't such an epochal-changing decision at stake since 1939, and even in all such cases since then, the pool of party voters were bigger, as a national proportion of voters, than the plebiscitary 17 million.ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.0 -
LOL, don't press me for my source, get a life you halfwit.Mysticrose said:I'm told that a VONC next week is unlikely and that this is hopecasting by the SNP. The view is to wait until October 19th. Please don't press me for my source.
Which is a shame, as I'd like to be certain of preventing No Deal and the Opposition are, in my opinion, playing a dangerous game. Their thinking is that the Benn Act looks watertight. Hmmm.
If there's a coalition gov't I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn accepting ANY other Labour figure. I really cannot. So, with due respect to Mike, I can't see Margaret Beckett being appointed. But I'd like to be proved wrong about that as she'd do the job admirably.
Clearly it needs to be someone with no parliamentary future. So hence my tip months ago of Ken Clarke. He would pull in the tory rebels and thus make up the numbers, but would Labour back him? Or, rather, would Corbyn back him? Again, hmmm.
John Bercow is a very interesting idea. He'd love it! It might fuel the anti-establishment Brexit meme. He would be a hate figure for evermore amongst Brexiteers. The idea is delicious but probably quite incendiary. It has some plausibility though. I think he'd get the backing of the remainer coalition.
Getting all the opposition to agree to one compromise figure is going to be extremely hard. But it might be what's needed to ensure No Deal Brexit is thrown out.1 -
How do you end up with ‘ten more years’, and what in God’s name is a gonafae??edmundintokyo said:Although I panned the idea of a Corbyn mini-me it occurs to me that you have to think about Team Corbyn's moves in the context of the Labour succession.
If Corbyn can say, OK, I know other parties have reservations about me but I could support X, then X becomes PM whether of a GoNAfaE or a GNU, that person is then a shoo-in for next Labour leader. So they move into Number 10, Corbyn resigns, Team Corbyn has just regenerated with another 10 years in charge of Labour, and also better propects for the GE.0 -
Yes, I wonder whether from the left's perspective it is an attractive solution to the Corbyn succession issue as well as to a Remain Alliance govt.edmundintokyo said:Although I panned the idea of a Corbyn mini-me it occurs to me that you have to think about Team Corbyn's moves in the context of the Labour succession.
If Corbyn can say, OK, I know other parties have reservations about me but I could support X, then X becomes PM whether of a GoNAfaE or a GNU, that person is then a shoo-in for next Labour leader. So they move into Number 10, Corbyn resigns, Team Corbyn has just regenerated with another 10 years in charge of Labour, and also better propects for the GE.
Might be harder to sell to the various independents though. Perhaps Thornberry and a second referendum would be acceptable.
A referendum and GE the same day would also be interesting. The six months referendum period could be much shorter now, as I think it fair to say the issues have been adequately discussed!0 -
So you're in favour of proportional representation?MarqueeMark said:
Risible on so many levels.Jonathan said:The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.
Where was your howling outrage when Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on 35.2% of the vote from 9.5m voters? And then went on to hand over the baton to Gordon Brown - without a sniff of involvement of democracy.
Or is it just a case of It's OK If It's Labour?0 -
From reading all these comments, does anyone think that a takeover of government by various opposition factions would last more than a day?1
-
No. Anything but. That's what they should do. I am just pointing out that your claim 'previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country' was a Liberal Democrat slogan.Jonathan said:
Do you disagree that this govt needs to look to the 68M rather than the 17M?ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.
Unfortunately partly because our system rewards those who can consolidate their base and reach out just a little beyond it, politicians reward their own followers and ignore the rest. That's been true of pretty well every British government in history. Oddly, I would argue the most extreme example was Blair, although he concealed it expertly behind a facade of platitudes.
The exception would arguably have been the Coalition, but unfortunately while most of their ideas looked excellent in paper they have proven utterly disastrous in practice (an exception being tuition fees, which didn't even look good on paper).0 -
Sounds like one of Malc's angry Scots terms for Tories.Anabobazina said:
How do you end up with ‘ten more years’, and what in God’s name is a gonafae??edmundintokyo said:Although I panned the idea of a Corbyn mini-me it occurs to me that you have to think about Team Corbyn's moves in the context of the Labour succession.
If Corbyn can say, OK, I know other parties have reservations about me but I could support X, then X becomes PM whether of a GoNAfaE or a GNU, that person is then a shoo-in for next Labour leader. So they move into Number 10, Corbyn resigns, Team Corbyn has just regenerated with another 10 years in charge of Labour, and also better propects for the GE.0 -
No, I'm in favour of much less cant.logical_song said:
So you're in favour of proportional representation?MarqueeMark said:
Risible on so many levels.Jonathan said:The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.
Where was your howling outrage when Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on 35.2% of the vote from 9.5m voters? And then went on to hand over the baton to Gordon Brown - without a sniff of involvement of democracy.
Or is it just a case of It's OK If It's Labour?0 -
Weirdly it's under Brexit I think.NickPalmer said:I agree with Mystic Rose that the SNP are hopecasting and post-Oct 17 is the period to expect a VONC, if Johnson doesn't find some jiggery-pokery to freeze Parliament. But the Betfair 69% sounds good. I don't see the market, though - does someone have a link?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28180290/market?marketId=1.153697106
0 -
😁WhisperingOracle said:
Sounds like one of Malc's angry Scots terms for Tories.Anabobazina said:
How do you end up with ‘ten more years’, and what in God’s name is a gonafae??edmundintokyo said:Although I panned the idea of a Corbyn mini-me it occurs to me that you have to think about Team Corbyn's moves in the context of the Labour succession.
If Corbyn can say, OK, I know other parties have reservations about me but I could support X, then X becomes PM whether of a GoNAfaE or a GNU, that person is then a shoo-in for next Labour leader. So they move into Number 10, Corbyn resigns, Team Corbyn has just regenerated with another 10 years in charge of Labour, and also better propects for the GE.1 -
He is the fanny of fannies, an absolute balloonrcs1000 said:
I generally like David Starky, but this is just tosh.DecrepitJohnL said:It was Lord Pannick QC wot won it, according to David Starkey for MoS.
Starkey thinks Pannick misled the court about the historical context of the legal precedents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516507/DAVID-STARKEY-historic-Supreme-Court-judgement.html0 -
Bevan said the Tory Party was "lower than vermin".ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.
That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
https://tidesofhistory.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/lower-than-vermin-the-story-of-bevans-quote-that-lives-on/0 -
Government of National Angry Fuckers and Eurosceptics?WhisperingOracle said:
Sounds like one of Malc's angry Scots terms for Tories.Anabobazina said:
How do you end up with ‘ten more years’, and what in God’s name is a gonafae??edmundintokyo said:Although I panned the idea of a Corbyn mini-me it occurs to me that you have to think about Team Corbyn's moves in the context of the Labour succession.
If Corbyn can say, OK, I know other parties have reservations about me but I could support X, then X becomes PM whether of a GoNAfaE or a GNU, that person is then a shoo-in for next Labour leader. So they move into Number 10, Corbyn resigns, Team Corbyn has just regenerated with another 10 years in charge of Labour, and also better propects for the GE.
Oh no, that's what we've got now...0 -
But that's on an electoral basis, with larger numbers than these, and yet for less epoch-defining changes than these. There's simply no precedent for governing anything like this, in any situation such as this.ydoethur said:
No. Anything but. That's what they should do. I am just pointing out that your claim 'previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country' was a Liberal Democrat slogan.Jonathan said:
Do you disagree that this govt needs to look to the 68M rather than the 17M?ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.0 -
The interests of the 68m are best served by implementing the decision of 17.4m on a binary choice. Because implenting democracy serves all.Jonathan said:
So you disagree that he government should care more about the 68M than the 17M? Interesting.MarqueeMark said:
Risible on so many levels.Jonathan said:The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.
Where was your howling outrage when Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on 35.2% of the vote from 9.5m voters? And then went on to hand over the baton to Gordon Brown - without a sniff of involvement of democracy.
Or is it just a case of It's OK If It's Labour?0 -
-
As a leaver voter who doesn't want No Deal how does leaving without a deal best serves all?MarqueeMark said:
The interests of the 68m are best served by implementing the decision of 17.4m on a binary choice. Because implenting democracy serves all.Jonathan said:
So you disagree that he government should care more about the 68M than the 17M? Interesting.MarqueeMark said:
Risible on so many levels.Jonathan said:The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.
Where was your howling outrage when Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on 35.2% of the vote from 9.5m voters? And then went on to hand over the baton to Gordon Brown - without a sniff of involvement of democracy.
Or is it just a case of It's OK If It's Labour?2 -
Given that the country was almost exactly split between Labour and the Conservatives at the time, that is a distinction without a difference.DecrepitJohnL said:
Bevan said the Tory Party was "lower than vermin".ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.
That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
https://tidesofhistory.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/lower-than-vermin-the-story-of-bevans-quote-that-lives-on/
And tends to support my point rather than yours...0 -
Isn't it more a question of only the Leader of the Opposition being able to command time for a vote? If the government were complicit in a VONC against itself, presumably time wouldn't be problem?eek said:
For an official VoNC only the official Leader of the Opposition (i.e. Corbyn) can call a vote.JohnWheatley said:Dear PB'ers
What happens if Boris calls his own VoNC / VoC? He says "If you want to stop No Deal, vote me out"
Can only the Leader of the Opposition call a VoNC?
What will be the impact on the Labour vote when it becomes ever more obvious that Corbyn is trying to engineer No Deal, for his own Party's benefit?
Can Swinson sustain the "No Corbyn" argument if there is a chance No Deal can be stopped?
I remain yours, continually confused
John Wheatley2 -
Somebody who agrees with me that Johnson and Corbyn are two cheeks of the same arse?malcolmg said:
Just a case of swapping one bunch of self seeking arses for another bunch of self seeking arses.Sandpit said:From reading all these comments, does anyone think that a takeover of government by various opposition factions would last more than a day?
0 -
You can still lay an October election at 60. That would now need primary legislation.3
-
Whilst all parties bias towards their parties at least previous governments made at least some kind of attempt to reach out in government. This lot, for campaigning reasons, seek to actively antagonise and deliver the most extreme solution possible.ydoethur said:
No. Anything but. That's what they should do. I am just pointing out that your claim 'previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country' was a Liberal Democrat slogan.Jonathan said:
Do you disagree that this govt needs to look to the 68M rather than the 17M?ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.
Unfortunately partly because our system rewards those who can consolidate their base and reach out just a little beyond it, politicians reward their own followers and ignore the rest. That's been true of pretty well every British government in history. Oddly, I would argue the most extreme example was Blair, although he concealed it expertly behind a facade of platitudes.
The exception would arguably have been the Coalition, but unfortunately while most of their ideas looked excellent in paper they have proven utterly disastrous in practice (an exception being tuition fees, which didn't even look good on paper).0 -
Morning Ydoethur, For sure , you would be hard pushed to put a cigarette paper between the two oafs.ydoethur said:
Somebody who agrees with me that Johnson and Corbyn are two cheeks of the same arse?malcolmg said:
Just a case of swapping one bunch of self seeking arses for another bunch of self seeking arses.Sandpit said:From reading all these comments, does anyone think that a takeover of government by various opposition factions would last more than a day?
0 -
Then you must be against extreme hard Brexit that serve a tiny minority for the 17M and are in favour of ideas like EFTA/EEA status that certainly deliver Brexit and reach out to others.MarqueeMark said:
The interests of the 68m are best served by implementing the decision of 17.4m on a binary choice. Because implenting democracy serves all.Jonathan said:
So you disagree that he government should care more about the 68M than the 17M? Interesting.MarqueeMark said:
Risible on so many levels.Jonathan said:The PM appointed by fewer than 100k is leading a government proudly governing for the 17M who voted Brexit. Damn the rest of us.
Any government should be governing for the 68M, not 17M.
Where was your howling outrage when Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on 35.2% of the vote from 9.5m voters? And then went on to hand over the baton to Gordon Brown - without a sniff of involvement of democracy.
Or is it just a case of It's OK If It's Labour?
0 -
Surely those were just old-fashioned votes treated as a matter of confidence, not the kind of explicit VONC required by the FTPA?MarqueeMark said:
James Callaghan called two? three? VONC in himself in the late 70's.JohnWheatley said:Dear PB'ers
What happens if Boris calls his own VoNC / VoC? He says "If you want to stop No Deal, vote me out"
Can only the Leader of the Opposition call a VoNC?
What will be the impact on the Labour vote when it becomes ever more obvious that Corbyn is trying to engineer No Deal, for his own Party's benefit?
Can Swinson sustain the "No Corbyn" argument if there is a chance No Deal can be stopped?
I remain yours, continually confused
John Wheatley1 -
Yes. If it happens it represents a drastic change of strategy which makes the Benn Act irrelevant. You can argue that the defiant response of the government to the Supreme Court ruling would justify such a strategy, as there are greater grounds for doubting that a Johnson Ministry would comply with the law.No_Offence_Alan said:I know "spirit" went out of Westminster politics quite a while ago, but isn't a VoNC at this point against the spirit of the Benn act?
Shouldn't the HoC first vote on Johnson's "deal" (if he gets one) beforehand?
It's all such a mess. If Labour didn't have such a toxic leader they would already be PM and we wouldn't have to worry about details such as this.0 -
It all depends on what has to go through the commons, who is put into specific positions in cabinet and what announcements that they make.Foxy said:
Yes, I think it would last into the new year.Sandpit said:From reading all these comments, does anyone think that a takeover of government by various opposition factions would last more than a day?
People are concentrating, quite rightly, on who would be PM in a scenario but who do you make Chancellor and Foreign Secretary is just as important. Chancellor is important because we were due a budget which could be delayed until the new year but would a budget proposed by John McDonnell contain a number of controversial items from their manifesto which could push the other parties to vote it down. Foreign/Brexit Secretary is also important for the management of the relationship with the EU during the election.
remember that even after the election is called cabinet ministers still keep their positions even after Parliament is dissolved and have quite a bit of power. During the 2010 election Alistair Darling agreed to join the first bailouts of Greece (which George Osbourne quickly got us out of).1 -
You said "Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'"ydoethur said:
Given that the country was almost exactly split between Labour and the Conservatives at the time, that is a distinction without a difference.DecrepitJohnL said:
Bevan said the Tory Party was "lower than vermin".ydoethur said:
Thatcher, Home, Wilson and Attlee were all accused of governing in the interests only of their own supporters. Bevan infamously said anyone who was not a Labour working class voter was 'lower than vermin.'Jonathan said:Sure, yet previous governments once elected set out to govern not only for those elected them but the whole country. This government is unique in that it does not care one iota about anyone else. Not only that it sets out to antagonise then.
Heck, we could even go back to Balfour's education Act if you wish.
That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
https://tidesofhistory.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/lower-than-vermin-the-story-of-bevans-quote-that-lives-on/
And tends to support my point rather than yours...
So quite a difference. What about middle class Labour voters for example?
Indeed Bevan described the Tory party as lower than vermin, not Tory voters.
0 -
Yes.No_Offence_Alan said:I know "spirit" went out of Westminster politics quite a while ago, but isn't a VoNC at this point against the spirit of the Benn act?
Shouldn't the HoC first vote on Johnson's "deal" (if he gets one) beforehand?
It gives the impression that they are frightened of a BorisDeal.0
