It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
But the rebels have said they are prepared to lose the Whip according to @Big_G_NorthWales
"British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows
Most Britons are white, heterosexual but poll found many think it's more diverse People think black Britons make up 20% of population but are 3% of society 1,800 polled also thought 5% trans when 0.3-0.7% identify as different gender This has sparked fears from MP, media creates a 'distorted impression' of Britain"
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I don’t think that’s possible although it’s the rational option.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
EFTA members are also in SM (with FOM as a condition of course).
Yes but (a) FoM is an article of faith for the EU bureaucracy - see Switzerland; (b) there is a huge difference in scale between the UK and EFTA members. We’d need a bespoke arrangement
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
But the rebels have said they are prepared to lose the Whip according to @Big_G_NorthWales
First act of a new leader would be restoration/conciliation. Whip removal is not a threat.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
But the rebels have said they are prepared to lose the Whip according to @Big_G_NorthWales
Can imagine that the number prepared to actually cross the floor is closer to 4 than 40. They’d be expelled from the party, and never allowed back.
I can't read the mood of Tory MPs at all. It could still drag out for months in theory so Johnson leaving in 2023 is possibly a value bet.
He could possibly survive until May 2023 and then be ousted after the local election results are worse than 2019/2022.
I suspect the lack of an obvious successor is the cause of the dithering. Given that the UKIP-lite membership will choose the most hard Brexit choice on offer the frightening fact is that that they could end up with someone worse than Johnson.(Apart from the lying aspect)
This cabinet is probably the most lightweight and incompetent of my lifetime. Could of course just be a coincidence that is composed almost entirely of the cream of the leavers.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
Not if there are enough of them. To be guilty of treason you have to be on the losing side.
"British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows
Most Britons are white, heterosexual but poll found many think it's more diverse People think black Britons make up 20% of population but are 3% of society 1,800 polled also thought 5% trans when 0.3-0.7% identify as different gender This has sparked fears from MP, media creates a 'distorted impression' of Britain"
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
But the rebels have said they are prepared to lose the Whip according to @Big_G_NorthWales
Can imagine that the number prepared to actually cross the floor is closer to 4 than 40. They’d be expelled from the party, and never allowed back.
Practicality demands not. Once hes gone fences are mended. The 21 were generally readmitted.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
But the rebels have said they are prepared to lose the Whip according to @Big_G_NorthWales
Yes @Big_G_NorthWales said they may go on strike re voting, which should lose them the whip under normal circumstances and I also read it elsewhere today.
I think he said that in response to me when I said that if Boris loses a vonc I thought there would be defections to other parties or to independents.
Alastair Cook was the fastest person to 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days. Joe Root has just reached 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
Not if there are enough of them. To be guilty of treason you have to be on the losing side.
Yes the difference between guillotine and tickertape is victory
I can't read the mood of Tory MPs at all. It could still drag out for months in theory so Johnson leaving in 2023 is possibly a value bet.
He could possibly survive until May 2023 and then be ousted after the local election results are worse than 2019/2022.
I suspect the lack of an obvious successor is the cause of the dithering. Given that the UKIP-lite membership will choose the most hard Brexit choice on offer the frightening fact is that that they could end up with someone worse than Johnson.(Apart from the lying aspect)
This cabinet is probably the most lightweight and incompetent of my lifetime. Could of course just be a coincidence that is composed almost entirely of the cream of the leavers.
There is never an obvious successor except as as illusion. (Heseltine). Neither Thatcher nor Major nor Cameron were 'obvious' successors. They can become the obvious successor on merit with hindsight.
Alastair Cook was the fastest person to 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days. Joe Root has just reached 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days.
One thought that occurs to me is that Johnson had a clear-out of ‘big beasts’ prior to the 2019 election. Which reduces the opportunities for a senior figure for his opponents to coalesce around.
"British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows
Most Britons are white, heterosexual but poll found many think it's more diverse People think black Britons make up 20% of population but are 3% of society 1,800 polled also thought 5% trans when 0.3-0.7% identify as different gender This has sparked fears from MP, media creates a 'distorted impression' of Britain"
Wasn't there some polling from the US which showed a ludicrously skewed view of this?
It kind of depends where you live because the races are not spread uniformly through the country. Either there are no BAME families or there are lots. Is there town or borough where 3 per cent is the actual figure?
Alastair Cook was the fastest person to 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days. Joe Root has just reached 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days.
"British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows
Most Britons are white, heterosexual but poll found many think it's more diverse People think black Britons make up 20% of population but are 3% of society 1,800 polled also thought 5% trans when 0.3-0.7% identify as different gender This has sparked fears from MP, media creates a 'distorted impression' of Britain"
Interestingly it seems to apply whether a minority is viewed positively or negatively. Look at the figures for millionaires for example. When it becomes a majority, the estimated proportion flips to be underestimated.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
Not if there are enough of them. To be guilty of treason you have to be on the losing side.
Yes the difference between guillotine and tickertape is victory
Treason doth never prosper! Why, what's the reason? For if it doth prosper None dare call it Treason!
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
But the rebels have said they are prepared to lose the Whip according to @Big_G_NorthWales
Can imagine that the number prepared to actually cross the floor is closer to 4 than 40. They’d be expelled from the party, and never allowed back.
Practicality demands not. Once hes gone fences are mended. The 21 were generally readmitted.
The 21 didn’t vote for a Labour motion of no confidence in the government. That’s a capital offence for any party politician.
It would have to be ruthlessly done, and with no way back, to stop it happening in the future.
"British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows
Most Britons are white, heterosexual but poll found many think it's more diverse People think black Britons make up 20% of population but are 3% of society 1,800 polled also thought 5% trans when 0.3-0.7% identify as different gender This has sparked fears from MP, media creates a 'distorted impression' of Britain"
Wasn't there some polling from the US which showed a ludicrously skewed view of this?
It kind of depends where you live because the races are not spread uniformly through the country. Either there are no BAME families or there are lots. Is there town or borough where 3 per cent is the actual figure?
Approximately 100% of couples on adverts are mixed race.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I don’t think that’s possible although it’s the rational option.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
EFTA members are also in SM (with FOM as a condition of course).
It's bizarre that people like Hannan still talk about Brexit as if we could just insist on the conditions we want(ed) with no strings attached. If the last 6 years have shown us anything it's that successive Tory governments have had no real idea what they wanted, what the implications of any arrangements might be, and that we can't negotiate our way out of a paper bag, so what we want is moot anyway.
The thing is that what the UK wanted, and what it still wants, is to have its cake and eat it. No amount of negotiating prowess can win that.
We crave the independent national control, but resent the consequences of the resulting borders.
The EU have made it pretty clear throughout what the access for alignment scale looks like- see Barnier's Staircase. It's also pretty clear that the UK can choose where it wants to sit on that staircase. What we can't do is say that we don't believe in that staircase.
Maybe the EU are chumps for arguing that way (though I don't think they are). But it's their sovereign choice. And it's inevitable that the sovereignty of 500 million weighs more heavily than the sovereignty of 70 million, even considering that the sovereignty is made of the same stuff.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
He said that after the referendum and but had no credible response when journalists asked how he could campaign to end free movement and then immediately say it should continue.
To be in the SM and have a derogation from FOM is of course perfectly possible, in that it is not contrary to logic; but requires both the EU and the UK to want it.
At the moment neither do. When both do it will be possible to make progress. But we are told it is 'impossible'.
Its like the GFA. Impossible until it isn't.
At a guess it would take time to elapse so that the EU can overlook its errors (and ours) in pre Referendum negotiations, and a change of UK government for obvious reasons.
I don’t think that’s possible although it’s the rational option.
The Single Market is the primary benefit of membership of the EU. If they give that away without all the political “ever closer union” crap why would anyone sign up for more? I’d suspect the Scandis would go for that deal straight away, for example
EFTA members are also in SM (with FOM as a condition of course).
It's bizarre that people like Hannan still talk about Brexit as if we could just insist on the conditions we want(ed) with no strings attached. If the last 6 years have shown us anything it's that successive Tory governments have had no real idea what they wanted, what the implications of any arrangements might be, and that we can't negotiate our way out of a paper bag, so what we want is moot anyway.
The thing is that what the UK wanted, and what it still wants, is to have its cake and eat it. No amount of negotiating prowess can win that.
We crave the independent national control, but resent the consequences of the resulting borders.
The EU have made it pretty clear throughout what the access for alignment scale looks like- see Barnier's Staircase. It's also pretty clear that the UK can choose where it wants to sit on that staircase. What we can't do is say that we don't believe in that staircase.
Maybe the EU are chumps for arguing that way (though I don't think they are). But it's their sovereign choice. And it's inevitable that the sovereignty of 500 million weighs more heavily than the sovereignty of 70 million, even considering that the sovereignty is made of the same stuff.
Well, we can say it. Just as people can say Boris Johnson is still an electoral asset.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
A Labour motion of no confidence gets 100% support against it from Conservative MPs. Any Tory voting against it loses the whip instantly and permenantly.
It was the same even in the darkest days of Theresa May.
But the rebels have said they are prepared to lose the Whip according to @Big_G_NorthWales
Can imagine that the number prepared to actually cross the floor is closer to 4 than 40. They’d be expelled from the party, and never allowed back.
Practicality demands not. Once hes gone fences are mended. The 21 were generally readmitted.
The 21 didn’t vote for a Labour motion of no confidence in the government. That’s a capital offence for any party politician.
It would have to be ruthlessly done, and with no way back, to stop it happening in the future.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
Exciting match, but other than the result being (for recent times) a rare win, the actual path is still 'Bowlers do well, then Root saves the day and carries the batters'.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
True. But no new constitutional arrangement is going to assist. Especially as it hasn't happened and won't.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Why not? This will possibly be a VOC in him as leader of the Conservative Party. Not as PM. That requires a VONC in Parliament. Which needs Tories to vote against and be expelled.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
No PM has to resign until voted out by the house but i think the PCP wouldnot be obliged to vote confidence in him in the house as he would no longer be their leader
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
My answer is No. Other answers are, I am sure, available.
Following a GE, HM calls for the leader of the party who seems to be able to form government to do so. This continues till general election or vonc.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
No PM has to resign until voted out by the house but i think the PCP wouldnot be obliged to vote confidence in him in the house as he would no longer be their leader
But that would be a VONC in the government as a whole, not the PM. It would still be their government.
If Boris refused to go but the party had selected a new Leader it would seem in order for the Palace to send for the new leader irrespective of Boris playing ball.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
A decent chap would resign. Ah, see what you mean. There were various analyses from 2019 onwards. Here is one:-
"British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows
Most Britons are white, heterosexual but poll found many think it's more diverse People think black Britons make up 20% of population but are 3% of society 1,800 polled also thought 5% trans when 0.3-0.7% identify as different gender This has sparked fears from MP, media creates a 'distorted impression' of Britain"
Wasn't there some polling from the US which showed a ludicrously skewed view of this?
It kind of depends where you live because the races are not spread uniformly through the country. Either there are no BAME families or there are lots. Is there town or borough where 3 per cent is the actual figure?
Approximately 100% of couples on adverts are mixed race.
Probably because that’s the sort of demographic group that London based ad agencies personnel live amongst.
If Boris refused to go but the party had selected a new Leader it would seem in order for the Palace to send for the new leader irrespective of Boris playing ball.
But in the intervening time? Tory leadership elections aren't swift. I suppose he could try to force a GE with Opposition support. That would be a route to a Labour majority, mind. The fact we are even seriously considering the question shows how unsuitable the PM is. Folk of all persuasions wouldn't put it past him.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
No PM has to resign until voted out by the house but i think the PCP wouldnot be obliged to vote confidence in him in the house as he would no longer be their leader
But that would be a VONC in the government as a whole, not the PM. It would still be their government.
Yes, technically, but theyve voted no confidence in Johnson to lead them, and therefore 'his' government (not the indiv ministers), and would be justified in ousting him and nobody is going to punish them for it once hes gone. If he clings in he is ignoring the party's voted upon wishes and becomes the one requiring expulsion. In fact he could be expelled by the executive presumably and then its not a Con govt under him anyway, its one to be ousted.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
No PM has to resign until voted out by the house but i think the PCP wouldnot be obliged to vote confidence in him in the house as he would no longer be their leader
But that would be a VONC in the government as a whole, not the PM. It would still be their government.
I argued this on here two months ago to general incredulity. It's the cornered rat option.
In reality most of his ministers would resign and he'd have difficulty filling the posts. There'd be far too much spittle to lick.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
When the history of Brexit is written, I hope some attention is given to the post-referendum intolerance from Brexiters towards sensible discussion about the nature of what Brexit should look like. The ultras shouted down any voices calling for close alignment as literally treachery (even though that was what a lot of leavers were arguing for beforehand). This kind of scorched-earth tactic has negative strategic value, and it shouldn't have happened.
Oh and before I get any whataboutery from the usual suspects, I have zero interest on lectures from people who can't also own the mistakes from their own side. I'm done listening to ultras and self-professed "hard men".
To be honest, I always expected we'd get EFTA with an emergency brake. I'd have been happy with that.
That said, this is a full-fat hard Brexit and it's still ok: if you spun anyone British around from 2015 and dropped them into 2022 they wouldn't notice a thing, unless you showed them the feuding in the media.
If Boris refused to go but the party had selected a new Leader it would seem in order for the Palace to send for the new leader irrespective of Boris playing ball.
But in the intervening time? Tory leadership elections aren't swift. I suppose he could try to force a GE with Opposition support. That would be a route to a Labour majority, mind. The fact we are even seriously considering the question shows how unsuitable the PM is. Folk of all persuasions wouldn't put it past him.
He becones a dangerous and unstable entity on losing a VONC but i'd expect the Cons to liaise with SKS in case of idiocy. SKS would have nothing to gain from helping Boz burn it all down. I imagine HMQ would be advised to deny a dissolution as it would clearly be the act of a deranged lunatic
If Boris refused to go but the party had selected a new Leader it would seem in order for the Palace to send for the new leader irrespective of Boris playing ball.
But in the intervening time? Tory leadership elections aren't swift. I suppose he could try to force a GE with Opposition support. That would be a route to a Labour majority, mind. The fact we are even seriously considering the question shows how unsuitable the PM is. Folk of all persuasions wouldn't put it past him.
He becones a dangerous and unstable entity on losing a VONC but i'd expect the Cons to liaise with SKS in case of idiocy. SKS would have nothing to gain from helping Boz burn it all down. I imagine HMQ would be advised to deny a dissolution as it would clearly be the act of a deranged lunatic
I guess we're back to relying on honourable and sensible people. It is telling that not many seem to have much faith we have that at the very top.
Ps. Don't know where we are with the FTPA? If a GE is voted for in Parliament, would the Palace be in any position to refuse?
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
My answer is No. Other answers are, I am sure, available.
Following a GE, HM calls for the leader of the party who seems to be able to form government to do so. This continues till general election or vonc.
He would get VONCd in Parliament.
The Tories, having voted him out as leader would have nothing to lose. They would still have the majority in Parliament and whoever they pick as next leader would become PM as they would command that majority.
People are reading too much into this idea that he could refuse to leave. The position would simply be removed from underneath him.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
And, if that does happen, the monarchy is finished.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
If Boris refused to go but the party had selected a new Leader it would seem in order for the Palace to send for the new leader irrespective of Boris playing ball.
But in the intervening time? Tory leadership elections aren't swift. I suppose he could try to force a GE with Opposition support. That would be a route to a Labour majority, mind. The fact we are even seriously considering the question shows how unsuitable the PM is. Folk of all persuasions wouldn't put it past him.
He becones a dangerous and unstable entity on losing a VONC but i'd expect the Cons to liaise with SKS in case of idiocy. SKS would have nothing to gain from helping Boz burn it all down. I imagine HMQ would be advised to deny a dissolution as it would clearly be the act of a deranged lunatic
I guess we're back to relying on honourable and sensible people. It is telling that not many seem to have much faith we have that at the very top.
Ps. Don't know where we are with the FTPA? If a GE is voted for in Parliament, would the Palace be in any position to refuse?
If Labour support a GE that only a vengeful Johnson wants they will get crushed same as if Johnson tries to game one on a SKS FPN resignation (i think) Edit - and i think it fails in parliament anyway. Hiw many tories vote themselves out of a job? Once the party vote him out, anyone supporting him in insanity will be expelled. Even supporters will realise he has nothing to offer and no authority.
If Boris refused to go but the party had selected a new Leader it would seem in order for the Palace to send for the new leader irrespective of Boris playing ball.
But in the intervening time? Tory leadership elections aren't swift. I suppose he could try to force a GE with Opposition support. That would be a route to a Labour majority, mind. The fact we are even seriously considering the question shows how unsuitable the PM is. Folk of all persuasions wouldn't put it past him.
They can be swift. But in any case he should remain in place until it is clear who would replace him. I'm sure Her Majesty would hate it, but it would probably be about the only occasion she could legitimately say his request for a GE is refused.
I think Richard Tyndall has it right about people reading too much into it. Like many British procedures he theoretically could refuse to go, but it would be taken out of his hands.
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
My answer is No. Other answers are, I am sure, available.
Following a GE, HM calls for the leader of the party who seems to be able to form government to do so. This continues till general election or vonc.
He would get VONCd in Parliament.
The Tories, having voted him out as leader would have nothing to lose. They would still have the majority in Parliament and whoever they pick as next leader would become PM as they would command that majority.
People are reading too much into this idea that he could refuse to leave. The position would simply be removed from underneath him.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
And, if that does happen, the monarchy is finished.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
Why? The monarch is perfectly entitled to still use the prerogative in relation to their private property.
I agree however Charles will prove a short, better than expected monarch who will cut the working royals down to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Anne and Edward and open up more Palaces. William will then take it forward for a new generation
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
And, if that does happen, the monarchy is finished.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
It is already happening. Been so for many years. [Edit: Not sure if you know, and mean that it should stop.]
It seems the sunday mail is having a very public strop over any attempt to unseat Boris but they are not facing the reality that Boris is toxic to vast swathes of the country and has to go
I expect Graham Brady will have sufficient letters tomorrow and there is not a better time to lance the boil as Parliament is paralysed anyway and it prorogues on the 21st July (6 weeks time) for summer providing a window of opportunity for a proper election contest
I note that as I had suggested the rebels are saying they will prevent the passing of legislation if Boris remains and are prepared to lose the whip
Interesting few days and weeks on the horizon
Hmm. If that happens, rebels voting against or abstaining from HMG legislation, it makes Mr Johnson more likely to call a snap general election, because it gives him an instant excuse to ask "who's governing Britain?".
The tory rebels could get Labour to post a No Confidence in Johnson motion in HoC, which they could then vote on.
PM then goes to Palace to ask for dissolution, but Queen would not have to respect the request I think, because Johnson no longer has confidence of the House.
Could get mega messy.
Too much of our constitution rests on people in charge behaving with either (a) honour or (b) failing that, at least some common sense.
They didn't cater for the likes of Johnson who has neither of them.
Which proves our constitution needs a bit of work doing to it.
Not convinced as regards the current issue.
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
Impeachment by somebody other than the House of Commons, be that the Supreme Court or the Lords, for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
Even worse than the status quo. The Lords is impossible because it is a creature of party and unelected. The SC impossible because it could not govern the House of Commons without becoming hopelessly politicised - like the SC is in USA.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
The intriguing question is. What would happen if he is ousted as Party leader but remains in No.10? He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
He can't, at least in theory. Whether he'd be poring through the constitution looking for flaws...
Does he HAVE, constitutionally, to resign? Until he actually loses the confidence of the House?
My answer is No. Other answers are, I am sure, available.
Following a GE, HM calls for the leader of the party who seems to be able to form government to do so. This continues till general election or vonc.
He would get VONCd in Parliament.
The Tories, having voted him out as leader would have nothing to lose. They would still have the majority in Parliament and whoever they pick as next leader would become PM as they would command that majority.
People are reading too much into this idea that he could refuse to leave. The position would simply be removed from underneath him.
There’d be few hours ….. days ….. while everyone else went ‘What? What the whatsit does he think he’s doing?’ and he did his greased piglet act.
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
And, if that does happen, the monarchy is finished.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
Why? The monarch is perfectly entitled to still use the prerogative in relation to their private property.
I agree however Charles will prove a short, better than expected monarch who will cut the working royals down to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Anne and Edward and open up more Palaces. William will then take it forward for a new generation
Prerogative. Who do you think you are, Thomas Cromwell?!
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
And, if that does happen, the monarchy is finished.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
Why? The monarch is perfectly entitled to still use the prerogative in relation to their private property.
And Parliament is entitled to pass laws ending elections forever, but it'd face consequences if it tried it.
The Monarch is also entitled to simply veto any legislation they want, but they haven't done it for 300 years, so you cannot pretend you do not understand the concept that just because they can do something, that it means they should.
They still need to be careful about what prerogatives they use and how.
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
When the history of Brexit is written, I hope some attention is given to the post-referendum intolerance from Brexiters towards sensible discussion about the nature of what Brexit should look like. The ultras shouted down any voices calling for close alignment as literally treachery (even though that was what a lot of leavers were arguing for beforehand). This kind of scorched-earth tactic has negative strategic value, and it shouldn't have happened.
Oh and before I get any whataboutery from the usual suspects, I have zero interest on lectures from people who can't also own the mistakes from their own side. I'm done listening to ultras and self-professed "hard men".
To be honest, I always expected we'd get EFTA with an emergency brake. I'd have been happy with that.
That said, this is a full-fat hard Brexit and it's still ok: if you spun anyone British around from 2015 and dropped them into 2022 they wouldn't notice a thing, unless you showed them the feuding in the media.
It first taught to see political stances as criminality.
And the consequence is we now see criminality as political: some people think standards in public life play second fiddle to having the right political stance. Hence we "can't" get rid of Boris because that would be the culmination of some dastardly anti-Brexit plot. And other people, hearing that kind of thing from their own side and knowing it's wrong, stay quiet because of political expediency as they've always done.
The insertion of politics above the law is a hell of a precipice to stand on.
That said, this is a full-fat hard Brexit and it's still ok: if you spun anyone British around from 2015 and dropped them into 2022 they wouldn't notice a thing, unless you showed them the feuding in the media.
Yes, I never really believed the more doom-laden prognostications. My take was along the lines of "there will be some hickups and temporary foulups but nothing will fail catastrophically; overall we'll all be a bit worse off economically, but not so much worse off that it'll be 'obviously due to brexit and not anything else' such that anybody's mind will be changed". Which I think is pretty much what we got. You probably disagree about the 'worse off' part, but I predicted that too :-)
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
And, if that does happen, the monarchy is finished.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
Why? The monarch is perfectly entitled to still use the prerogative in relation to their private property.
I agree however Charles will prove a short, better than expected monarch who will cut the working royals down to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Anne and Edward and open up more Palaces. William will then take it forward for a new generation
Prerogative. Who do you think you are, Thomas Cromwell?!
Another Brexiteer (Dan Hannan) says we should have stayed in the single market.
The worm is turning...
When the history of Brexit is written, I hope some attention is given to the post-referendum intolerance from Brexiters towards sensible discussion about the nature of what Brexit should look like. The ultras shouted down any voices calling for close alignment as literally treachery (even though that was what a lot of leavers were arguing for beforehand). This kind of scorched-earth tactic has negative strategic value, and it shouldn't have happened.
Oh and before I get any whataboutery from the usual suspects, I have zero interest on lectures from people who can't also own the mistakes from their own side. I'm done listening to ultras and self-professed "hard men".
To be honest, I always expected we'd get EFTA with an emergency brake. I'd have been happy with that.
That said, this is a full-fat hard Brexit and it's still ok: if you spun anyone British around from 2015 and dropped them into 2022 they wouldn't notice a thing, unless you showed them the feuding in the media.
It is, and will be, interesting to see how it all pans out.
(fwiw my expectation and reason for voting was that all about a 20y view. Whatever the effect though it will have been swamped by covid and Ukraine etc.)
This piece on our likely next monarch may prove prescient. I wonder what a more interventionist head of state might mean for politics?
The Guardian has been trying that line for decades on Charlie.
The problem is that writing letters to ministers on race relations, the environment and better quality housing aren’t the kind of things to get a scaffold setup (see Charlie I)
He can also just bring up everything he wants at the weekly meeting with the PM, and no one would know. If he tried more thered be backlash.
I think he'll have sufficient (private) outlets such that this isn't an issue; he's also now of an age where his 'energy' isn't what it was, which will dampen down unhelpful activity.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
There is stilol a wider issue of Royalty intervening in legislative processes to bag a better result form their point of view (i.e. their private interests, e.g. controls on or taxation of RF property). And doing so in secret.
And, if that does happen, the monarchy is finished.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
Why? The monarch is perfectly entitled to still use the prerogative in relation to their private property.
I agree however Charles will prove a short, better than expected monarch who will cut the working royals down to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Anne and Edward and open up more Palaces. William will then take it forward for a new generation
Prerogative. Who do you think you are, Thomas Cromwell?!
Labour is seen as more likely than the Conservatives to:
- Care about Wakefield (+18 Lab lead) - Be best on local issues (+18) - Stand up for people like me (+17) - Share your values (+12) - Be competent (+6)
The Tories are also seen as more ‘out of touch’ (+23). (6/10)
Here's what's happening under the bonnet. The Conservatives are holding on to barely half their 2019 vote, while Labour is retaining seven in ten of their 2019 voters.
Around 7% of Conservative voters are switching direct to Labour. 1 in 4 don’t know how they would vote. (7/10)
Comments
Most Britons are white, heterosexual but poll found many think it's more diverse
People think black Britons make up 20% of population but are 3% of society
1,800 polled also thought 5% trans when 0.3-0.7% identify as different gender
This has sparked fears from MP, media creates a 'distorted impression' of Britain"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10885319/British-public-overestimates-minority-groups-like-trans-gay-people-vegans-YouGov-poll-shows.html
If parliament wants Boris no longer to be PM a VONC in parliament suffices.
(Outwith our constitution Tory MPs alone have the same power, which is a bonus).
Parliament it put there by us and we can all lobby/contact our MPs. They are there for us.
At GEs we can elect a new lot if we don't like how they do it.
So what constitutional changes do we want as regards the current mess?
This cabinet is probably the most lightweight and incompetent of my lifetime. Could of course just be a coincidence that is composed almost entirely of the cream of the leavers.
I think he said that in response to me when I said that if Boris loses a vonc I thought there would be defections to other parties or to independents.
Alastair Cook was the fastest person to 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days.
Joe Root has just reached 10,000 test runs at the age of 31 years 157 days.
Can't think what. Do you reckon it's the hundred or the 10,000 runs?
Neither Thatcher nor Major nor Cameron were 'obvious' successors. They can become the obvious successor on merit with hindsight.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
Interestingly it seems to apply whether a minority is viewed positively or negatively.
Look at the figures for millionaires for example.
When it becomes a majority, the estimated proportion flips to be underestimated.
Why, what's the reason?
For if it doth prosper
None dare call it Treason!
John Harington
Getting smashed in the breadbasket really did destroy Broad's batting.
It would have to be ruthlessly done, and with no way back, to stop it happening in the future.
We crave the independent national control, but resent the consequences of the resulting borders.
The EU have made it pretty clear throughout what the access for alignment scale looks like- see Barnier's Staircase. It's also pretty clear that the UK can choose where it wants to sit on that staircase. What we can't do is say that we don't believe in that staircase.
Maybe the EU are chumps for arguing that way (though I don't think they are). But it's their sovereign choice. And it's inevitable that the sovereignty of 500 million weighs more heavily than the sovereignty of 70 million, even considering that the sovereignty is made of the same stuff.
Also, we are not (yet) in a situation where the PM has not resigned following a finding of breach of the code. Though of course that may happen.
It just wouldn't change the reality.
Come on, spanners
He could wreak some serious havoc were he to be so minded.
A 4th innings hundred!
If Yorkshires got nowt England have nowt. 😌
This will possibly be a VOC in him as leader of the Conservative Party.
Not as PM. That requires a VONC in Parliament.
Which needs Tories to vote against and be expelled.
Following a GE, HM calls for the leader of the party who seems to be able to form government to do so. This continues till general election or vonc.
It would still be their government.
BBC The roar for the winning runs is actually about the refund, not the result!
I think a VONC is on next week, and I'm no longer sure he'll win it.
Does Boris Johnson have to resign as Prime Minister if he loses a confidence vote?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2019/08/does-boris-johnson-have-resign-prime-minister-if-he-loses-confidence-vote
ETA from memory the Commons Library put out something but I can't find it.
Tory leadership elections aren't swift. I suppose he could try to force a GE with Opposition support. That would be a route to a Labour majority, mind.
The fact we are even seriously considering the question shows how unsuitable the PM is. Folk of all persuasions wouldn't put it past him.
In reality most of his ministers would resign and he'd have difficulty filling the posts. There'd be far too much spittle to lick.
I expect William to act as deputy monarch from Day One (almost as he is now: note, he spoke before Charles last night, and better) and that will help too.
That said, this is a full-fat hard Brexit and it's still ok: if you spun anyone British around from 2015 and dropped them into 2022 they wouldn't notice a thing, unless you showed them the feuding in the media.
It is telling that not many seem to have much faith we have that at the very top.
Ps. Don't know where we are with the FTPA?
If a GE is voted for in Parliament, would the Palace be in any position to refuse?
The Tories, having voted him out as leader would have nothing to lose. They would still have the majority in Parliament and whoever they pick as next leader would become PM as they would command that majority.
People are reading too much into this idea that he could refuse to leave. The position would simply be removed from underneath him.
I think Charles is buttressed by Camilla, and William, and well-advised: his behaviour over the Andrew affair was impeccably judged, and raised my opinion of him.
I expect a few Commonwealth realms to drop, sadly, but not all of them - and he'll continue to be head of it. And, 15-20 years late, we'll get William as monarch in his late 50s - which should give us 25-30 years of decent stability again.
I got it badly wrong. Root is a legend.
Edit - and i think it fails in parliament anyway. Hiw many tories vote themselves out of a job?
Once the party vote him out, anyone supporting him in insanity will be expelled. Even supporters will realise he has nothing to offer and no authority.
I think Richard Tyndall has it right about people reading too much into it. Like many British procedures he theoretically could refuse to go, but it would be taken out of his hands.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=root
I agree however Charles will prove a short, better than expected monarch who will cut the working royals down to an inner core of him and Camilla, the Cambridges, Anne and Edward and open up more Palaces. William will then take it forward for a new generation
The Monarch is also entitled to simply veto any legislation they want, but they haven't done it for 300 years, so you cannot pretend you do not understand the concept that just because they can do something, that it means they should.
They still need to be careful about what prerogatives they use and how.
And the consequence is we now see criminality as political: some people think standards in public life play second fiddle to having the right political stance. Hence we "can't" get rid of Boris because that would be the culmination of some dastardly anti-Brexit plot. And other people, hearing that kind of thing from their own side and knowing it's wrong, stay quiet because of political expediency as they've always done.
The insertion of politics above the law is a hell of a precipice to stand on.
The primary objective for any conservative has to be to conserve the institution, and that may require compromises.
We know (as plenty of international corporations have figured out) that it's what the young care about most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDLZqe735k
(fwiw my expectation and reason for voting was that all about a 20y view. Whatever the effect though it will have been swamped by covid and Ukraine etc.)
1. Boris Johnson tried to cover up partygate, and lied to the public (+40)
2. Boris Johnson is not in touch with working-class people (+39)
23% have a positive view of him, 60% negative.
Keir Starmer has a rating of -28 (21% positive, 49% negative).
(5/10)
- Care about Wakefield (+18 Lab lead)
- Be best on local issues (+18)
- Stand up for people like me (+17)
- Share your values (+12)
- Be competent (+6)
The Tories are also seen as more ‘out of touch’ (+23). (6/10)
Around 7% of Conservative voters are switching direct to Labour. 1 in 4 don’t know how they would vote. (7/10)
All signs are that partygate has crystallised historic concerns about the Tories and turned the people of Wakefield decidedly against them (9)
The Conservatives are behind Labour in every age group apart from the over-65s. (3/10)
Johnson has managed to unite Wakefield against him, he really is the Corbyn of the Tories