This discussion has been closed.
-
justin124
Posts: 11,527
We are rapidly reaching the point where no Tory MPs would be needed provided all Opposition MPs - excluding DUP - vote for Corbyn. Obviously Gutto Bebb's support would be helpful - as would the possible defection of Philip Lee. I wonder what Sylvia Hermon's intentions are now.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
Having screwed things up so almightily, at least she could try to minimise the damage now. But oh no, she still has to keep saying it won't work.Scott_P said:
And here it is...SandyRentool said:I look forward to seeing Jo Swinson's squirming U-turn.
I could make a crude analogy regarding what she is receiving from Lucas and Sturgeon, but I won't.
https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/11620384602675404840 -
williamglenn
Posts: 54,664
The "original" idea is that it's politically impossible for him to renege on the date!Chris said:But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!
0 -
eek
Posts: 29,656
why is this being done now when there are still 2+ weeks before any VoNC can occur.CarlottaVance said:
Although the idea of Boris being the short-lived PM of all time does sound like a plan.0 -
The_Taxman
Posts: 2,979
I would just like to say what an awsome afternoon i have had in Belfast. I went to Stormont parliament and the building the way it crowns the hillside projects power! If SeanT was there it would have given him the horn!
I went on a tour of the building and really enjoyed it. Political figures past and present were mentioned and although i did not really learn much new information, it was a real pleasure to be involved a process that enhances political awareness. The buildings from an architectural standpoint are impresive as well throughtout Belfast. I went around Belfast city hall as well and that is stunning inside. I prefer the inside to say Manchester city hall for instance. But Manchester city hall is stunning even though it has a different style. I seem to like political buildings as well as the business inside them. 0 -
bigjohnowls
Posts: 22,924
You have nothing to worry about then.HYUFD said:
They haven't, Boris leads Corbyn as best PM in all the latest pollsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.GIN1138 said:
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Landslide BJ Government!!!0 -
HYUFD
Posts: 126,771
No, I have not as I have never said the Democrats will pick the strongest candidate to beat Trump as their desire for a populist left liberal candidate will come firstEndillion said:
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.HYUFD said:
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to TrumpFoxy said:
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...Nigelb said:Interesting - Warren leads in Wisconsin poll:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457548-warren-leads-field-by-5-points-in-wisconsin-poll
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.0 -
Scott_P
Posts: 51,453
And here it is...SandyRentool said:I look forward to seeing Jo Swinson's squirming U-turn.
I could make a crude analogy regarding what she is receiving from Lucas and Sturgeon, but I won't.
https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/11620384602675404840 -
williamglenn
Posts: 54,664
Your premise is that he will win the 2/3 vote without having named a date in advance? If that's your starting point it explains the rest - GIGO.Chris said:
Well, it's nonsensical anyway, because once the 2/3 vote has passed he just has to advise the Queen of the date, so "trying to change" the date doesn't come into it.williamglenn said:
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.Chris said:
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x
2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament
3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y
4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
But I'll humour you. Go on. What do you suppose happens next?
A vote of no confidence, you said. And then you think we go into the 14-day period, and you think the Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And then what? If the other person gets a vote of confidence you think the election is off? Or if not they get to tell the Queen a different date?0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
Believe in Boris?GIN1138 said:
You're really over-thinking this. The sequence would be like this:Chris said:
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
1. Boris would meet the Cabinet at about 9:30am on 4th September where they would agree to hold a general election on 10th October.
2. Boris would phone the Queen in Balmoral at about 10:30am to tell her of the decision to hold an election on 10th October.
3. Boris wiould make a speech in Donwing St. at about 11am and tell the public we're going to have an election on 10th October.
4. Boris could present the Bill to Parliament at about 12pm and tell MPs he wants them to agree to have an election on 10th October.
Now after doing all this the idea that after Parliament has voted for the election he'd make the date 1st November is fanciful in the extreme and it's no often I agree with @williamglenn but he's right that if Boris tried that the damage he'd get in the backlash from MPs, Great British Public and HMQ would be severe.
But you're not paying attention. What we're talking about is the "original" idea that if after the 2/3 vote, Johnson made the date 1 November, he could then be VONCed and the Queen could ask someone else to form a government!0 -
Endillion
Posts: 4,976
You have strongly implied (some might say very strongly) that Warren can't win the nomination, on the grounds that everyone will eventually figure out that she can't beat Trump.HYUFD said:
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to TrumpFoxy said:
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...Nigelb said:Interesting - Warren leads in Wisconsin poll:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457548-warren-leads-field-by-5-points-in-wisconsin-poll
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.0 -
Endillion
Posts: 4,976
Surely step 3) can't actually happen, due to Labour refusing to oblige step 2) because they don't trust him to follow through on step 1) ?williamglenn said:
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.Chris said:
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x
2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament
3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y
4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government0 -
HYUFD
Posts: 126,771
-
Chris
Posts: 11,899
Well, it's nonsensical anyway, because once the 2/3 vote has passed he just has to advise the Queen of the date, so "trying to change" the date doesn't come into it.williamglenn said:
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.Chris said:
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x
2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament
3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y
4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
But I'll humour you. Go on. What do you suppose happens next?
A vote of no confidence, you said. And then you think we go into the 14-day period, and you think the Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And then what? If the other person gets a vote of confidence you think the election is off? Or if not they get to tell the Queen a different date?
0 -
rottenborough
Posts: 65,353
Oh! This is not looking good.Nigelb said:
If stories like this are true, Biden might be out of the race well before such an eventuality;Foxy said:
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...Nigelb said:Interesting - Warren leads in Wisconsin poll:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457548-warren-leads-field-by-5-points-in-wisconsin-poll
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457486-biden-allies-float-scaling-back-events-to-limit-gaffes0 -
Big_G_NorthWales
Posts: 64,985
He isHYUFD said:
He is ex Plaid and if even you can't stand him BigG shows how awful he isBig_G_NorthWales said:
Makes no difference. You sound panickyHYUFD said:
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the partyBig_G_NorthWales said:
He is my mp and before you say anything I wrote to the constituency demanding he was deselected 6 months ago. He is very unpopular outside of brexit anyway0 -
Morris_Dancer
Posts: 62,441
Decided to put a little saving bet on Warren. Only 8.5. But I'm green on Biden and Harris, and thought it made sense.0 -
HYUFD
Posts: 126,771
He is ex Plaid and if even you can't stand him BigG shows how awful he isBig_G_NorthWales said:
Makes no difference. You sound panickyHYUFD said:
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the partyBig_G_NorthWales said:
He is my mp and before you say anything I wrote to the constituency demanding he was deselected 6 months ago. He is very unpopular outside of brexit anyway0 -
GIN1138
Posts: 22,824
You're really over-thinking this. The sequence would be like this:Chris said:
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
1. Boris would meet the Cabinet at about 9:30am on 4th September where they would agree to hold a general election on 10th October.
2. Boris would phone the Queen in Balmoral at about 10:30am to tell her of the decision to hold an election on 10th October.
3. Boris wiould make a speech in Donwing St. at about 11am and tell the public we're going to have an election on 10th October.
4. Boris could present the Bill to Parliament at about 12pm and tell MPs he wants them to agree to have an election on 10th October.
Now after doing all this the idea that after Parliament has voted for the election he'd make the date 1st November is fanciful in the extreme and it's no often I agree with @williamglenn but he's right that if Boris tried that the damage he'd get in the backlash from MPs, Great British Public and HMQ would be severe.1 -
Charles
Posts: 35,758
You asked what "trust" was involved?Chris said:
I don't wish to be rude, but I think you're out of your tiny mind.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
I gave you an answer. I haven't expressed an opinion at all.
So I don't understand why you need to respond in this fashion at all.
I also find it intriguing that you chose to cut out one of the three examples that I gave. Why would you do that, unless to try and influence how other posters might read the thread in future?0 -
OnlyLivingBoy
Posts: 16,383
Insane is what Johnson is doing.ReggieCide said:
That's "insane" surelyOnlyLivingBoy said:
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.GIN1138 said:
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.0 -
OnlyLivingBoy
Posts: 16,383
I am stating an opinion, not commenting on how the public at large view things. The public are way too relaxed about No Deal, generally in inverse proportion to how much they understand about it.HYUFD said:
They haven't, Boris leads Corbyn as best PM in all the latest pollsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.GIN1138 said:
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.0 -
williamglenn
Posts: 54,664
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.Chris said:
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x
2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament
3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y
4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government0 -
Nigelb
Posts: 76,339
Rather worrying to see England's lower order batting quite well.
It rather suggests that the pitch has lost some of its demons.-1 -
Big_G_NorthWales
Posts: 64,985
Makes no difference. You sound panickyHYUFD said:
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the partyBig_G_NorthWales said:
He is my mp and before you say anything I wrote to the constituency demanding he was deselected 6 months ago. He is very unpopular outside of brexit anyway0 -
HYUFD
Posts: 126,771
In the general election yes but I have never disputed Warren can win the Democratic primaries then lose to TrumpFoxy said:
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...Nigelb said:Interesting - Warren leads in Wisconsin poll:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457548-warren-leads-field-by-5-points-in-wisconsin-poll
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.0 -
Nigelb
Posts: 76,339
If stories like this are true, Biden might be out of the race well before such an eventuality;Foxy said:
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...Nigelb said:Interesting - Warren leads in Wisconsin poll:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457548-warren-leads-field-by-5-points-in-wisconsin-poll
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457486-biden-allies-float-scaling-back-events-to-limit-gaffes0 -
Foxy
Posts: 51,036
The problem is that he has (apart from many other faults!) a long history of anti-europeanism. Since the referendum he has been dragged reluctantly to the point where he grudgingly agrees a further referendum as the price of power. He cannot be trusted on the issue.Peter_the_Punter said:
Yes, an honesty contest between them would be an unedifying spectacle but I guess you'd have to give it to the man in the red corner.anothernick said:
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.Gardenwalker said:
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?Richard_Tyndall said:Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
This is just horse trading over who gets the role of caretaker PM, lets see how things go over the next few weeks.0 -
HYUFD
Posts: 126,771
They haven't, Boris leads Corbyn as best PM in all the latest pollsOnlyLivingBoy said:
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.GIN1138 said:
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
That's "insane" surelyOnlyLivingBoy said:
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.GIN1138 said:
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.0 -
HYUFD
Posts: 126,771
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless, any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the partyBig_G_NorthWales said:0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
This seems to be the crux of the matter - no one knows, no one.Chris said:
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?0 -
OnlyLivingBoy
Posts: 16,383
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.GIN1138 said:
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.0 -
Endillion
Posts: 4,976
Also, does the Minister for Magic have to meet him if he's only a caretaker?Chris said:
I don't wish to be rude, but I think you're out of your tiny mind.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?0 -
Mexicanpete
Posts: 31,071
The Corbyn hot air all seems a little pathetic. In contrast Johnson's pre-electioneering tour of his fiefdom looks impressive. His new video channel which has been foolishly snubbed by the BBC (except Evan Davis) is particularly clever.david_herdson said:
With not that much more than a third of the MPs, if he didn't stick to the script, MPs could either replace him or trigger an election easily enough.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
I think that Johnson's claiming MPs are in the pocket of the EU is gaining traction. I thought the guy had lost his touch, but he really hasn't.0 -
Big_G_NorthWales
Posts: 64,985
-
Chris
Posts: 11,899
I really can't believe I'm reading this.williamglenn said:
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
0 -
Richard_Nabavi
Posts: 30,822
Yes, it's brilliant, particularly the reliance on the wisdom of Phil Hammond, of all people.Chris said:
How typical of Brexiteers to claim a mandate for No Deal on the basis that - even though they were all lying through their teeth during the referendum campaign - Philip Hammond was truthfully warning people of the very danger we're all facing now!Gardenwalker said:
I was told that was Project FEAR so I dismissed it upon the guidance of Bojo and Banks.ReggieCide said:No mandate for no deal as it was never raised as a possibility pre referendum?
https://youtu.be/zy3fPPuR9_00 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
What about Big Englanders - that might do meScott_P said:
Indeed, but health tourism, funded by the Barnett Formula is not designed to make the Little Englanders more favourable to the Union...ReggieCide said:In or out, we're still Europeans, so good on the Scottish bint.
0 -
Anabobazina
Posts: 23,795
Harman or Clarke would be ideal. They would be infinitely better than the collection of barely sentient idiots we have clowning around Downing St currently.logical_song said:
Not a bad idea. Whoever can get a majority. Ken's retiring at the GE, what about Harman?Scott_P said:1 -
Foxy
Posts: 51,036
@HYUFD will be along shortly to say only grandpa Joe can win in the Midwest...Nigelb said:Interesting - Warren leads in Wisconsin poll:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457548-warren-leads-field-by-5-points-in-wisconsin-poll
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.0 -
Beibheirli_C
Posts: 8,192
Pulpstar said:
I mean the notional majority count means buttons as there is no discipline on the fringes of all the parties right now anyway.Beibheirli_C said:
Dr Wollaston was already sitting as an independent - or has another Tory defected?Pulpstar said:
That one vote lead is gone anyway.Beibheirli_C said:
O'Mara, Field, Lee, Grieve, Bebb to name a few will vote the way they want to do so on matters regardless of whether or not they're in a party or independent.
0 -
Scott_P
Posts: 51,453
Indeed, but health tourism, funded by the Barnett Formula is not designed to make the Little Englanders more favourable to the Union...ReggieCide said:In or out, we're still Europeans, so good on the Scottish bint.
0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
Isn't there a saying about a week in politics?anothernick said:
No doubt his power to take any kind of decision would be set out in the agreement he reached with the other parties. And if he didn't stick to it he would be VONC'd PDQ. In practice I think the other parties would VONC him anyway as soon as an A50 extension had been agreed and this would precipitate an election during which purdah rules apply so Corbyn would probably exercise the full powers of PM for only a week or two at most.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?0 -
williamglenn
Posts: 54,664
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.Chris said:
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
Can you just clarify that, please?
My basic point is that despite the early election motion being silent on the date, in practice the PM would have to stick to the date they announced before asking parliament to vote on the motion.0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
In or out, we're still Europeans, so good on the Scottish bint.Scott_P said:0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
And of course, unless the Queen asked someone else to form a government - which she obviously wouldn't do once an election had been approved - it would make not the slightest difference to Johnson's ability to choose the date of the election.david_herdson said:
It's very crazy. Indeed, you could argue that the government would be duty-bound *not* to allow the tabling of such a motion, which if passed would defer an election already provided for, by the necessity of having to keep parliament sitting for another 14 days.Chris said:
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.williamglenn said:
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
To critics who argued that the government was silencing parliament, the simple answer would be that after the Dissolution motion, it was now for the people to choose a government, not a parliament which had just voted itself out of existence by the time being.
It's the purest nonsense I've ever read here. And that's saying something!0 -
anothernick
Posts: 3,591
No doubt his power to take any kind of decision would be set out in the agreement he reached with the other parties. And if he didn't stick to it he would be VONC'd PDQ. In practice I think the other parties would VONC him anyway as soon as an A50 extension had been agreed and this would precipitate an election during which purdah rules apply so Corbyn would probably exercise the full powers of PM for only a week or two at most.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?0 -
rcs1000
Posts: 59,172
I think this is a stock photo, given that it appears to contain an oil container of some kind.Sandpit said:
UK has contingency plans for getting medicines into the country in the event of an EU blockade, what a shocker!Scott_P said:
Count me in as surprised if lorries and containers actually get shipped, rather then just their cargo.0 -
Pulpstar
Posts: 79,178
I mean the notional majority count means buttons as there is no discipline on the fringes of all the parties right now anyway.Beibheirli_C said:
Dr Wollaston was already sitting as an independent - or has another Tory defected?Pulpstar said:
That one vote lead is gone anyway.Beibheirli_C said:
O'Mara, Field, Lee, Grieve, Bebb to name a few will vote the way they want to do so on matters regardless of whether or not they're in a party or independent.0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.williamglenn said:
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?Chris said:
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.williamglenn said:
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Can you just clarify that, please?
0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
I've been thinking lately that Corbyn is not looking well which might excuse him a little for his latest tendency to megalomania.0
-
david_herdson
Posts: 18,214
It's very crazy. Indeed, you could argue that the government would be duty-bound *not* to allow the tabling of such a motion, which if passed would defer an election already provided for, by the necessity of having to keep parliament sitting for another 14 days.Chris said:
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.williamglenn said:
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
To critics who argued that the government was silencing parliament, the simple answer would be that after the Dissolution motion, it was now for the people to choose a government, not a parliament which had just voted itself out of existence by the time being.0 -
GIN1138
Posts: 22,824
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.1 -
justin124
Posts: 11,527
Not if Elphicke is included as a Tory.Pulpstar said:
That one vote lead is gone anyway.Beibheirli_C said:0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
I don't wish to be rude, but I think you're out of your tiny mind.Charles said:
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
0 -
IanB2
Posts: 51,067
But not against the $. And the movement against the € - which has its own poor economic data to contend with - is pretty minimal if you zoom out and look at the Sorry tale of our slumping currency over the year, or years.felix said:I note - alone on here - that sterling has recovered all of its losses from the other week against the Euro. Interestingly it does not feature at all on any of the news channels or among the myriad of people on here who were so worried when its decline was heralded as the ruination of all foreign holidays as well as forcing elderly Brits in Europe back to blighty pronto. Funny that....
0 -
Beibheirli_C
Posts: 8,192
Dr Wollaston was already sitting as an independent - or has another Tory defected?Pulpstar said:
That one vote lead is gone anyway.Beibheirli_C said:0 -
CatMan
Posts: 3,180
Don't worry, England are lulling Australia into a false sense of security.
I did say that during the 1st test though...
0 -
Morris_Dancer
Posts: 62,441
Mr. Herdson, aye, and in the meantime he'd have the executive authority of the Prime Minister.0
-
Morris_Dancer
Posts: 62,441
Mr. Pulpstar, it's ironic.
He's clinging to his whip whilst believing Corbyn won't cling to Number 10.
If somebody told him his picture was next to 'gullible' in the illustrated dictionary he'd go and have a look.0 -
david_herdson
Posts: 18,214
With not that much more than a third of the MPs, if he didn't stick to the script, MPs could either replace him or trigger an election easily enough.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:0 -
Pulpstar
Posts: 79,178
That one vote lead is gone anyway.Beibheirli_C said:0 -
Charles
Posts: 35,758
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"Chris said:
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?0 -
Beibheirli_C
Posts: 8,192
-
TGOHF
Posts: 21,633
Nicla and Lucas have no lower to sink - propping up a Jew hater isn’t such a stretch for them.SandyRentool said:I look forward to seeing Jo Swinson's squirming U-turn.
I could make a crude analogy regarding what she is receiving from Lucas and Sturgeon, but I won't.1 -
williamglenn
Posts: 54,664
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?Chris said:
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.williamglenn said:
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
Maybe Ed could stand in for Harriet if she doesn't fancy upsetting Corbynlogical_song said:
Not a bad idea. Whoever can get a majority. Ken's retiring at the GE, what about Harman?Scott_P said:0 -
Yorkcity
Posts: 4,382
Well if you get sacked by The Times and Michael Howard, for lying.Peter_the_Punter said:
Yes, an honesty contest between them would be an unedifying spectacle but I guess you'd have to give it to the man in the red corner.anothernick said:
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.Gardenwalker said:
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?Richard_Tyndall said:Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
Then on tape discuss have someone beaten up.
It could be a split decision.0 -
anothernick
Posts: 3,591
I believe she wants to succeed Bercow so I guess she is not retiring.logical_song said:
Not a bad idea. Whoever can get a majority. Ken's retiring at the GE, what about Harman?Scott_P said:0 -
Nigelb
Posts: 76,339
I think the point is that those wanting to stop No Deal will get only one chance, and the Parliamentary arithmetic is exceedingly tight.Peter_the_Punter said:
Anyone not not possessing the implicit trust of MPs across the political spectrum is unlikely to get a majority.
I think Swinson's analysis is correct - though her political skills leave significant room for improvement...
I'm not entirely convinced that some motion along the lines of Cooper/Bowles, on the back of the Commons taking control of Parliamentary procedure, doesn't stand a better chance than the scheme to instal a temporary PM, whoever that might be.
Procedurally, it would be a very messy callifudge, with a highly uncertain outcome. But it might still stand more chance of succeeding.0 -
SandyRentool
Posts: 22,644
I look forward to seeing Jo Swinson's squirming U-turn.
I could make a crude analogy regarding what she is receiving from Lucas and Sturgeon, but I won't.0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.williamglenn said:
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
I quite understand, but there are limits to such generosity when it encourages misplaced beliefs in the hearts of the gullible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Cide, we morris dancers are renowned for our generous and forgiving spirits.
0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
Yes. I quoted it above. It's exhausting going round in circles.RobD said:
Doesn't the motion require a specific set of wording, which doesn't include a date?williamglenn said:
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."MikeSmithson said:
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.0 -
RobD
Posts: 60,328
Doesn't the motion require a specific set of wording, which doesn't include a date?williamglenn said:
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."MikeSmithson said:
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.0 -
Chris
Posts: 11,899
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:0 -
logical_song
Posts: 10,018
Not a bad idea. Whoever can get a majority. Ken's retiring at the GE, what about Harman?Scott_P said:0 -
williamglenn
Posts: 54,664
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.Chris said:
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."MikeSmithson said:
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
The suggestions on here that Corbyn is trustworthy are ridiculous. You trust him to root out antisemitism in the Labour party?0
-
Chris
Posts: 11,899
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?williamglenn said:
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.Chris said:
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.williamglenn said:
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.Chris said:
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.williamglenn said:
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.Chris said:
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."MikeSmithson said:
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.0 -
Pulpstar
Posts: 79,178
I don't get how Bebb can say what he is saying whilst still holding the Tory whip ? If he sincerely believes he needs to potentially put Corbyn in to stop "No Deal", surely he has to resign it.0
-
Tissue_Price
Posts: 9,039
It's their Executives they need to have squared.GIN1138 said:These Con MPs "seriously considering" making Jezza Prime Minister have surely blown it with their constituencies and will be facing deselection imminently?
0 -
Peter_the_Punter
Posts: 14,617
Yes, an honesty contest between them would be an unedifying spectacle but I guess you'd have to give it to the man in the red corner.anothernick said:
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.Gardenwalker said:
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?Richard_Tyndall said:Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
0 -
GIN1138
Posts: 22,824
These Con MPs "seriously considering" making Jezza Prime Minister have surely blown it with their constituencies and will be facing deselection imminently?0
-
Morris_Dancer
Posts: 62,441
Mr. Cide, we morris dancers are renowned for our generous and forgiving spirits.0
-
Peter_the_Punter
Posts: 14,617
Such scepticism is understandable but compared with the guy in No 10 he would appear trustworthy in the extreme.Nigelb said:
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.Scott_P said:0 -
anothernick
Posts: 3,591
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.Richard_Tyndall said:
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.Gardenwalker said:
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?Richard_Tyndall said:Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
0 -
ReggieCide
Posts: 4,312
You're going soft on CorbynMorris_Dancer said:Mr. B, aye.
"Let's make a far left nutcase PM. What could possibly go wrong?"
.....
Kudos to the Lib Dems for not going along with this madness.0 -
logical_song
Posts: 10,018
