|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who will lead us now?
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The consoling theory is that people have learned from their mistake in electing IDS, passed on to Glory or joined UKIP. Let us hope it is right.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I am wondering just how constitutionally valid this process is. I realise that we, the people, do not elect the Prime Minister, we elect members of parliament. However, I thought that the constitutional process was that the MP's then choose one of their number to be the Prime Minister. This idea of people who happen to be members of the "right" political party getting to choose the prime minister seems to me at best, contrary to convention and at worst, illegal.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I am wondering just how constitutionally valid this process is. I realise that we, the people, do not elect the Prime Minister, we elect members of parliament. However, I thought that the constitutional process was that the MP's then choose one of their number to be the Prime Minister. This idea of people who happen to be members of the "right" political party getting to choose the prime minister seems to me at best, contrary to convention and at worst, illegal.
I agree with you. There was a time when this would have been regarded as contempt of Parliament.
The situation we now have, where we have a leader of one of the major parties insisting,
(a) on staying when his MPs don't respect him and won't serve with him, and
(b) claims his mandate comes from his party members rather than the electors through his MPs,
is both ludicrous and an abuse of the word 'democracy'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
It has the same "constitutional validity" as it has had on many occasions in the past, for instance: - Winston Churchilll (1940)
- James Callaghan (1976)
- Gordon Brown (2007)
In the absence of a written constitution we rely on what has gone before, and it has long been established that if the ruling party changes leader then that person automatically becomes PM without there being a general election.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It has the same "constitutional validity" as it has had on many occasions in the past, for instance: - Winston Churchilll (1940)
- James Callaghan (1976)
- Gordon Brown (2007)
In the absence of a written constitution we rely on what has gone before, and it has long been established that if the ruling party changes leader then that person automatically becomes PM without there being a general election.
These PM's were all chosen by parliament. They were not chosen by a self-selecting subset of the wider electorate.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
How was Gordon Brown chosen by Parliament in a way that Theresa May (for example) won't be?
[ 08. July 2016, 23:28: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Gordon Brown was the choice of the largest party in parliament (then Labour). I am not disputing that the largest party, or controlling group, in the Commons should choose the PM - that is essentially how PM's have been chosen since Walpole's day. (Strictly speaking the Monarch chooses the PM, but usually follows the advice of parliament, sometimes in the person of the outgoing PM)
When the opposition wins a general election they have a leader in place and that leader will be their choice of PM. (Although I'm told that in 1945 Herbert Morrison - bizarrely - tried to challenge Attlee after the result of the general election was declared, but Attlee got wind of it and went to the Palace to kiss hands before Morrison could make his move).
Sometimes the monarch will exercise his/her constitutional prerogative to choose a Prime Minister, as did George V in 1931 when he asked Ramsay MacDonald to lead a National Government. MacDonald accepted the King's commission, although he knew it would destroy his career and reputation.
The whole point of this constitutional process is to nominate a PM who will command the confidence of the House - without which government cannot function. If Teresa May wins the ballot of party members, she will have also demonstrated that she has the confidence of the House, or at least the governing party. If Andrea Leadsom wins, not so much.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the next general election (a flock of pigs just flew past my window). we will have a PM who demonstrably does not have the confidence of the house. - Cue Corbynistas telling us that sitting MP's who do not support the Dear Leader will be deselected. If Labour in government were to select a leader under its current rules, the PM could potentially be chosen by a £3 entryist rent-a-mob - a very worrying scenario IMO. So I am more concerned about Labour, but I believe that both party's leader election procedures have the potential to subvert the constitution and parliamentary sovereignty.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Nasty argument surfacing this morning about whether Leadsom did or did not say that a mother would have a better interest in the future than a non-mother. Her supporters say that that was not what she said and she did not imply any better staus for her than for May. I heard the interview, and she did backpedal after the first comment, with an air of 'get me out of this', and then repeated the idea.
It wasn't impressive, and accusing the Times of gutter politics because it supports May wasn't helpful, I feel. PM's shouldn't make mistakes like that. As bad as Brown's bigot remark? Probably not, but a glimpse into her world view.
I have been blessed with neither a partner nor children. I do have nephews and nieces. I feel my years of teaching to be diminished.
But on the other hand, the attack on Leadsom doesn't feel good, either.
[ 09. July 2016, 08:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
I can't see Andrea Leadsom standing up to Trump or smacking Corbyn back where he belongs. Theresa May comes across as having the strength and intelligence to do both quite easily.
Whoever gets in, there will inevitably be comparisons with Thatcher and either candidate is going to be hated in a pretty short space of time. Things are going to be difficult whatever with Brexit anyway: Theresa May seems like the more robust candidate and better able to cope.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I quite like leadson, but having been a pit prop in brexit she will not pacify the 48% of seethers. T. May seems the obvious choice to try and reunite the country and move it forward to wherever it is headed.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Rachel Sylvester, the Times journalist who did the piece on Andrea Leadsom has been on the news channels.
Unfortunately for Mrs Leadsom, Ms Sylvester is an old-school journalist who not only takes notes but also carries a tape-recorder. Her tapes back-up the story about Leadsom's remarks re Teresa May and children 100%.
Really bad news for Mrs Leadsom is that Rachel Sylvester is able to prove that the subject of Teresa May was brought up by Leadsom, not raised by the journalist, and it was Leadsom who introduced the subject of children.
Quite apart from anything else, I wonder how this will go down with two of Mrs Leadsom's prominent backers, Penny Mordaunt (unmarried, lives with partner, childless) and William Wragg (another out-and-proud Tory MP).
Not only is this woman not fit to be PM, I seriously question whether she ought to be an MP. So far it has been proved she lied about her City experience on her CV, she's lied about her links to Christian Concern (prop Andrea Minchiello-Williams), she's accepted the backing of Britain First (current home of Nick Griffin, formerly head of the BNP), and now she's attacking Teresa May for being childless.
If elected she could become our own version of Trump ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Leadsom will cost the party the next election, I think. She may be in tune with some of the grassroots but I doubt she speaks for the wider country as a whole.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I am a bad, bad person. As a nearly Corbynite Labour supporter, it is very hard not to enjoy the Tories going through their own process of horror and conflicting emotions at the range of leaders available to them.
Sadly, this can be traced directly back to Blair's fanatical separation of politics and government, and his insistence on pursuing the former to the complete exclusion of the latter. Cameron, of course, was a total convert to this cause, and therefore bears the blame for the last six years, during which this process has proceeded apace, with only the Liberal Democrats there to insist that reality was able to impinge on decision making occasionally.
Now that there is no accountability to reality at all, but only to the echo chamber of the Tory shires, God help us all. This could go nearly as well as the appointment of Gordon Brown as prime minister.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The thing that worries me is that the Conservative Party won't think: "we can't elect Andrea Leadsom, because she'll lose to Jeremy Corbyn". In 1990 the Tories ditched Mrs Thatcher, and the Poll Tax, because they thought she would lose the next election to Neil Kinnock. This is why you need a decent opposition. It may not win elections but at least it encourages the governing party to be on it's best behaviour.
In a parallel universe the communication between Tony Blair and Bush went like this:
I am with you. But if, and only, if there is a fucking plan on the table, capisch. If we go to war without a plan and it all goes tits up, that fat twat Clarke will have my arse on a plate. I am not having biggest swing to the Tories since 1931 on my fucking gravestone. No plan, no fucking deal.
But, unfortunately, we had that nice Mr Duncah Smith leading the Tories and so, instead of Tony Soprano, we got "Yo Blair". The rest, as they say is history.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I am a bad, bad person. As a nearly Corbynite Labour supporter, it is very hard not to enjoy the Tories going through their own process of horror and conflicting emotions at the range of leaders available to them.
Yes, you have my sympathy. Being stuck with the beardy weirdy from Cloud Nine is no joke. I know all the decent people resigned but I'd have thought maybe Harriet Harman or Hilary Benn, or Andy Burnham might have offered to stand.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
1. Harriet Harman has had enough of being the also-ran - and in any case she's not much younger than Jeremy Corbyn so would be 70 at the time of the next General Election.
2. Hilary Benn is also not much younger than JC, and his support for the government over limited air strikes against ISIS in Syria means he will never get the vote of the no-war-at-any-cost brigade.
3. Andy 'Bambi' Burnham is too intent on saving his own skin and desperate for the traditional Labour voter to think he's not in the shadow cabinet, hence his pushing of his intention to stand as Mayor of Manchester.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Rocinante quote:
Originally posted by L'Organist quote:
It has the same "constitutional validity" as it has had on many occasions in the past, for instance:- Winston Churchilll (1940)
- James Callaghan (1976)
- Gordon Brown (2007)
In the absence of a written constitution we rely on what has gone before, and it has long been established that if the ruling party changes leader then that person automatically becomes PM without there being a general election.
These PM's were all chosen by parliament. They were not chosen by a self-selecting subset of the wider electorate.
Winston Churchill - chosen by George VI
Jim Callaghan - took over on resignation of PM (Harold Wilson)
Gordon Brown (as Callaghan)
The only PM in the last 50 years to have taken over mid-term and then been re-elected as PM is John Major: all the others (Home, Callaghan, Brown) have been notable failures in general elections.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Churchill suspended the quinquennial act - there was no General Election between 1935 and 1945 - but then we were in a major situation of national peril, so hardly a precedent.
Eden took over from Churchill and called an election.
Macmillan took over from Eden and didn't.
Home took over from Macmillan and didn't.
Callaghan took over from Wilson and didn't.
Major took over from Thatcher and didn't.
Brown took over from Blair and didn't.
Of these, Eden, Macmillan and Home became PM by the mysterious process called 'emergence' where soundings were taken among the great and the good and RA Butler was passed over. Callaghan was elected by the Labour PLP, Major was elected by the Conservative PLP and Brown was chosen by default as no-one had the stones to stand against him. So if Teresa May or Andrea Leadsom gets in and says, "right, no election before 2020" she has more than adequate precedent from both parties. Putting two candidates before the membership is new but, arguably, preferable to the process of emergence which damaged Lord Home to the extent that senior colleagues refused to serve in his Cabinet, on the grounds that the appointment was a stitch up. Certainly, as Betjemaniac points out, in the event that a Labour PM has a heart attack in office the choice of Prime Minister would basically be open to anyone with a credit card and an internet connection who was prepared to cough up £3.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
The succession of Winston Churchill was actually decided at a meeting between Churchill, Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, Attlee and Arthur Greenwood. There seem to be varying accounts of what went on but the result was that Halifax, the heir apparent, agreed to step aside as he wouldn't get the support from the Labour members that would be needed for a coalition government.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Guessing that would be the same Lord Halifax who thought Britain couldn't hold out against the Nazis and was after knocking out a peace deal/surrender. All of which might have have meant us not worrying our heads over the rumblings of this past few weeks.
The fascinating thing about history is that it's constantly being made.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The fascinating thing about history is that it's constantly being made.
And ignored.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not only is this woman not fit to be PM, I seriously question whether she ought to be an MP. So far it has been proved she lied about her City experience on her CV, she's lied about her links to Christian Concern (prop Andrea Minchiello-Williams), she's accepted the backing of Britain First (current home of Nick Griffin, formerly head of the BNP), and now she's attacking Teresa May for being childless.
If elected she could become our own version of Trump
very much agree.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rocinante:
The whole point of this constitutional process is to nominate a PM who will command the confidence of the House - without which government cannot function. If Teresa May wins the ballot of party members, she will have also demonstrated that she has the confidence of the House, or at least the governing party. If Andrea Leadsom wins, not so much.
So how would this work where the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party, but the party only governs through coalition because it doesn't have a majority? If that party wanted to change its leader, what happens then? Does the leader have to be elected by both the governing party and the party with which it governs in coalition?
And does the prime minister have to be an MP? You can be a Secretary of State and a Lord?
It's worth pointing out that the party leader doesn't also have to be Prime Minister. John Major resigned as Conservative party leader to get rebel MPs to "put up or shut up." He didn't resign as Prime Minister.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
So how would this work where the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party, but the party only governs through coalition because it doesn't have a majority? If that party wanted to change its leader, what happens then? Does the leader have to be elected by both the governing party and the party with which it governs in coalition?
As they say on Facebook, it's complicated. If Mr Cameron had been run over by the proverbial bus there would have been a leadership election in the Conservative Party and the winner would have been Prime Minister. (Possibly Mr Clegg would have got to be acting PM, in order to give none of the contenders an unfair advantage). The exception to this rule would be if someone on the party's right had run on a platform of repudiating the coalition agreement and going to the country. In which case he would get to kiss hands, pass a motion of "no confidence" in his administration and then ask Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. The minority party would, technically, get no say in the matter but thoughtful MPs keen to make the coalition work might have preferred a Lib Dem friendly PM to a less Lib Dem friendly one.
quote:
And does the prime minister have to be an MP? You can be a Secretary of State and a Lord?
The Last PM to serve from the Lords was Lord Rosebury, at the beginning of the 20th Century. In 1940, one of Lord Halifax's reasons for declining the Prime Minister's job was that he felt that he could not adequately lead the country from the Lords. Such is the nature of the British constitution that, since then, there has been a convention that the Prime Minister has to be a Member of the Commons. The last peer to become PM was the 14th Earl of Home who renounced his peerage in order to stand for the Commons. He was subsequently re-ennobled (if that wasn't a word, it is now) as Lord Home of the Hirsel. His son, I believe now rejoices in the title of the 15th Earl of Home. The change in the law to allow this sleight of hand was, of course, brought about Anthony, 2nd Viscount Stansgate, who spent his latter years posing as some kind of Tribune of the Proletariat. His son, of course, rejoices in the title of the 3rd Viscount Stansgate. Nowadays, giddy aristocrats with delusions of adequacy are allowed to stand for election to the Commons since Mr Blair ejected most of the hereditary peers from the Upper Chamber. Personally, I think they should have left the hereditary peers and told them you can only join the Plebs if you renounce your hereditary peerage FOREVER, EVEN UNTO THE MOST DISTANT GENERATION. Ten gets you five that the fuckers would have preferred to hang onto the Coronet.
quote:
It's worth pointing out that the party leader doesn't also have to be Prime Minister. John Major resigned as Conservative party leader to get rebel MPs to "put up or shut up." He didn't resign as Prime Minister.
Indeed, but he would have done had he lost the subsequent election for party leader. Lloyd George governed as Prime Minister and head of the Lloyd George Liberals with backing from the Conservatives. Technically, you get to be PM if you can carry a majority of the House of Commons. This was the last gasp of the system that prevailed in the eighteenth century where a change in the factional constellation of Whig and Tory might raise up one PM and lower another. But nowadays it doesn't work like that. If you do not have the backing of your MPs in the House of Commons you cannot be party leader and, therefore, cannot be Prime Minister. The partial exception to this rule was the great emergency of 1940, when Sir Winston Churchill was installed as Prime Minister, Mr Chamberlain remained as Leader of the Conservative Party (and the House) until his death on the grounds that the PCP didn't much like Winston. At the height of a national emergency, the greatest statesman the realm has known, the man who saved Britain, the man to whom, we owe our lives, our liberties, our very national existence as a free people, had the humility to acknowledge that you cannot be leader of the Parliamentary Party if you do not command the confidence of the majority of your MPs. One wonders, truly one does, what qualities a Party Leader must have, what repository of support in the nation, to ignore this rule to which Sir Winston Churchill, in the hour in which he was called to give the lion's roar, nonetheless humbly submitted.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... The change in the law to allow this sleight of hand was, of course, brought about Anthony, 2nd Viscount Stansgate, who spent his latter years posing as some kind of Tribune of the Proletariat. His son, of course, rejoices in the title of the 3rd Viscount Stansgate. ...
Just in case anyone is confused by all this, the 3rd Viscount Stansgate is not Hilary Benn in disguise but his older brother.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
And not all hereditaries are useless: John Thurso stood and was elected to the Commons for the LibDems and was very good (he's also a very nice man).
And Peter Carrington was an excellent Foreign Secretary whilst sitting in the Upper House - and, being an honourable man, the only member of the Thatcher government to resign over the Falklands debacle, despite having the least responsibility for the removal of HMS Endurance...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"Mothergate" may not scupper Leadsom, but has raised further big questions about both her inexperience and her character. I think she has to apologise publicly to May for even raising the issue of chidlessness. And I understand that the full tape of the interview is rather worse than the initial report, which Leadsom claimed as a misrepresentation.
Without some equivalent "clanger" by herself, Theresa May is odds on to win now.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Brief correction to Callan's largely excellent post: The last peer to lead from the Lords was not Rosebery, who resigned in 1895 after losing a majority in the House of Commons, but Lord Salisbery, who succeeded him and resigned in 1902.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Leadsom about to pull out, apparently.
[ 11. July 2016, 10:59: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Yep - she's pulled out.
So May is PM now?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Bar the shouting. I think Cameron has to troll along to the Palace and unkiss hands or something. And give HM May's phone number in the event that she wants another Prime Minister - as opposed to seizing power and ruling by royal decree.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I wish she would.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yep - she's pulled out.
So May is PM now?
Unless the Tory party has a collective snark at having a pro-Remain PM.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Whereas actually even Gove has come out and said that May should be allowed to get on with it.
The Queen is currently in Scotland I believe. Perhaps she'll be tempted to stay there given the state of other parts of the kingdom. However, I don't know if she'll traipse back to London to swap Prime Ministers, or whether they'll just have to wait for her summer holidays to finish....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Whereas actually even Gove has come out and said that May should be allowed to get on with it.
The Queen is currently in Scotland I believe. Perhaps she'll be tempted to stay there given the state of other parts of the kingdom. However, I don't know if she'll traipse back to London to swap Prime Ministers, or whether they'll just have to wait for her summer holidays to finish....
Aparently the Queen is back tomorrow so maybe May will pop round for tea then
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
and if we'd all just stopped at post three of the thread all the jostling of past 2 weeks could have been avoided.
Just call me Mystic Betjemaniac ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
and if we'd all just stopped at post three of the thread all the jostling of past 2 weeks could have been avoided.
Just call me Mystic Betjemaniac
So how much did you put on then? I'm a Methodist, so my interest is completely academic of course.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Take back control!
No, you take back control.
I am, I just knifed somebody in the back, that is taking back control.
I see that somebody just knifed you in the back, so they've taken back control.
No, they haven't, they've just resigned.
Well, I'm off for a spot of lunch, that is taking back control.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
The BBC is reporting that Cameron will do PMQ on Wednesday lunchtime and then go to the Palace and resign and invite HMQ to invite TM to form a Government. Then TM will go to the Palace and have tea with HMQ and be invited to form a Government. So civilised. So British. So much control taken back.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Correction: when I said take back control, that was in the heat of the referendum campaign, when obviously one's emotions are over-heated, and one isn't as rational as one would like. What I really meant, was that a right-wing Tory government should take control. I'm sure that all right-thinking people will agree with this, after all, there's only so much blood-letting that is allowed on TV at 6pm.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
And there is something else to think about:
It only requires two-thirds of MPs to ask for a general election for one to be called, and the minimum requirement is just 3 weeks notice. So, this is how it could look:
Mrs May takes over as PM.
Labour/SNP say this is undemocratic and move to have a general election - move is supported by the necessary two-thirds.
Teresa May goes back to Buckingham Palace to ask HMQ to prorogue Parliament so that election can be called.
Date chosen is 3-4 weeks on.
Conservatives partly campaign on unnecessary expense/uncertainty of election, paint SNP, etc as spendthrift and irresponsible.
Labour party is forced to go into election with J Corbyn at the helm and is annihilated at the polls after the main feature of their campaign is infighting and Momentum heckling long-serving Labour MPs.
SNP lose more Scottish seats to reinvigorated Scottish tories.
End result: Teresa May back in Downing Street with conservatives having increased majority and in power to autumn of 2021.
I might put a tenner on that ...
(edited to correct spellings)
[ 11. July 2016, 15:58: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, if Labour demand an election right now, that definitely shows their suicidal drift. Still, I wouldn't put it past them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Where would the 2/3 parliamentary majority come from to force a general election? can't see many Tory MPs supporting a no-confidence motion if the whips lean on them. Gove maybe, in one of his "who can I shaft today?" moods.
This process isn't undemocratic by British standards. It's happened many times before, see posts above. We elect the MP's every 5 years - that's the democratic part.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if Labour demand an election right now, that definitely shows their suicidal drift. Still, I wouldn't put it past them.
Oh, they already have done. Six minutes later they announced their leadership contest. There were Kamikaze pilots in the Second World War with a better honed sense of self-preservation.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
On the basis that an early election could well lead to an increased Conservative majority, could we soon be treated to the surreal sight of the Prime Minister whipping her MPs into a vote of no confidence in herself?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
AIUI, under the FTPA it requires a no confidence vote to bring down the government.
However, The FTPA can be repealed by a simple majority. So they could go down that route. However the Lords which, currently, has a Labour majority could decide that they don't like the Commons playing silly buggers and delay the measure.
As it happens, May has indicated that she would go to the Country in 2020. I think that is wiser than getting the FTPA repealed. Although it would be quite funny to see the Conservatives voting to say that they had no confidence in the Prime Minister and Corbyn, Farron and Sturgeon all voting to say that the had complete confidence in her.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if Labour demand an election right now, that definitely shows their suicidal drift. Still, I wouldn't put it past them.
Oh, they already have done. Six minutes later they announced their leadership contest. There were Kamikaze pilots in the Second World War with a better honed sense of self-preservation.
I imagine the logic is that either a) it won't happen or b) the leadership contest would be suspended and the constituency parties might chose deselect candidates who don't support the current leadership - cunningly producing a plp that does have confidence in Corbyn ...
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
AIUI, under the FTPA it requires a no confidence vote to bring down the government.
However, The FTPA can be repealed by a simple majority. So they could go down that route.
No need. If the Tories want a general election, they can vote no confidence in themselves and then call one. The other parties won't oppose it. No need for legislation.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This situation is pretty much the definition of the glass cliff for Theresa May.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
