I cannot think of any technical reason 08:10 - Aug 16 with 6926 views | Guthrum | why a UK government has to have a single individual as figurehead "Prime Minister". Especially a short-term government of national unity for a specific purpose. There already exists a mechanism for the country to be governed by committee (the Cabinet, or, before that, the Council). It's pretty much how things were done before the 20-year Walpole-Whiggish domination of the Commons in the early 18th century. The chair of that committee could be held on a rotating basis by the heads of each party or faction parrticipating in the National Government, to keep everyone happy. Policy direction can be by democratic consensus (i.e. votes in Cabinet). Solves the problem of the Corbyn-Swinson standoff, also allowing Conservative factions to take part without having to serve under a Labour leader. | |
| | |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:30 - Aug 16 with 3436 views | Beckets | This situation will test the Corbyn/Milne/Formby faction. Do they want to solve the Brexit problem or do they want power? If the former Corbyn should step aside for a unifying person or persons who has respect across the House. Clarke and Harman have been mentioned..you could probably add in Starmer, Cable, Benn, Grieve etc into the pot. My money however is on the latter motive. | | | |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:36 - Aug 16 with 3408 views | Guthrum |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:30 - Aug 16 by Beckets | This situation will test the Corbyn/Milne/Formby faction. Do they want to solve the Brexit problem or do they want power? If the former Corbyn should step aside for a unifying person or persons who has respect across the House. Clarke and Harman have been mentioned..you could probably add in Starmer, Cable, Benn, Grieve etc into the pot. My money however is on the latter motive. |
Under my proposal he wouldn't have to. After all, he and his backers in Labour are - probably justifiably - afraid that if Corbyn gives up the reins of the party, he will be prevented from taking them up again at a later date. On the other hand, the Prime Minister (if we must have one) does not actually need to be the leader of the governing party. Especially if it is only one part of a coalition or alliance. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:40 - Aug 16 with 3400 views | Beckets |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:36 - Aug 16 by Guthrum | Under my proposal he wouldn't have to. After all, he and his backers in Labour are - probably justifiably - afraid that if Corbyn gives up the reins of the party, he will be prevented from taking them up again at a later date. On the other hand, the Prime Minister (if we must have one) does not actually need to be the leader of the governing party. Especially if it is only one part of a coalition or alliance. |
I understand the point you’re making and agree that it is a sensible solution. My point is that I cannot see Corbyn giving up any authority or appearance of authority. | | | |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:51 - Aug 16 with 3361 views | Guthrum |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:40 - Aug 16 by Beckets | I understand the point you’re making and agree that it is a sensible solution. My point is that I cannot see Corbyn giving up any authority or appearance of authority. |
Tho I would have thought being joint leader of a Govt of Nat Unity (along with Swinson, Blackford and, say, Grieve) would do no harm to his prestige. Especially if they were able to prevent a factionalist/lazy No Deal, which most people agree would be damaging to the country. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:55 - Aug 16 with 3342 views | sparks |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:51 - Aug 16 by Guthrum | Tho I would have thought being joint leader of a Govt of Nat Unity (along with Swinson, Blackford and, say, Grieve) would do no harm to his prestige. Especially if they were able to prevent a factionalist/lazy No Deal, which most people agree would be damaging to the country. |
He is after power- I cant see it happening. Hence the endless references to elections everytime he is asked about Brexit | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:56 - Aug 16 with 3332 views | Moriarty | Wouldn’t English law have to recognize the position though? For public policy reasons? It doesn’t have a statutory basis but surely custom and convention can’t be ignored? Probably one for your constitutional lawyers. Would be interesting if Sinn Fein took their seats and voted on a no confidence motion in Boris. They would vote against a hard Brexit. I wonder will they make an exception to their abstentionist policy for this one occasion? Isn’ Boris’s majority down to one? | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:12 - Aug 16 with 3297 views | Guthrum |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:56 - Aug 16 by Moriarty | Wouldn’t English law have to recognize the position though? For public policy reasons? It doesn’t have a statutory basis but surely custom and convention can’t be ignored? Probably one for your constitutional lawyers. Would be interesting if Sinn Fein took their seats and voted on a no confidence motion in Boris. They would vote against a hard Brexit. I wonder will they make an exception to their abstentionist policy for this one occasion? Isn’ Boris’s majority down to one? |
Custom and convention are moveable feasts. After all, the Cummings set are trying to bend it as far as possible in order to get No Deal through. It does, at least, have precedent. I think it extraordinarily unlikely thet Sinn Fein will take up their seats under any circumstances short of a removal of the oath of loyalty. Once done, it would be very difficult to refuse in future. Heard one of their MPs-elect interviewed the other in relation to a cunning wheeze someone came up with (of all SF MPs stepping down, triggering by-elections whereby members of the NI Great and Good could be elected in their place, vote against No Deal and then give way for SF again) - he rejected it out of hand, along with any other idea of taking part in the HoC. After all, Brexit shambles increases the potential for United Ireland agitation. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:24 - Aug 16 with 3274 views | Pinewoodblue | There needs to be a vote of no confidence in the government first and not convinced that can be guaranteed. It seems to me that the current plan is naive, and looks no further than avoiding Brexit on 31st October by kicking Brexit down the road and holding the General Election the opposition party's crave. How far down the road would parliament agree it should be kicked, 6 months, a year or the 5 years the EU are rumoured to have in mind. Would there be a majority in parliament for any of these? What about who governs after a general election could forsee Conservatives still holding the most seats. Couldn't see Lib Dems propping up a Labour led coalition, nor Labour being able to form a government with PC, Green and SNP support. The clusterfck continues. | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:28 - Aug 16 with 3259 views | sparks |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:24 - Aug 16 by Pinewoodblue | There needs to be a vote of no confidence in the government first and not convinced that can be guaranteed. It seems to me that the current plan is naive, and looks no further than avoiding Brexit on 31st October by kicking Brexit down the road and holding the General Election the opposition party's crave. How far down the road would parliament agree it should be kicked, 6 months, a year or the 5 years the EU are rumoured to have in mind. Would there be a majority in parliament for any of these? What about who governs after a general election could forsee Conservatives still holding the most seats. Couldn't see Lib Dems propping up a Labour led coalition, nor Labour being able to form a government with PC, Green and SNP support. The clusterfck continues. |
The massive elephant in the room is that it remains the case that none of the factions have any clear proposal on dealing with the backstop. Boris claimed he would try to negotiate a new deal0- btu has never explained what that deal would look like or what he would be negotiating for. The backstop still prevents everything. And the NI issue causes massive problems for no deal as well. To an extent, I can well udnerstand why this encourages leavers- it epitomises the manner in which we are so thoroughly tied into the whole EU project- and makes a mockery of the claims people have been making for years that we have not, effectively, handed over chiunks of sovereignty and the ability to self determine. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:33 - Aug 16 with 3239 views | Pinewoodblue |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:28 - Aug 16 by sparks | The massive elephant in the room is that it remains the case that none of the factions have any clear proposal on dealing with the backstop. Boris claimed he would try to negotiate a new deal0- btu has never explained what that deal would look like or what he would be negotiating for. The backstop still prevents everything. And the NI issue causes massive problems for no deal as well. To an extent, I can well udnerstand why this encourages leavers- it epitomises the manner in which we are so thoroughly tied into the whole EU project- and makes a mockery of the claims people have been making for years that we have not, effectively, handed over chiunks of sovereignty and the ability to self determine. |
There is no real evidence that unity extends beyond stoppin exit on 31st October without a deal. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:37 - Aug 16 with 3218 views | sparks |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:33 - Aug 16 by Pinewoodblue | There is no real evidence that unity extends beyond stoppin exit on 31st October without a deal. |
And no proposal as to what would happen next. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:38 - Aug 16 with 3218 views | HighgateBlue | If one is going to rule out any 'technical reason', one has first to consider what 'technical' rules there are. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 governs when a general election is held. S. 2(3) provides that there shall be an early general election if the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in "Her Majesty's Government", and then there is no motion of confidence in "Her Majesty's Government" within the following 14 days. So in order to avoid a general election and pursue the approach you suggest, it must be clear that the government headed by a cabinet, or a joint Clarke-Harman ministership as is also being proposed, is "Her Majesty's Government" within those 14 days. I agree that there is no technical need for a single figurehead in order for this to occur, but the reason for that is not rooted in how things used to be done hundreds of years ago, but in the test set out in the 2011 Act. In order for any alternative government to take root as you suggest, an election must be avoided, and that is only going to occur if it is clear that a new entity is "Her Majesty's Government". Johnson is Prime Minister at present, that much is clear, and he is so because the Queen has invited him to form a government. He could call himself PM, or chair of cabinet, or Comrade Boris - there is no reason why he has to have a certain name. But I don't really see how we progress to a vote of confidence in Her Majesty's Government within the 14 days without Johnson being removed by there being an alternative figurehead or group of people who are invited to form a government by the Queen. They can't just self-declare as the government - the form of resolution in s. 2(3)(b) and s. 2(5) is in specific words - they already have to be "Her Majesty's Government" in order for a vote of confidence in them to have any relevance. I don't see how we get there in practice. I hope there's a way, and I hope there's a way that doesn't involve yet more constitutional vandalism by requiring the Queen to be seen to make a political choice. | | | |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:43 - Aug 16 with 3196 views | StokieBlue |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 08:30 - Aug 16 by Beckets | This situation will test the Corbyn/Milne/Formby faction. Do they want to solve the Brexit problem or do they want power? If the former Corbyn should step aside for a unifying person or persons who has respect across the House. Clarke and Harman have been mentioned..you could probably add in Starmer, Cable, Benn, Grieve etc into the pot. My money however is on the latter motive. |
They clearly want power as every interview over the last two years has shown with constant references to have another GE. I don't think they are interested in solving the Brexit problem - it's a power grab which is why he won't step aside for a unity candidate. Would having another unelected PM cause the same outrage as was seen with the current unelected PM? SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 9:44]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:46 - Aug 16 with 3175 views | sparks |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:43 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue | They clearly want power as every interview over the last two years has shown with constant references to have another GE. I don't think they are interested in solving the Brexit problem - it's a power grab which is why he won't step aside for a unity candidate. Would having another unelected PM cause the same outrage as was seen with the current unelected PM? SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 9:44]
|
Quite. They have no more solution than anyone else does. -Hi Jeremy- what do you think about a 2nd referendum? -General Election. -How do we address the NI / baclstop issue? -General election. etc etc | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:47 - Aug 16 with 3166 views | chicoazul | If only politicians could put politics aside!!11!!1 | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 10:25 - Aug 16 with 3098 views | Moriarty |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:12 - Aug 16 by Guthrum | Custom and convention are moveable feasts. After all, the Cummings set are trying to bend it as far as possible in order to get No Deal through. It does, at least, have precedent. I think it extraordinarily unlikely thet Sinn Fein will take up their seats under any circumstances short of a removal of the oath of loyalty. Once done, it would be very difficult to refuse in future. Heard one of their MPs-elect interviewed the other in relation to a cunning wheeze someone came up with (of all SF MPs stepping down, triggering by-elections whereby members of the NI Great and Good could be elected in their place, vote against No Deal and then give way for SF again) - he rejected it out of hand, along with any other idea of taking part in the HoC. After all, Brexit shambles increases the potential for United Ireland agitation. |
Sinn Fein are political opportunists. They have a ready precedent concerning the oath in Irish History when DeValera referenced it as an “empty political formula”. I think it’s an issue which could be about to get some more airing, here in Ireland at least. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 10:57 - Aug 16 with 3059 views | Durovigutum |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:37 - Aug 16 by sparks | And no proposal as to what would happen next. |
Having a "Norway" deal with a tailored NI customs arrangement sees us "leave" the EU. Looks like the vote leave manifesto too. When proposed gets shouted down as "traitorous" and "we may as well not bother leaving". Same old argument, what does leave mean? | | | |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 11:06 - Aug 16 with 3039 views | No9 |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:43 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue | They clearly want power as every interview over the last two years has shown with constant references to have another GE. I don't think they are interested in solving the Brexit problem - it's a power grab which is why he won't step aside for a unity candidate. Would having another unelected PM cause the same outrage as was seen with the current unelected PM? SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 9:44]
|
It has become very obvious the is an urgent need for a written consituton. | | | |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 11:10 - Aug 16 with 3029 views | Pinewoodblue |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 10:57 - Aug 16 by Durovigutum | Having a "Norway" deal with a tailored NI customs arrangement sees us "leave" the EU. Looks like the vote leave manifesto too. When proposed gets shouted down as "traitorous" and "we may as well not bother leaving". Same old argument, what does leave mean? |
Cameron and Osborne made it clear before the referendum. We leave the EU two years after submission of artiçle 50 letter deal or no deal. They even, more than once explained that no deal meant trading on WTO terms until any subsequent trade deal approved which could take seven years. The majority of those who voted to leave knew what they were doing. For the record I voted remain simply because I anticipated the EU would but barrier after barrier in the way. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 11:19 - Aug 16 with 3010 views | StokieBlue |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 11:10 - Aug 16 by Pinewoodblue | Cameron and Osborne made it clear before the referendum. We leave the EU two years after submission of artiçle 50 letter deal or no deal. They even, more than once explained that no deal meant trading on WTO terms until any subsequent trade deal approved which could take seven years. The majority of those who voted to leave knew what they were doing. For the record I voted remain simply because I anticipated the EU would but barrier after barrier in the way. |
It's ultimately a pointless exercise to leave though. Within the next 10 years it will be on the manifesto of a party to rejoin and they will win the election and we will rejoin. Unfortunately we won't have a rebate and we won't be able to keep the pound. So all this arguing will have been totally pointless and resulted in the UK being in a far worse position than it was previously. "The majority of those who voted to leave knew what they were doing" I don't think that can possibly be true. In order to fully know what you were doing you've have to understand the fundamental economics involved and that's not something the majority of people on either side understand and not something that was adequately explained during the campaign. SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2019 11:25]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:14 - Aug 16 with 2952 views | BlueBadger |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 10:57 - Aug 16 by Durovigutum | Having a "Norway" deal with a tailored NI customs arrangement sees us "leave" the EU. Looks like the vote leave manifesto too. When proposed gets shouted down as "traitorous" and "we may as well not bother leaving". Same old argument, what does leave mean? |
blue passports and no brown people? | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:34 - Aug 16 with 2910 views | Guthrum |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 09:38 - Aug 16 by HighgateBlue | If one is going to rule out any 'technical reason', one has first to consider what 'technical' rules there are. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 governs when a general election is held. S. 2(3) provides that there shall be an early general election if the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in "Her Majesty's Government", and then there is no motion of confidence in "Her Majesty's Government" within the following 14 days. So in order to avoid a general election and pursue the approach you suggest, it must be clear that the government headed by a cabinet, or a joint Clarke-Harman ministership as is also being proposed, is "Her Majesty's Government" within those 14 days. I agree that there is no technical need for a single figurehead in order for this to occur, but the reason for that is not rooted in how things used to be done hundreds of years ago, but in the test set out in the 2011 Act. In order for any alternative government to take root as you suggest, an election must be avoided, and that is only going to occur if it is clear that a new entity is "Her Majesty's Government". Johnson is Prime Minister at present, that much is clear, and he is so because the Queen has invited him to form a government. He could call himself PM, or chair of cabinet, or Comrade Boris - there is no reason why he has to have a certain name. But I don't really see how we progress to a vote of confidence in Her Majesty's Government within the 14 days without Johnson being removed by there being an alternative figurehead or group of people who are invited to form a government by the Queen. They can't just self-declare as the government - the form of resolution in s. 2(3)(b) and s. 2(5) is in specific words - they already have to be "Her Majesty's Government" in order for a vote of confidence in them to have any relevance. I don't see how we get there in practice. I hope there's a way, and I hope there's a way that doesn't involve yet more constitutional vandalism by requiring the Queen to be seen to make a political choice. |
If the government can no longer command a majority in the Commons (e.g. to resist a motion of no confidence), then they effectively cease to be the government. However much Cummings wants, Johnson cannot work without the numbers (can't even call a GE). If another grouping can prove they have that majority, then the monarch will, of necessity, choose them. That's the least of the problems. The danger is that Johnson will call a GE vote, backed ty Labour. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:51 - Aug 16 with 2867 views | Darth_Koont | I think Corbyn is putting the cart before the horse and should be more swayed by stopping no deal than getting power. And, I'm not sure that his sceptical, Bennite view on the EU helps him be as strong on that point of principle as he should be. But interesting that this is now seen as a bad thing by all those people who say the most important thing in politics is not to act on principles but to actually get power in the first place ... and why does it matter so much to people like Swinson et al if it's Labour at the helm so long as it's the principle that's at stake here? Partisan bubblicious politics at its best/worst. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:52 - Aug 16 with 2867 views | Pinewoodblue |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:34 - Aug 16 by Guthrum | If the government can no longer command a majority in the Commons (e.g. to resist a motion of no confidence), then they effectively cease to be the government. However much Cummings wants, Johnson cannot work without the numbers (can't even call a GE). If another grouping can prove they have that majority, then the monarch will, of necessity, choose them. That's the least of the problems. The danger is that Johnson will call a GE vote, backed ty Labour. |
Surely Corbyn wouldn't support a call for a general election knowing that, by default, it would lead to a no deal Brexit. | |
| |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:58 - Aug 16 with 2851 views | BlueBadger |
I cannot think of any technical reason on 12:52 - Aug 16 by Pinewoodblue | Surely Corbyn wouldn't support a call for a general election knowing that, by default, it would lead to a no deal Brexit. |
The Dear Leader, like his opposite number is more interested in power rather than actually doing any good for people. | |
| |
| |