The UK Prime Minister

1232425262729»

Comments

  • The UK Parliament being recalled is in effect the prerogative of the government in power. It's in their interest not to have Parliament recalled. Besides, Boris would probably argue that there is no clear majority in Parliament for any positive course of action other than the default, so it would just produce more deadlock; in this he is not entirely wrong...
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The UK Parliament being recalled is in effect the prerogative of the government in power. It's in their interest not to have Parliament recalled. Besides, Boris would probably argue that there is no clear majority in Parliament for any positive course of action other than the default, so it would just produce more deadlock; in this he is not entirely wrong...

    Yes, it looks like they are going to need their feet to the flames before they do anything to stop this terrible tory torture our country continues to be subjected to.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    There is a sort of precedent for MPs assembling as an irregular Parliament, not as called by the government. I don't think many MPs will know about it, yet alone, bearing in mind when it happened, be prepared to act on it.

    In the 1918 election for the whole of the British Isles, the Sinn Féin members elected for most of what is now the Irish Republic, declined, as they have done since, to take their seats in Westminster. In stead they met and constituted themselves as an irregular Parliament in Dublin.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    It now turns out that while this slob of a Prime Minister has been making the beast with two backs with his blonde piece, his abandoned wife, and mother of (one hopes) most of his children has been undergoing treatment for cancer. Fortunately, it looks as though it has been successful.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I wonder if she didn’t want him there. She is in a bad enough state from the treatment
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    edited August 13
    Enoch wrote: »
    It now turns out that while this slob of a Prime Minister has been making the beast with two backs with his blonde piece, his abandoned wife, and mother of (one hopes) most of his children has been undergoing treatment for cancer. Fortunately, it looks as though it has been successful.

    What would Boris's girlfried be referred to if this was the situation in the USA? "First Mistress"?

    Interesting that this isn't filling the pages of the "popular" press. Oh yes, they are full of Jeremy Corbyn attemding a terrorist funeral, which no Unionist politicians ever did, of course..
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    But she isn't, is she?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Not any more at least
  • Well, at least The Piffler is upholding the True, Blue, English Selfservative values!

    Incidentally, a silly old man in our community centre café today loudly proclaimed that he thinks Boris will make a Good Prime Minister, not like that 'idiotic moron, Corbyn'.

    The same SOM then went on about the effects of Brexit - shortages of food, shortages of medicine, 'coz we don't get ANY of our food or medicine from THIS country' - without at all seeing the irony, given his support for BoJo.
    :rage:
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Interesting that this isn't filling the pages of the "popular" press. Oh yes, they are full of Jeremy Corbyn attemding a terrorist funeral, which no Unionist politicians ever did, of course..

    A closer parallel is the song and dance they made out of Corbyn having allegedly had a relationship with Abbott (at a time when no other party was involved).
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    According to the Prime Minister, those Parliamentatians attempting to prevent a no-deal exit scenario are being 'collaborationists' with the EU. Evidently he contemplates combining the roles of Churchill and de Gaulle.
  • I'd certainly be happy to collaborate with other European countries in maintaining democratic principles than sit back and let the current shower of neo-fascists take away democracy from us.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I'd certainly be happy to collaborate with other European countries in maintaining democratic principles than sit back and let the current shower of neo-fascists take away democracy from us.
    So would I. I rather wish there was something one could do actively towards this.

  • Not a lot at the moment, perhaps. But at the next General Election...
  • If Parliament passes a VONC but the Fixed Term Parliaments Act makes it hard for there to force Boris to resign and for there to be a new government in place, possibly a caretaker government awaiting a general election, in time before October 31, could Parliament simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act?
  • The Fixed Term thing is quite new. Why was it introduced, and what advantages is it meant to have? I've never understood it.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    It was introduced as part of the coalition government agreement to prevent the parties ratting on each other.
  • The Fixed Term thing is quite new. Why was it introduced, and what advantages is it meant to have? I've never understood it.
    There was a perception that leaving the decision of when to hold an election in the hands of the PM created problems: that this meant elections could be called at a time that would benefit the government, and also that when it's perceived that an election could be called soon this hampers the running of Parliament as parties switch to an election mode. Also, calling snap elections significantly short of a normal length Parliament carries significant costs, effectively meaning tax-payers money is spent running an election called at a time to specifically benefit the party in government. Also, when there's a coalition government there was a temptation for both parties (probably especially the larger one) to trigger an election to try and increase the number of MPs they have, which adds additional instability to coalition governments.

    The Fixed Term Parliaments Act was intended to take the power to call an election out of the hands of the PM and give it to Parliament. Parliament chose a duration for Parliaments such that elections would happen every 5 years. Parliament can also trigger an election through two processes - a vote with 2/3 of MPs in favour (which is how Mrs May got her snap election) or through a vote of no confidence (which is how it's looking Mr Johnson will be forced into an early election). If it wasn't for the chaos caused by the undemocratic process of taking the UK out of the EU the options of Parliament calling an early election would probably not even be under consideration, much less both options used within a couple of years.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Much better explanation than mine. In particular, though, it was to prevent a Conservative PM from calling an election at a time to suit his party at the expense of the LibDem coalition partners.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Much better explanation than mine. In particular, though, it was to prevent a Conservative PM from calling an election at a time to suit his party at the expense of the LibDem coalition partners.

    I thought it was the opposite - to stop the lib dems being able to instantly bring down the government and force an election. After all, the 2/3 would almost always be achievable by main governing party plus official opposition and no opposition is going to refuse a general election.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    It was introduced as part of the coalition government agreement to prevent the parties ratting on each other.

    And now the Fixed-term Parliament Act appears to be preventing a Party ratting on itself.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Much better explanation than mine. In particular, though, it was to prevent a Conservative PM from calling an election at a time to suit his party at the expense of the LibDem coalition partners.

    I thought it was the opposite - to stop the lib dems being able to instantly bring down the government and force an election. After all, the 2/3 would almost always be achievable by main governing party plus official opposition and no opposition is going to refuse a general election.

    I'd say that there are several reasons why the Opposition may consider refusing a general election to be the best option. They're the Opposition because at the previous election they'd failed to convince enough people to vote for them, if things hadn't significantly changed then waiting for the government to build up a longer list of policies that people dislike, and to rebuild their reputation for fighting against them could be advantageous. The government calling for an election in the middle of a leadership contest in the Opposition would be a shitty thing to do, and Opposition MPs would be bonkers to support it.

    I'd even go as far as saying supporting the 2017 snap election was a mistake, forcing the government to go forward with a small majority and not even the pretence of a mandate for their Brexit red lines could have served them well. Letting the Brexit fiasco play out for another year and then calling a vote of no confidence in the government after they have clearly demonstrated that they have no clue might have worked very well. By May 2018 the impossibility of a deal acceptable to both Parliament and the EU would have been obvious to all, an election then would have destroyed the Tory vote.
  • It looks like the promised extra money for the NHS is the usual #bullshitboris.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Much better explanation than mine. In particular, though, it was to prevent a Conservative PM from calling an election at a time to suit his party at the expense of the LibDem coalition partners.

    I thought it was the opposite - to stop the lib dems being able to instantly bring down the government and force an election. After all, the 2/3 would almost always be achievable by main governing party plus official opposition and no opposition is going to refuse a general election.

    I'd say that there are several reasons why the Opposition may consider refusing a general election to be the best option. They're the Opposition because at the previous election they'd failed to convince enough people to vote for them, if things hadn't significantly changed then waiting for the government to build up a longer list of policies that people dislike, and to rebuild their reputation for fighting against them could be advantageous. The government calling for an election in the middle of a leadership contest in the Opposition would be a shitty thing to do, and Opposition MPs would be bonkers to support it.

    I'd even go as far as saying supporting the 2017 snap election was a mistake, forcing the government to go forward with a small majority and not even the pretence of a mandate for their Brexit red lines could have served them well. Letting the Brexit fiasco play out for another year and then calling a vote of no confidence in the government after they have clearly demonstrated that they have no clue might have worked very well. By May 2018 the impossibility of a deal acceptable to both Parliament and the EU would have been obvious to all, an election then would have destroyed the Tory vote.

    What was a mistake was for the Labour Party bureaucracy (at that point still in the hands of the right) to assume a big loss and poor resources into safe seats. A more aggressive ground campaign could have seen Labour gain enough ground to deny May any majority, even with the DUP, or even eek out a win.
Sign In or Register to comment.