I'm currently re-reading 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' and have been struck by the resemblance of the Duke and the King to Johnson and Trump. Theyre both con-men, but the Duke has the brains. They do get their come-uppance, in the end, and it's a nasty one.
She had 3 Privy Councillors. Rees-Mogg who is apparently lord president of the body. Baroness Evans, head of the Lords, and Mark Spencer, chief whip - presumably for the Tories. Not a bunch whose intelligence I would respect, or whose unbiassed thoughtfulness I would consider obvious. (Not sure about Evans). This is a party stitch up.
I have always had republican leanings. But I thought she was doing a good job.
The woman is 93 - and now she is reliving the aftermath of the Great Depression and onset of European far right movements. She probably just wants to be left alone to spend what time she has left with her husband.
She had 3 Privy Councillors. Rees-Mogg who is apparently lord president of the body. Baroness Evans, head of the Lords, and Mark Spencer, chief whip - presumably for the Tories. Not a bunch whose intelligence I would respect, or whose unbiassed thoughtfulness I would consider obvious. (Not sure about Evans). This is a party stitch up.
I have always had republican leanings. But I thought she was doing a good job.
She had no choice. Convention is she does what she's told. That's the deal - she gets to be a queen, she doesn't decide for herself what to do.
Perhaps this is the time for her to abdicate, for the monarchy to be abolished, and for Potuk Piffleglum to assume the title 'Lord Protector of the Union against the Horrid Foreign Hordes'.
The evil fucking gobshite is de facto that, anyway, as there seems to be Nobody, and Nothing, standing in his way.
O Earth! Gape, and swallow him up! Daemons of Erebus, rejoice at his entry! Barbers of Hades, sharpen your razors, and scissors!
She had 3 Privy Councillors. Rees-Mogg who is apparently lord president of the body. Baroness Evans, head of the Lords, and Mark Spencer, chief whip - presumably for the Tories. Not a bunch whose intelligence I would respect, or whose unbiassed thoughtfulness I would consider obvious. (Not sure about Evans). This is a party stitch up.
I have always had republican leanings. But I thought she was doing a good job.
She had no choice. Convention is she does what she's told. That's the deal - she gets to be a queen, she doesn't decide for herself what to do.
Indeed, she's a figurehead, not a ruler. Getting the monarch's agreement to do what the government in power wishes to do has only ever been pure formality. The anomaly in this has never been seriously exposed or tested as it is now, because in the past there's never been this level of party political crisis in the country. And the pleasant myth of the 'my Government' language in the Queen's speeches, has encouraged people to think of any potential extremes of political ambitiousness as somehow always still being in abeyance to a benign monarchical influence. Johnson has no such loyalties!
There isn't much time. Next week, then a 5 week break, then 2 weeks to no deal. It is possible to squeeze in a VONC, but Boris probably has it all calculated.
Lots of demonstrations tonight, I think. Take your umbrella.
Interesting. If it can be shown that the Potuk acted unlawfully, what could be done to Bring Him Down? Does his unlawful advice count as Treason?
The thought of him sitting, in chains, in a nice, cold, stony cell, at the Tower of London, is appealing. As is the thought of the executioner's axe awaiting him...
Interesting. If it can be shown that the Potuk acted unlawfully, what could be done to Bring Him Down? Does his unlawful advice count as Treason?
The thought of him sitting, in chains, in a nice, cold, stony cell, at the Tower of London, is appealing. As is the thought of the executioner's axe awaiting him...
Perhaps this is the time for her to abdicate, for the monarchy to be abolished, and for Potuk Piffleglum to assume the title 'Lord Protector of the Union against the Horrid Foreign Hordes'.
Though, ABdPJ seems to be playing more the role of Charles, with his divine right to force his way through against Parliament than Cromwell defending Parliament.
The government is selling it as ‘business as usual’. But there is no ‘usual’ about this whole sorry mess.
I’d like to pop forward twenty years to look back on the outcome to all this.
History will not be kind to de Pfeffel.
@Boogie in 20 years time, yet alone history, this will all be as forgotten and irrelevant to the world that will then be as the politics of pre-1914 Austro-Hungary.
And @Arethosemyfeet I'd also remind you that it was only after 7 years of very bloody and destructive civil war that Charles I was foreshortened. You and I were probably both taught about the civil war as something epic and glamorous in the nation's story. It's only relatively recently that historians have begun to research and discover quite how ghastly and destructive it was for the unfortunate ordinary people that lived through it, or often didn't live.
The government is selling it as ‘business as usual’. But there is no ‘usual’ about this whole sorry mess.
I’d like to pop forward twenty years to look back on the outcome to all this.
History will not be kind to de Pfeffel.
@Boogie in 20 years time, yet alone history, this will all be as forgotten and irrelevant to the world that will then be as the politics of pre-1914 Austro-Hungary.
And @Arethosemyfeet I'd also remind you that it was only after 7 years of very bloody and destructive civil war that Charles I was foreshortened. You and I were probably both taught about the civil war as something epic and glamorous in the nation's story. It's only relatively recently that historians have begun to research and discover quite how ghastly and destructive it was for the unfortunate ordinary people that lived through it, or often didn't live.
I actually don't need reminding of the awfulness of the wars of the 3 kingdoms. My recollection of my history education is that the civil war was taught as a rather dry set of facts, neither glorious nor awful (and not taught in any great depth, me being of the generation whose GCSEs and A-Levels were full of Nazis). My teachers weren't into jingoism but neither did they tend towards a "peoples' history" perspective. Then again I think I read about the civil war long before being taught about it in school. Ladybird History strikes again.
The Financial Times are now onside for a Corbyn caretaker government, which is a measure of how comprehensively #bullshitboris has shit the bed.
The FT seems to be the only remaining (if you'll pardon the pun) part of the tory press that has retained a vestige of sanity. The FT may be venal and money-obsessed but it's not, as we used to say, bat-shit loco.
Well, it’s the leader article in the FT, but the Telegraph has published an article saying something very similar - though I think without name checking Corbyn.
Sorry for the tangent, but I'm hoping someone can quickly enlighten me about the relationship between the PM and status as an MP. Does the PM retain status as an MP? With voting rights? And if so, what happens when the PM resigns as PM?
Yes, PM remains MP, unless they resign as an mp also - however, it is not constitutionally required for the pm to be an mp. But it’s been a long time since we have had a Lord.
The Earl of Home disclaimed his titles on becoming PM, and won a by-election in a safe seat about 3 weeks later. So he spent 3 weeks as PM without being a member of either house. 50 years on, a PM from the Lords is even less plausible.
In practice, a PM wouldn't be able to resign as MP whilst remaining PM.
It is fundamental to our system that the executive arm of the state is accountable to, answerable to and under the direction of the legislature. To function as a government, the PM and cabinet have to be able to maintain their own support in Parliament and manage it (i.e. keep it sweet). Parliament is elected. Each individual member of Parliament is elected for their own seat, not for anywhere else. That applies to the PM as much as anyone else.
If the PM and Cabinet cannot retain the support of a majority in Parliament, conventionally it's not just that they can't govern. They cease to have any title to do so. So for a Prime Minister to suspend Parliament because he thinks he can't manage it or it's too much trouble to get it to do what he wants is a negation of the constitution. Although he doesn't seem to understand this, it is a denial of the legitimacy of his own government.
She had 3 Privy Councillors. Rees-Mogg who is apparently lord president of the body. Baroness Evans, head of the Lords, and Mark Spencer, chief whip - presumably for the Tories. Not a bunch whose intelligence I would respect, or whose unbiassed thoughtfulness I would consider obvious. (Not sure about Evans). This is a party stitch up.
I have always had republican leanings. But I thought she was doing a good job.
Much as you don't like the consequences of the action she has taken, she has fulfilled her constitutional role exactly as she was required to do. She was advised by her Privy Council and her duty was to follow that advice.
Much as you don't like the consequences of the action she has taken, she has fulfilled her constitutional role exactly as she was required to do. She was advised by her Privy Council and her duty was to follow that advice.
She was advised by 0.4% of her Privy Council.
I would have asked around to see what the other 697 thought before deciding that throwing democracy on the fire was a good move. But that's just me, I guess.
So does each party assign their leading candidates to constituencies that can be most counted on to deliver party votes, with back-benchers assigned to less dependable constituencies?
So does each party assign their leading candidates to constituencies that can be most counted on to deliver party votes, with back-benchers assigned to less dependable constituencies?
It varies by party, but basically each local branch/association will pick a candidate for each constituency. Sometimes a "party bigwig" maybe parachuted into a safe constituency to ensure they're elected (it doesn't always work, voters generally consider someone who has lived in the constituency for a long time, or at least in a neighbouring constituency, will represent them better than someone without any connection to the area). Generally those who become senior MPs have repeatedly been elected to the same constituency, rather than the other way round.
What's interesting is that ABdPJ is the MP of a marginal constituency, if there's a general election he could be at risk of losing his seat - that maybe one of those examples when the party put him into a safer seat. Also, there are some legal cases running regarding conduct during the campaign for the 2016 opinion poll which could result in a conviction. That opens up options for a recall petition forcing him to fight a by-election. If he was to lose his seat that would create a mess, possibly not as bad as the current mess he's created.
It is fundamental to our system that the executive arm of the state is accountable to, answerable to and under the direction of the legislature. To function as a government, the PM and cabinet have to be able to maintain their own support in Parliament and manage it (i.e. keep it sweet). Parliament is elected. Each individual member of Parliament is elected for their own seat, not for anywhere else. That applies to the PM as much as anyone else.
If the PM and Cabinet cannot retain the support of a majority in Parliament, conventionally it's not just that they can't govern. They cease to have any title to do so. So for a Prime Minister to suspend Parliament because he thinks he can't manage it or it's too much trouble to get it to do what he wants is a negation of the constitution. Although he doesn't seem to understand this, it is a denial of the legitimacy of his own government.
Is that any help?
ABdPJ is behaving as though he's a President rather than a Prime Minister. Perhaps he's been listening to the advice from tRump that Mrs May ignored. And, possibly behaving presidentially is more attractive to someone born in the US, if he wasn't one of those foreigners and is one of the born and bred little Englanders he'd understand the difference between a president and PM.
Much as you don't like the consequences of the action she has taken, she has fulfilled her constitutional role exactly as she was required to do. She was advised by her Privy Council and her duty was to follow that advice.
She was advised by 0.4% of her Privy Council.
I would have asked around to see what the other 697 thought before deciding that throwing democracy on the fire was a good move. But that's just me, I guess.
That would be totally inconsistent with constitutional practice. HM would not take such a course. Alas, in 1975 her viceroy here had no such regard for correct behaviour.
Oh, he'll get his vanity project through the next stage and take the UK out of the EU with the majority of the nation and Parliament kicking and screaming. He can declare "job done" and then let someone else deal with the actual work - the next decade where the EU dominates the political processes of the UK; working out a new trade deal, negotiating deals regarding the majority of EU functions that are not trade related; waiting until this is at least described in outline before we can start negotiations with other nations ... and having several political parties winning large numbers of seats on a "rejoin the EU asap" ticket, potentially holding the balance of power in the Commons.
The Remain camp (for want of a better description) is like jelly - it is without structure or form and tends to slide in all directions. They have had two-and-a-half years to get their act together - they've even had so much help from Speaker Bercow that some might call it connivance - yet still no coherent plan, either for what to do to thwart leaving or to propose a credible alternative to Mrs May's "Deal" (all versions thereof) which could get majority support in the House.
The virtue-signalling from Jo Swinson and the like have been a godsend for Boris & Co - every plan, every proposal (however hare-brained) has been publicised; the Labour Party has been in complete disarray, unable to come up with any agreement, just confusing and changing waffle; Nicola Sturgeon meanwhile has thought it far more important to bring forward to issue of another Scottish referendum, rather than working with anyone else on the current crisis - I could go on - but the end result of all this posturing and aimless, rudderless grandstanding has made pulling off this stunt as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
As for it being unconstitutional, I don't think so, and nor apparently does The Queen - and she probably knows far more about constitutional history and precedent than the whole pack of them put together.
The complaints about Parliament losing time is just nonsense: with what is called "Party Conference Season" (and the rest of us might call extra holiday called something else) and the traditional week-long recess between the end of one session and the State Opening, the "time" being lost comes down to days.
I hate to say this because, just when you thought our politicians could do nothing else, or worse, to attract the derision of the wider world we've been proved wrong, but the action taken yesterday looks to be lawful, the time "lost" a mirage, and effectively a master-stroke of efficiency versus a rolling maul of ineptitude.
@TheOrganist my big question in response to that is "efficiency towards what end?".
If the desired outcome is No Deal, then yes.
However, this "efficiency" comes at a long-term cost to representative democracy that should be a cause for concern. Boris may be technically lawful, but that doesn't make this a good move. He is abusing the unwritten nature of the UK's constitution.
In fact, I think representative democracy has been the big loser in all this right from the start. It's been undermined by the whole principle of a referendum on such a huge issue, effectively bypassing Parliament, and is now being further undermined.
The irony in all this is that a large part of the Brexit vote was about "taking back control" and railing against "undemocratic" "efficiency" - on the part of the EU. On current form, Brexit will not deliver more democracy to UK voters.
End? Who knows. I suspect towards leaving the EU on 31st October, but the performance by politicians at all levels, of all parties, and in all countries (both in the UK and the EU) has been such that any guess could be right.
You can't argue, as you did, that something is a "master-stroke of efficiency" unless you can detail what the aim of any such alleged efficiency is.
[ETA as has been pointed out many times here, leaving the EU, least of all with no deal, requires no efficiency from anybody at all. It's.The.Default.]
Much as you don't like the consequences of the action she has taken, she has fulfilled her constitutional role exactly as she was required to do. She was advised by her Privy Council and her duty was to follow that advice.
She was advised by 0.4% of her Privy Council.
I would have asked around to see what the other 697 thought before deciding that throwing democracy on the fire was a good move. But that's just me, I guess.
That would be totally inconsistent with constitutional practice. HM would not take such a course. Alas, in 1975 her viceroy here had no such regard for correct behaviour.
Much as you don't like the consequences of the action she has taken, she has fulfilled her constitutional role exactly as she was required to do. She was advised by her Privy Council and her duty was to follow that advice.
She was advised by 0.4% of her Privy Council.
I would have asked around to see what the other 697 thought before deciding that throwing democracy on the fire was a good move. But that's just me, I guess.
That would be totally inconsistent with constitutional practice. HM would not take such a course. Alas, in 1975 her viceroy here had no such regard for correct behaviour.
You can't argue, as you did, that something is a "master-stroke of efficiency" unless you can detail what the aim of any such alleged efficiency is.
[ETA as has been pointed out many times here, leaving the EU, least of all with no deal, requires no efficiency from anybody at all. It's.The.Default.]
I used the word (with derisory inflection) to contrast the difference between the perpetual blether and dither of Swinson, Corbyn, etc, etc, etc, and the (current) PM. I make no comment on whether or not his actions will prove to be a good idea, but simply note that at least he has acted in a decisive and planned fashion - something that can't be said of the other camp.
You ask how could the EU's performance have been better? Well, I think performance may not be the right word, but I think that ALL parties would have been better served if they had (to use broadcasting terms) spent longer in receive mode and far, far less in transmit. These senior politicians - in all countries - all seem terrified of ever rowing back on a statement, seeing it not as a sign that they have had a genuine change of mind but rather as a sign of weakness; yet senior politicians here and the EU (I know Barnier and Juncker are technically not politicians, but) have done nothing but lay down their "red lines" and issued endless statement about what they won't do or discuss. All very unhelpful.
I used the word performance because that is what so much of it has seemed: a series of sketches, nothing more.
If a country gets the politicians it deserves it must say something dire about we Brits.
Deciding whether he, as Leader, was pro Remain or Leave.
Or having the balls to say, honestly, that as someone who has always been anti-EU he found it impossible to pass a manifesto that pledged to implement the result of the referendum.
Sinking his pride and being prepared to engage with Jo Swinson's attempt to get either Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman installed as PM.
Comments
I have always had republican leanings. But I thought she was doing a good job.
She had no choice. Convention is she does what she's told. That's the deal - she gets to be a queen, she doesn't decide for herself what to do.
The evil fucking gobshite is de facto that, anyway, as there seems to be Nobody, and Nothing, standing in his way.
O Earth! Gape, and swallow him up! Daemons of Erebus, rejoice at his entry! Barbers of Hades, sharpen your razors, and scissors!
Indeed, she's a figurehead, not a ruler. Getting the monarch's agreement to do what the government in power wishes to do has only ever been pure formality. The anomaly in this has never been seriously exposed or tested as it is now, because in the past there's never been this level of party political crisis in the country. And the pleasant myth of the 'my Government' language in the Queen's speeches, has encouraged people to think of any potential extremes of political ambitiousness as somehow always still being in abeyance to a benign monarchical influence. Johnson has no such loyalties!
Early days. Wonder what's next?
Lots of demonstrations tonight, I think. Take your umbrella.
The thought of him sitting, in chains, in a nice, cold, stony cell, at the Tower of London, is appealing. As is the thought of the executioner's axe awaiting him...
You appear to be a few hundred years too late.
Allow an Old Git his dreams...
What is so galling is that we don't seem to be able to do ANYTHING about it, not even a nice execution in Whitehall...
I should point out that when they shortened Charles a bit they weren't exactly following due process of law.
O well.
And @Arethosemyfeet I'd also remind you that it was only after 7 years of very bloody and destructive civil war that Charles I was foreshortened. You and I were probably both taught about the civil war as something epic and glamorous in the nation's story. It's only relatively recently that historians have begun to research and discover quite how ghastly and destructive it was for the unfortunate ordinary people that lived through it, or often didn't live.
I actually don't need reminding of the awfulness of the wars of the 3 kingdoms. My recollection of my history education is that the civil war was taught as a rather dry set of facts, neither glorious nor awful (and not taught in any great depth, me being of the generation whose GCSEs and A-Levels were full of Nazis). My teachers weren't into jingoism but neither did they tend towards a "peoples' history" perspective. Then again I think I read about the civil war long before being taught about it in school. Ladybird History strikes again.
The FT seems to be the only remaining (if you'll pardon the pun) part of the tory press that has retained a vestige of sanity. The FT may be venal and money-obsessed but it's not, as we used to say, bat-shit loco.
In practice, a PM wouldn't be able to resign as MP whilst remaining PM.
It is fundamental to our system that the executive arm of the state is accountable to, answerable to and under the direction of the legislature. To function as a government, the PM and cabinet have to be able to maintain their own support in Parliament and manage it (i.e. keep it sweet). Parliament is elected. Each individual member of Parliament is elected for their own seat, not for anywhere else. That applies to the PM as much as anyone else.
If the PM and Cabinet cannot retain the support of a majority in Parliament, conventionally it's not just that they can't govern. They cease to have any title to do so. So for a Prime Minister to suspend Parliament because he thinks he can't manage it or it's too much trouble to get it to do what he wants is a negation of the constitution. Although he doesn't seem to understand this, it is a denial of the legitimacy of his own government.
Is that any help?
Much as you don't like the consequences of the action she has taken, she has fulfilled her constitutional role exactly as she was required to do. She was advised by her Privy Council and her duty was to follow that advice.
She was advised by 0.4% of her Privy Council.
I would have asked around to see what the other 697 thought before deciding that throwing democracy on the fire was a good move. But that's just me, I guess.
So does each party assign their leading candidates to constituencies that can be most counted on to deliver party votes, with back-benchers assigned to less dependable constituencies?
What's interesting is that ABdPJ is the MP of a marginal constituency, if there's a general election he could be at risk of losing his seat - that maybe one of those examples when the party put him into a safer seat. Also, there are some legal cases running regarding conduct during the campaign for the 2016 opinion poll which could result in a conviction. That opens up options for a recall petition forcing him to fight a by-election. If he was to lose his seat that would create a mess, possibly not as bad as the current mess he's created.
That would be totally inconsistent with constitutional practice. HM would not take such a course. Alas, in 1975 her viceroy here had no such regard for correct behaviour.
Good - maybe he really isn’t up to this mentally and will have to withdraw on health grounds.
(Hmmmmm, where have I heard that before? 🤔)
Just abolish Reese-Mogg.
The Remain camp (for want of a better description) is like jelly - it is without structure or form and tends to slide in all directions. They have had two-and-a-half years to get their act together - they've even had so much help from Speaker Bercow that some might call it connivance - yet still no coherent plan, either for what to do to thwart leaving or to propose a credible alternative to Mrs May's "Deal" (all versions thereof) which could get majority support in the House.
The virtue-signalling from Jo Swinson and the like have been a godsend for Boris & Co - every plan, every proposal (however hare-brained) has been publicised; the Labour Party has been in complete disarray, unable to come up with any agreement, just confusing and changing waffle; Nicola Sturgeon meanwhile has thought it far more important to bring forward to issue of another Scottish referendum, rather than working with anyone else on the current crisis - I could go on - but the end result of all this posturing and aimless, rudderless grandstanding has made pulling off this stunt as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
As for it being unconstitutional, I don't think so, and nor apparently does The Queen - and she probably knows far more about constitutional history and precedent than the whole pack of them put together.
The complaints about Parliament losing time is just nonsense: with what is called "Party Conference Season" (and the rest of us might call extra holiday called something else) and the traditional week-long recess between the end of one session and the State Opening, the "time" being lost comes down to days.
I hate to say this because, just when you thought our politicians could do nothing else, or worse, to attract the derision of the wider world we've been proved wrong, but the action taken yesterday looks to be lawful, the time "lost" a mirage, and effectively a master-stroke of efficiency versus a rolling maul of ineptitude.
If the desired outcome is No Deal, then yes.
However, this "efficiency" comes at a long-term cost to representative democracy that should be a cause for concern. Boris may be technically lawful, but that doesn't make this a good move. He is abusing the unwritten nature of the UK's constitution.
In fact, I think representative democracy has been the big loser in all this right from the start. It's been undermined by the whole principle of a referendum on such a huge issue, effectively bypassing Parliament, and is now being further undermined.
The irony in all this is that a large part of the Brexit vote was about "taking back control" and railing against "undemocratic" "efficiency" - on the part of the EU. On current form, Brexit will not deliver more democracy to UK voters.
[ETA as has been pointed out many times here, leaving the EU, least of all with no deal, requires no efficiency from anybody at all. It's.The.Default.]
Well said. Kerr lives on in infamy.
And mud on his face.
I used the word (with derisory inflection) to contrast the difference between the perpetual blether and dither of Swinson, Corbyn, etc, etc, etc, and the (current) PM. I make no comment on whether or not his actions will prove to be a good idea, but simply note that at least he has acted in a decisive and planned fashion - something that can't be said of the other camp.
You ask how could the EU's performance have been better? Well, I think performance may not be the right word, but I think that ALL parties would have been better served if they had (to use broadcasting terms) spent longer in receive mode and far, far less in transmit. These senior politicians - in all countries - all seem terrified of ever rowing back on a statement, seeing it not as a sign that they have had a genuine change of mind but rather as a sign of weakness; yet senior politicians here and the EU (I know Barnier and Juncker are technically not politicians, but) have done nothing but lay down their "red lines" and issued endless statement about what they won't do or discuss. All very unhelpful.
I used the word performance because that is what so much of it has seemed: a series of sketches, nothing more.
If a country gets the politicians it deserves it must say something dire about we Brits.
Or having the balls to say, honestly, that as someone who has always been anti-EU he found it impossible to pass a manifesto that pledged to implement the result of the referendum.
Sinking his pride and being prepared to engage with Jo Swinson's attempt to get either Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman installed as PM.
Take your pick.