politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Achilles heel in Manchester Gorton is its faction-rid

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Achilles heel in Manchester Gorton is its faction-ridden CLP

A few days ago there was an excellent piece in the Manchester Evening News about Gorton constituency Labour party and the ongoing fights within it between the warring factions.

Read the full story here

Mortimer

First, like Mrs May!

RobD

Glorious second!

ThreeQuidder

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

RobD

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

What has Mike said about the good Viscount now?

OldKingCole

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

SimonStClare

Thread summary: It is very hard to conclude that the red team could lose Manchester Gorton.

Roger

Hi Mike. Which street were you born in? I was born very close to this constituency on Brooklands Rd in Sale.

Fishing

Can't see Labour losing either. Mind you, with my recent tipping record on GE2015, EU Ref and Trump, I've probably just doomed them.

Obviously, if they do lose, even Corbyn could have a moment's reflection on whether he really is the right man for the job.

Mortimer

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

ThreeQuidder

OldKingCole said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.

SimonStClare

Fishing said:

Can't see Labour losing either. Mind you, with my recent tipping record on GE2015, EU Ref and Trump, I've probably just doomed them.

Obviously, if they do lose, even Corbyn could have a moment's reflection on whether he really is the right man for the job.

Nah, JC will just blame the loss on a conspiracy between Ministers and Foreign owned press.

david_herdson

ThreeQuidder said:

OldKingCole said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.

He's not that down. UKIP still outpoll the Lib Dems.

Mind you, that might change if the Lib Dems win Gorton.

freetochoose

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

Was about to say similar, an interesting header spoiled by an unnecessary childish remark

DavidL

I would still like to see Ed Balls get the nomination for this seat. It would make politics so much more interesting than it is right now. Why do I get the feeling that an appeal to the greater good is likely to fall on deaf ears locally?

Monksfield

RobD said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

What has Mike said about the good Viscount now?

Isn't he related to the Romanovs?

Roger

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

You have to remember there was a time pre Trump and Brexit when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.

freetochoose

Roger said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

You have to remember there was a time pre Trump when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.

That's an interesting view, that Trump is the first politician to be deceitful and remain in post.

Casino_Royale

Does OGH simply back and cheer on the LDs everywhere?! ;-)

Bojabob

If Mike was born here, I'd have assumed he'd be a Manchester City supporter, rather than a fan of Burnley. This seat is Citeh heartland.

MikeSmithson

Bojabob said:

If Mike was born here, I'd have assumed he'd be a Manchester City supporter, rather than a fan of Burnley. This seat is Citeh heartland.

My family are from Burnley

Monksfield

FPT, do those clamouring for an early election see no risk for the Tories in actually having to write a brexit manifesto? One they might have to stand behind?

Nigelb

ThreeQuidder said:

OldKingCole said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.

So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ?
While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Bojabob

MikeSmithson said:

Bojabob said:

If Mike was born here, I'd have assumed he'd be a Manchester City supporter, rather than a fan of Burnley. This seat is Citeh heartland.

My family are from Burnley

That demonstrates a great deal of family loyalty Mike. Your father must have been very proud of you avoid the big draw of the local club.

DavidL

Casino_Royale said:

Does OGH simply back and cheer on the LDs everywhere?! ;-)

I would expect the Lib Dems to do much better in this seat this time around. Students seem to have forgiven them and that is a major factor in this seat, their collapse in 2015 was extraordinary even by the standards of that election and, as Mike points out, they have a good local activist base which at least used to have a lot of councillors.

Are they going to win? Of course not but as a trading bet to profit on any further Labour misfortunes or disruption I could see the attraction of 14/1. As the thread header points out that is far from impossible.

Bojabob

DavidL said:

I would still like to see Ed Balls get the nomination for this seat. It would make politics so much more interesting than it is right now. Why do I get the feeling that an appeal to the greater good is likely to fall on deaf ears locally?

Very honourable and sporting of you as usual, David. You are a gentleman. Balls getting the nomination here would certainly shake things up. Did I read yesterday that Rebecca Long-Bailey from the left had lost out to Keith Vaz from the right vis a vis the NEC rep on the local selection committee?

rottenborough

Bojabob said:

DavidL said:

I would still like to see Ed Balls get the nomination for this seat. It would make politics so much more interesting than it is right now. Why do I get the feeling that an appeal to the greater good is likely to fall on deaf ears locally?

Very honourable and sporting of you as usual, David. You are a gentleman. Balls getting the nomination here would certainly shake things up. Did I read yesterday that Rebecca Long-Bailey from the left had lost out to Keith Vaz from the right vis a vis the NEC rep on the local selection committee?

Morning all,

Yep, so the Manchester evening news tweeted anyway.

RobD

Roger said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

You have to remember there was a time pre Trump and Brexit when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.

Maybe a long time ago....

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Casino_Royale said:

Does OGH simply back and cheer on the LDs everywhere?! ;-)

Isn't that what LD's do?
Cf Mark Senior.

david_herdson

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

ydoethur

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

It isn't a plausible parallel anyway. Such things had been common in the nineteenth century - 1885, 1866, 1851 all spring to mind - but it was dying out as an idea as party machines grew and the concept of the member for X who was loosely attached to a party (and who could therefore switch and facilitate a change of government) faded out. Now that almost all candidates are clearly identified and election expenses paid by their party (remember, until 1946 Conservative members usually funded their own campaigns) such changes are much less possible.

On topic, that Labour are managing expectations here is truly staggering. If they lose this it hardly seems to matter if Corbyn resigns or not, it really is game over for them.

Scott_P

@DPJHodges: Stephen Hawking says Corbyn should step down. Pah! What does that guy know about anything...

https://twitter.com/maomentum_/status/839012190015352833

swing_voter

The need for a local candidate will probably override the celebrity factor. Looking at Stoke's ex-MP leaving for a good job in London. Although local factors seem complicated a local figure with known appeal (and media friendly) will reduce a lot of the upset factor. Then again this is not guaranteed. A strong Green candidate will also complicate matters for the LDs.

rottenborough

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

ydoethur

Bojabob said:

DavidL said:

I would still like to see Ed Balls get the nomination for this seat. It would make politics so much more interesting than it is right now. Why do I get the feeling that an appeal to the greater good is likely to fall on deaf ears locally?

Very honourable and sporting of you as usual, David. You are a gentleman. Balls getting the nomination here would certainly shake things up. Did I read yesterday that Rebecca Long-Bailey from the left had lost out to Keith Vaz from the right vis a vis the NEC rep on the local selection committee?

Being beaten by Keith Vaz, politically? Wow, that's a serious humiliation.

(I did wonder whether 'beaten' was a poor choice of word under the circumstances, so the word 'politically' is added to make it clear I am not talking about his fascination with mid-range Ford cars.)

AlastairMeeks

George Galloway was in this constituency yesterday:

https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/838678085302116352

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Can't one sentence be added to the FTPA saying it expires 30/03/2017 or something?

david_herdson

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Does OGH simply back and cheer on the LDs everywhere?! ;-)

I would expect the Lib Dems to do much better in this seat this time around. Students seem to have forgiven them and that is a major factor in this seat, their collapse in 2015 was extraordinary even by the standards of that election and, as Mike points out, they have a good local activist base which at least used to have a lot of councillors.

Are they going to win? Of course not but as a trading bet to profit on any further Labour misfortunes or disruption I could see the attraction of 14/1. As the thread header points out that is far from impossible.

I'd agree with that, and with the header. I wouldn't be backing the LDs at current odds but the original price was attractive. Still, that alone is telling. If the Lib Dems were to win, I think it'd be the biggest ever majority overturned, never mind the biggest held by an opposition party. I'm not aware of any higher. Sure, that's partly down to the Coalition years receding so rapidly but that itself is not an Act of God; the detoxification is something Farron needs tobe given some credit for.

rottenborough

GG4Gorton
@GG4Gorton
Gorton needs Galloway

RobD

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Can't one sentence be added to the FTPA saying it expires 30/03/2017 or something?

No, it repealed the Septennial Act, amongst others. Repealing an act doesn't undo the repeal of acts repealed by that act (I think)

Roger

AlastairMeeks said:

George Galloway was in this constituency yesterday:

https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/838678085302116352

Fortunately as they say in Newcastle that ship has sailed.

kle4

The thing about the heel of Achilles is he got by just fine with until the very end. You still need an enemy in the right place and time to hit it.

But guessing the improved LD share will have to serve as the fun for now.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Hard to see Labour losing this. If they did, and every less safe seat, at the election, they'd have fewer MPs than the Lib Dems.

F1: Test Two - Test Harder gets underway today.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, not to mention his mum wasn't very sharp. If she's just dangled him in by his hair, then he would've been invulnerable to everything except a haircut. Poor Achilles.

Edited extra bit: this sounds well dodgy to me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39187265

"Judges should consider whether a young criminal has suffered discrimination as an ethnic minority before deciding their sentence, under a new guideline.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales says offending may be partly a product of discrimination and "negative experiences of authority"."

Edited extra bit 2: it'll simply lead to more claims of discrimination as a mitigating factor. Judgements should be based on the crime committed, not on skin colour, past problems, or what the victim thinks.

david_herdson

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Why is it ludicrous? Most countries have similar rules and most assemblies in Britain get by with fixed terms. If the consequences of trying to game it are ludicrous, that's a feture not a bug.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, not to mention his mum wasn't very sharp. If she's just dangled him in by his hair, then he would've been invulnerable to everything except a haircut. Poor Achilles.

That could have led to an intriguing plagiarism claim involving Samson.

rottenborough

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

snip.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Can't one sentence be added to the FTPA saying it expires 30/03/2017 or something?

Robert Hazell thinks repeal is actually rather more difficult than it sounds:

"There is also brave talk about repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: for example, in the backbench debate last October. But this is wishful thinking, because repeal would be far from straightforward. It would require legislation, which would have to pass both Houses, with particular difficulties in the Lords. The legislation would face technical and political difficulties. The political difficulty is that reverting to the status quo ante would confer on the Prime Minister the advantage of choosing the date of the next election."


https://constitution-unit.com/2015/05/22/can-david-cameron-call-a-second-election-how-does-that-fit-with-the-fixed-term-parliaments-act/

Roger

Bojabob said:

MikeSmithson said:

Bojabob said:

If Mike was born here, I'd have assumed he'd be a Manchester City supporter, rather than a fan of Burnley. This seat is Citeh heartland.

My family are from Burnley

That demonstrates a great deal of family loyalty Mike. Your father must have been very proud of you avoid the big draw of the local club.

Burnley were huge. Maybe bigger than City in the 60's

kle4

Nigelb said:

ThreeQuidder said:

OldKingCole said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.

So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ?
While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Borough, why Cameron didn't have a sunset clause installed in the FTPA is beyond me. Daft sod.

Mr. Meeks, I don't think Achilles is the sort of chap who'd turn up at court.

Monksfield

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Does OGH simply back and cheer on the LDs everywhere?! ;-)

Isn't that what LD's do?
Cf Mark Senior.

It's hardly uniquely a LD trait!

Edit: although I realise many pb Tories also like cheering on their nursery club.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, why Cameron didn't have a sunset clause installed in the FTPA is beyond me. Daft sod.

Mr. Meeks, I don't think Achilles is the sort of chap who'd turn up at court.

It does have to be reviewed in 2020, as per the act.

rottenborough

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Why is it ludicrous? Most countries have similar rules and most assemblies in Britain get by with fixed terms. If the consequences of trying to game it are ludicrous, that's a feture not a bug.

Because it has removed the prerogative power of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament, leaving us situations like we might well face in a few months time, where a GE is needed to sort out a major or insoluble political issue, but we can't have one unless the government votes no confidence in itself or there is an opposition that is not terrified of an electoral wipeout and will join for the 2/3rd majority.

The 5 year term is also long, iirc, compared to other countries who have this.

SouthamObserver

Roger said:

Bojabob said:

MikeSmithson said:

Bojabob said:

If Mike was born here, I'd have assumed he'd be a Manchester City supporter, rather than a fan of Burnley. This seat is Citeh heartland.

My family are from Burnley

That demonstrates a great deal of family loyalty Mike. Your father must have been very proud of you avoid the big draw of the local club.

Burnley were huge. Maybe bigger than City in the 60's

Won the league in 1960, I believe.

kle4

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

It's amazing how much people hate the act. Despite attempts on the previous thread I still don't understand the level of antipathy. Regardless, may could easily have changed her view from last year that an early ge was not what she wanted, but if she is still saying she doesn't want one, then the act is irrelevant - unless we are saying she is a liar, she doesn't want one right now, despite the temptation I am sure, and any attempt to have one would first have to explain, in non partisan fashion, why that has changed, before we even get to by what mechanism it can be managed.

SquareRoot

ydoethur said:

Bojabob said:

DavidL said:

I would still like to see Ed Balls get the nomination for this seat. It would make politics so much more interesting than it is right now. Why do I get the feeling that an appeal to the greater good is likely to fall on deaf ears locally?

Very honourable and sporting of you as usual, David. You are a gentleman. Balls getting the nomination here would certainly shake things up. Did I read yesterday that Rebecca Long-Bailey from the left had lost out to Keith Vaz from the right vis a vis the NEC rep on the local selection committee?

Being beaten by Keith Vaz, politically? Wow, that's a serious humiliation.

(I did wonder whether 'beaten' was a poor choice of word under the circumstances, so the word 'politically' is added to make it clear I am not talking about his fascination with mid-range Ford cars.)

what happened to the allegations about the oleaginous one|?

freetochoose

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

ThreeQuidder said:

OldKingCole said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.

So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ?
While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)

Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.

rottenborough

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, why Cameron didn't have a sunset clause installed in the FTPA is beyond me. Daft sod.

Mr. Meeks, I don't think Achilles is the sort of chap who'd turn up at court.

Just read up more on Constitution Unit blog - there is a measure for a formal review of the Act between 1 June 2020 and 30 November 2020.

So, we may be able to dump it for a GE between 2020-25.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, why Cameron didn't have a sunset clause installed in the FTPA is beyond me. Daft sod.

Mr. Meeks, I don't think Achilles is the sort of chap who'd turn up at court.

Unless charged with loitering within tent.

SouthamObserver

Bojabob said:

DavidL said:

I would still like to see Ed Balls get the nomination for this seat. It would make politics so much more interesting than it is right now. Why do I get the feeling that an appeal to the greater good is likely to fall on deaf ears locally?

Very honourable and sporting of you as usual, David. You are a gentleman. Balls getting the nomination here would certainly shake things up. Did I read yesterday that Rebecca Long-Bailey from the left had lost out to Keith Vaz from the right vis a vis the NEC rep on the local selection committee?

Balls is best off waiting until a GE if he is going to re-enter Parliament. He needs a seat that will be there after the boundary review and while Corbyn is in charge he would be completely wasted anyway.

tpfkar

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Wouldn't Corbyn just ignore the vote of confidence on the grounds that he has the support he needs "in the movement"?

Still can't believe that we are giving Gorton - Gorton! - any discussion rather than assuming Labour and giving it minimal coverage, like several Labour seats had in the last parliament. If Labour are having to deploy resources here for a hold they will get stretched beyond belief in a general election campaign.

MaxPB

Wouldn't it be possible to amend the act to require a simple majority rather than a 2/3rds majority? That feels like the easiest solution if it is possible

MarqueeMark

Scott_P said:

@DPJHodges: Stephen Hawking says Corbyn should step down. Pah! What does that guy know about anything...

https://twitter.com/maomentum_/status/839012190015352833

But on the bright side, we will learn plenty about black holes during Corbyn's tenure at the top....

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, I can't decide if that's horrendous or witty.

MarqueeMark

rottenborough said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

snip.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Can't one sentence be added to the FTPA saying it expires 30/03/2017 or something?

Robert Hazell thinks repeal is actually rather more difficult than it sounds:

"There is also brave talk about repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: for example, in the backbench debate last October. But this is wishful thinking, because repeal would be far from straightforward. It would require legislation, which would have to pass both Houses, with particular difficulties in the Lords. The legislation would face technical and political difficulties. The political difficulty is that reverting to the status quo ante would confer on the Prime Minister the advantage of choosing the date of the next election."


https://constitution-unit.com/2015/05/22/can-david-cameron-call-a-second-election-how-does-that-fit-with-the-fixed-term-parliaments-act/

Bit rich of the House of Lords to wade in on when the Commons can have elections!

kle4

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Why is it ludicrous not a bug.

Because it has removed the prerogative power of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament, leaving us situations like we might well face in a few months time, where a GE is needed to sort out a major or insoluble political issue, but we can't have one unless the government votes no confidence in itself or there is an opposition that is not terrified of an electoral wipeout and will join for the 2/3rd majority.

The 5 year term is also long, iirc, compared to other countries who have this.

There's nothing inherently superior about a 4 year cycle. 5 years was the maximum allotted time, outside times of suspension in war, for a parliament, therefore it seemed a reasonable choice rather than the rather lame justification of 4 is more common.

Also, who is to say we will an insoluble political issue? And is not the vote of no confidence route designed for just that?

Yes, it removed the prerogative power to call whenever. The disadvantage to that is it is harder to call in an emergency but it is not impossible. However, is that greater than the advantage of not being at the whim of a pm to call one at the most opportune moment for them? That is the more common scenario after all.

The lack of partisan advantage still seems the biggest issue with the act. Until it's ability to deal with a tricky situation is tested and found wanting, and it has not to date, that is not a good reason to change it.

david_herdson

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PyM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House.

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Why is it ludicrous? Most countries have similar rules and most assemblies in Britain get by with fixed terms. If the consequences of trying to game it are ludicrous, that's a feture not a bug.

Because it has removed the prerogative power of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament, leaving us situations like we might well face in a few months time, where a GE is needed to sort out a major or insoluble political issue, but we can't have one unless the government votes no confidence in itself or there is an opposition that is not terrified of an electoral wipeout and will join for the 2/3rd majority.

The 5 year term is also long, iirc, compared to other countries who have this.

In practice we don't know whether those constraints will be harmful. The dissolution vote has never been tried and if there were a clear need for an early election it'd be difficult for an opposition to refuse it, certainly without taking a big hit.

Bojabob

Roger said:

Bojabob said:

MikeSmithson said:

Bojabob said:

If Mike was born here, I'd have assumed he'd be a Manchester City supporter, rather than a fan of Burnley. This seat is Citeh heartland.

My family are from Burnley

That demonstrates a great deal of family loyalty Mike. Your father must have been very proud of you avoid the big draw of the local club.

Burnley were huge. Maybe bigger than City in the 60's

Apologies. Showing my youth there.

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far fromretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

snip.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Can't one sentence be added to the FTPA saying it expires 30/03/2017 or something?

Robert Hazell thinks repeal is actually rather more difficult than it sounds:

"There is also brave talk about repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: for example, in the backbench debate last October. But this is wishful thinking, because repeal would be far from straightforward. It would require legislation, which would have to pass both Houses, with particular difficulties in the Lords. The legislation would face technical and political difficulties. The political difficulty is that reverting to the status quo ante would confer on the Prime Minister the advantage of choosing the date of the next election."


https://constitution-unit.com/2015/05/22/can-david-cameron-call-a-second-election-how-does-that-fit-with-the-fixed-term-parliaments-act/

Bit rich of the House of Lords to wade in on when the Commons can have elections!

Why? They cannot have a view on it because they are not elected? Surely weighing in constitutional matters is one of the key functions of the members of the House of Lords who, in theory, should not be impacted by narrow partisan thinking because they don't have to worry about winning election themselves.

MikeSmithson

freetochoose said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

ThreeQuidder said:

OldKingCole said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.

So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ?
While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)

Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.

If you don't like it here then don't come onto the site. Every time you post on here it costs me money.

kle4

tpfkar said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

But absurd or not, it'd be constitutionally correct, although she ought to ask senior Tories first, given the Con majority. But after that, expert opinion (from Bogdanor, for example) is that she should call the LotO. Obviously, he'd lose a VoC but what'd happen then is just as unknowable. He might be asked to resign (or be dismissed), and May asked again but would that be tenable if she (May) refused to meet parliament? I'm not sure it would. That could leave Corbyn in place until an election.

Wouldn't Corbyn just ignore the vote of confidence on the grounds that he has the support he needs "in the movement"?

Still can't believe that we are giving Gorton - Gorton! - any discussion rather than assuming Labour and giving it minimal coverage, like several Labour seats had in the last parliament. If Labour are having to deploy resources here for a hold they will get stretched beyond belief in a general election campaign.

They'll be fine, but after the excitement of Copeland, everyone's hoping for more fun, and best to keep a close on it just in case.

rottenborough

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PyM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House.

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

snip

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Why is it ludicrous? Most countries have similar rules and most assemblies in Britain get by with fixed terms. If the consequences of trying to game it are ludicrous, that's a feture not a bug.

Because it has removed the prerogative power of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament, leaving us situations like we might well face in a few months time, where a GE is needed to sort out a major or insoluble political issue, but we can't have one unless the government votes no confidence in itself or there is an opposition that is not terrified of an electoral wipeout and will join for the 2/3rd majority.

The 5 year term is also long, iirc, compared to other countries who have this.

In practice we don't know whether those constraints will be harmful. The dissolution vote has never been tried and if there were a clear need for an early election it'd be difficult for an opposition to refuse it, certainly without taking a big hit.

What will May do if she can't get her new Grammar schools past the commons?

HYUFD

Regardless of who they pick Labour will hold it comfortably, this is left-wing metropolitan seat full of students and with a high Muslim population and made for Corbynism. Labour could even have a bigger majority than 2005 as it was opposition to Blair and the Iraq War which boosted the LDs in the seat then and Corbyn opposed both

rural_voter

MarqueeMark said:

rottenborough said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

Mortimer said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

On 3, does the government try to form before or after a vote?

The government stays in place until an alternative government is formed. If Her Maj is advised that Mr Corbyn is likely to have the confidence of the House, she'll appoint him as PM and he then has to win a vote of confidence to confirm it and prevent the GE happening. In practice, Her Majesty's advisors would take soundings and rapidly conclude that there's zero chance of Mr Corbyn having the confidence of the House. Hell, he hasn't even got the confidence of his own Shadow Cabinet!

That is far from clear constitutionally . The Balfour/Campbell-Bannerman precedent of December 1905 has been mentioned by some commentators as implying that Corbyn could be appointed as caretaker PM for the election period on the basis that May had already given up.

JustinSmallStraws seems to be refering to himself in the third person, now.

'Some commentators' indeed!

I've mentioned that instance before.

It is completely unknown how HM would act if a government No Confidenced itself. There is no real precedent though and it'd put the Palace in a very difficult position. If she refused to call Corbyn, she could be accused of partisanship; if she did, it'd look absurd.

snip.

Repeal of the ludicrous Fixed Term Act is the solution.

Can't one sentence be added to the FTPA saying it expires 30/03/2017 or something?

Robert Hazell thinks repeal is actually rather more difficult than it sounds:

"There is also brave talk about repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: for example, in the backbench debate last October. But this is wishful thinking, because repeal would be far from straightforward. It would require legislation, which would have to pass both Houses, with particular difficulties in the Lords. The legislation would face technical and political difficulties. The political difficulty is that reverting to the status quo ante would confer on the Prime Minister the advantage of choosing the date of the next election."

https://constitution-unit.com/2015/05/22/can-david-cameron-call-a-second-election-how-does-that-fit-with-the-fixed-term-parliaments-act/

Bit rich of the House of Lords to wade in on when the Commons can have elections!

The House of Lords has special elections for hereditaries when one dies!
Very high class clearly; I assume you need a stately home and a title.

Lucian_Fletcher

Interesting piece, thanks.

I am hoping Mrs May resists the call to use Labour woes to call an election. I am too knackered for the mother and father of headcounts

JackW

Roger said:

Hi Mike. Which street were you born in? I was born very close to this constituency on Brooklands Rd in Sale.

Mike wasn't born, he was conceived and created by the amalgamation of stunning Liberal bar charts in post war Britain.

Theuniondivvie

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, why Cameron didn't have a sunset clause installed in the FTPA is beyond me. Daft sod.

Mr. Meeks, I don't think Achilles is the sort of chap who'd turn up at court.

Unless charged with loitering within tent.

Boom and indeed tish.

JackW

RobD said:

Glorious second!

Scant pickings for a thread vulture ....

RobD

JackW said:

RobD said:

Glorious second!

Scant pickings for a thread vulture ....

What's that, seventy-seventh? Poor show...

RobD

rural_voter said:

The House of Lords has special elections for hereditaries when one dies!
Very high class clearly; I assume you need a stately home and a title.

Just a title!

Bojabob

The FTPA prevents governments from cutting and running at times of temporary political advantage. For that reason alone, it is worthy of retention. Corbyn is sui generis and will not be here beyond the next 18 months or so. Only a damned fool would build national policy around his unique confection of arrogance and stupidity.

OldKingCole

MikeSmithson said:

freetochoose said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

ThreeQuidder said:

OldKingCole said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

If ever someone hunted the snark it’s PN.

That's true, but kicking a man when he's down is unedifying.

So we should cease commenting on Jeremy Corbyn too ?
While either of them remain leader of their parties, they are fair game for any snark coming their way. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Indeed. Politics is brutal and often unfair, but these people are seeking power over the people, they need thick skin. Like a boxer it's not an opponent's job to go easy on the other guy, it's for the ref to put an end to it or his side to throw in the towel (e.g. They are removed by their own side) or wait for the final round and the judges to call it (e.g. An election)

Correct, but the editor's desire to crowbar Nuttall into a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with him says a lot about the editor and detracts from an interesting subject.

If you don't like it here then don't come onto the site. Every time you post on here it costs me money.

Sorry, Boss, but why is that?

[Deleted User]

Roger said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I realised this was a Smithson thread when I read the totally unnecessary snark at Paul Nuttall.

You have to remember there was a time pre Trump and Brexit when telling bare faced lies as a politician was a resigning matter. Some of us just can't get used to the idea that its changed.

I think it was Blair and his determination to politicise everything that got that particular ball rolling. The age of barefaced shamelessness was born in the culture of spin. Before Blair we didn't see it really, or not nearly so much. Major, Maggie, Wilson, Callaghan - all pretty straightforward whatever you think of their politics. Blair - total scuzzbucket and probably the most disliked man in the UK.

Barnesian

What was the % remain vote in Gorton?

JackW

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, why Cameron didn't have a sunset clause installed in the FTPA is beyond me. Daft sod.

Perhaps he thought that the FTPA was a opportune long term constitutional reform as well as providing short term stability for the Coalition. He was correct on both counts.

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Hard to see Labour losing this. If they did, and every less safe seat, at the election, they'd have fewer MPs than the Lib Dems.

F1: Test Two - Test Harder gets underway today.

As the threader says, local effects may play a part. Labour have to be absolute favourites, but the fact there can be even a little doubt about a win highlights Labour's problems well.

Will Labour's battling groups be able to unify enough to campaign effectively? Or will their fighting become a big story as the by-election approaches?

However: I think I've said before that the Lib Dems getting 20-25% would be a good score for them. I stick by that.

OldKingCole

Bojabob said:

Roger said:

Bojabob said:

MikeSmithson said:

Bojabob said:

If Mike was born here, I'd have assumed he'd be a Manchester City supporter, rather than a fan of Burnley. This seat is Citeh heartland.

My family are from Burnley

That demonstrates a great deal of family loyalty Mike. Your father must have been very proud of you avoid the big draw of the local club.

Burnley were huge. Maybe bigger than City in the 60's

Apologies. Showing my youth there.

Back in the day they were funded by a VERY substantial (in at least two sense of the term) local butcher, Alderman (IIRC) Bob Lord.

Morris_Dancer

Incidentally, I see Fillon's price has shortened a lot and Juppe/Baroin's lengthened to about 30-40 each. Is that meeting still on for today?

It does seem a ridiculous situation, but politics in many places has been very odd.

DecrepitJohnL

FTPA and early elections. Why now? What's changed? CCHQ panic that the election overspends will soon come to court?

Edit: can't spell FTPA.

Theuniondivvie

Good, old Mel. Next she'll be saying God promised Britain to the Engli...oops...British.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/839022668720517120

Barnesian

Barnesian said:

What was the % remain vote in Gorton?

To answer my own question - Remain got 62%.
Could be a LD surprise. I'm on LDs on Betfair at 9.6.

RobD

DecrepitJohnL said:

FTPA and early elections. Why now? What's changed? CCHQ panic that the election overspends will soon come to court?

Edit: can't spell FTPA.

That, or the huge poll leads!

PlatoSaid

For anyone interested, Wikileaks have another big data dump today.

It looks like the CIA from clues over the last month and big hints just now. It covers France ops...

Wikileaks
Background reading for today's pending release "Year Zero"

1) https://t.co/nLpkc5fXEm
2) https://t.co/I9sDTeCe3u

John_M

Theuniondivvie said:

Good, old Mel. Next she'll be saying God promised Britain to the Engli...oops...British.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/839022668720517120

Good morning all.

What mythical ancient unity is this? I can't read the original article, but the idea that there is some manifest destiny for a United Kingdom doesn't appear to bear up under examination.

If Scotland becomes independent and Northern Ireland joins the Republic, we'll still be the United Kingdom of England & Wales (plus assorted odds and sods too otiose to list). We'll still keep the flag.

I fail to see any particular issue. Remaining/Leaving the Union would seem to be a matter for the Scottish people. Both England and Scotland managed tolerably well up until 1707.

JackW

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

Glorious second!

Scant pickings for a thread vulture ....

What's that, seventy-seventh? Poor show...

A thread first is a pleasing piece of frippery not a virility symbol for site prowlers ....

Sean_F

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, not to mention his mum wasn't very sharp. If she's just dangled him in by his hair, then he would've been invulnerable to everything except a haircut. Poor Achilles.

Edited extra bit: this sounds well dodgy to me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39187265

"Judges should consider whether a young criminal has suffered discrimination as an ethnic minority before deciding their sentence, under a new guideline.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales says offending may be partly a product of discrimination and "negative experiences of authority"."

Edited extra bit 2: it'll simply lead to more claims of discrimination as a mitigating factor. Judgements should be based on the crime committed, not on skin colour, past problems, or what the victim thinks.

I entirely agree. If you beat the crap out of someone, having been discriminated against should be no mitigating factor.

MikeSmithson

JackW said:

Roger said:

Hi Mike. Which street were you born in? I was born very close to this constituency on Brooklands Rd in Sale.

Mike wasn't born, he was conceived and created by the amalgamation of stunning Liberal bar charts in post war Britain.

I was born in a nursing home in Victoria Park.

Bojabob

Theuniondivvie said:

Good, old Mel. Next she'll be saying God promised Britain to the Engli...oops...British.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/839022668720517120

The "most troublesome parts of the UK" - really there is little point subscribing to The Times when she and her ilk start off pieces on constitutional change like that. Her opening paragraph says it all.

JackW

Theuniondivvie said:

Good, old Mel. Next she'll be saying God promised Britain to the Engli...oops...British.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/839022668720517120

I think she a polemic short of viable argument.

Barnesian

John_M said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Good, old Mel. Next she'll be saying God promised Britain to the Engli...oops...British.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/839022668720517120

Good morning all.

What mythical ancient unity is this? I can't read the original article, but the idea that there is some manifest destiny for a United Kingdom doesn't appear to bear up under examination.

If Scotland becomes independent and Northern Ireland joins the Republic, we'll still be the United Kingdom of England & Wales (plus assorted odds and sods too otiose to list). We'll still keep the flag.

I fail to see any particular issue. Remaining/Leaving the Union would seem to be a matter for the Scottish people. Both England and Scotland managed tolerably well up until 1707.

She's talking about "the ancient unity of the British Isles". That includes the ROI. An interesting proposition.

Sean_F

@MaxPB, I enjoyed The Last Wish and thought Sword of Destiny was even better. Thanks for the recommendation.