Boris does a Theresa and calls a general election on the day Parliament returns on 4th September.
"Johnson, however, can pre-empt such manoeuvres on September 4 when Parliament returns by tabling a motion for an early general election, to be held on October 10.
This date is opportune for two reasons. First, Parliament would dissolve by law on September 5. This immediately eliminates the threat of MPs taking control of parliamentary time, keeping the exit date of October 31 intact.
Second, this election date comes a week before the EU Council summit. If his gamble pays off and he were to win a majority, the PM would have the strong negotiating position required to obtain a new deal. If the EU still refuses to budge, the Government could spend the final weeks passing relevant no-deal legislation to minimise disruption before Britain leaves the EU."
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
I was told that was Project FEAR so I dismissed it upon the guidance of Bojo and Banks.
How typical of Brexiteers to claim a mandate for No Deal on the basis that - even though they were all lying through their teeth during the referendum campaign - Philip Hammond was truthfully warning people of the very danger we're all facing now!
I was quite amused by that piece of sophistry, too.
I was told that was Project FEAR so I dismissed it upon the guidance of Bojo and Banks.
How typical of Brexiteers to claim a mandate for No Deal on the basis that - even though they were all lying through their teeth during the referendum campaign - Philip Hammond was truthfully warning people of the very danger we're all facing now!
Jezza as PM is a bigger disaster than leaving a trading cartel. And Swinson is savvy enough to realise that supporting this toxic IRA and Iran supporting old Marxist is the road to hell for the LDs.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
Boris does a Theresa and calls a general election on the day Parliament returns on 4th September.
"Johnson, however, can pre-empt such manoeuvres on September 4 when Parliament returns by tabling a motion for an early general election, to be held on October 10.
This date is opportune for two reasons. First, Parliament would dissolve by law on September 5. This immediately eliminates the threat of MPs taking control of parliamentary time, keeping the exit date of October 31 intact.
Second, this election date comes a week before the EU Council summit. If his gamble pays off and he were to win a majority, the PM would have the strong negotiating position required to obtain a new deal. If the EU still refuses to budge, the Government could spend the final weeks passing relevant no-deal legislation to minimise disruption before Britain leaves the EU."
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
If there are enough Tory MPs who could stomach Corbyn as interim PM, then Swinson should reconsider. However, I think she's probably right and there aren't.
Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
Such scepticism is understandable but compared with the guy in No 10 he would appear trustworthy in the extreme.
These Con MPs "seriously considering" making Jezza Prime Minister have surely blown it with their constituencies and will be facing deselection imminently?
Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.
Yes, an honesty contest between them would be an unedifying spectacle but I guess you'd have to give it to the man in the red corner.
These Con MPs "seriously considering" making Jezza Prime Minister have surely blown it with their constituencies and will be facing deselection imminently?
I don't get how Bebb can say what he is saying whilst still holding the Tory whip ? If he sincerely believes he needs to potentially put Corbyn in to stop "No Deal", surely he has to resign it.
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
Doesn't the motion require a specific set of wording, which doesn't include a date?
But he would have to get this through the Commons with 433 MPs voting for. That is far from certain given that this would look lie a device to avoid the Commons
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
Doesn't the motion require a specific set of wording, which doesn't include a date?
Yes. I quoted it above. It's exhausting going round in circles.
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
Such scepticism is understandable but compared with the guy in No 10 he would appear trustworthy in the extreme.
I think the point is that those wanting to stop No Deal will get only one chance, and the Parliamentary arithmetic is exceedingly tight. Anyone not not possessing the implicit trust of MPs across the political spectrum is unlikely to get a majority. I think Swinson's analysis is correct - though her political skills leave significant room for improvement...
I'm not entirely convinced that some motion along the lines of Cooper/Bowles, on the back of the Commons taking control of Parliamentary procedure, doesn't stand a better chance than the scheme to instal a temporary PM, whoever that might be. Procedurally, it would be a very messy callifudge, with a highly uncertain outcome. But it might still stand more chance of succeeding.
Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.
Yes, an honesty contest between them would be an unedifying spectacle but I guess you'd have to give it to the man in the red corner.
Well if you get sacked by The Times and Michael Howard, for lying. Then on tape discuss have someone beaten up. It could be a split decision.
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
With not that much more than a third of the MPs, if he didn't stick to the script, MPs could either replace him or trigger an election easily enough.
I note - alone on here - that sterling has recovered all of its losses from the other week against the Euro. Interestingly it does not feature at all on any of the news channels or among the myriad of people on here who were so worried when its decline was heralded as the ruination of all foreign holidays as well as forcing elderly Brits in Europe back to blighty pronto. Funny that....
But not against the $. And the movement against the € - which has its own poor economic data to contend with - is pretty minimal if you zoom out and look at the Sorry tale of our slumping currency over the year, or years.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
I don't wish to be rude, but I think you're out of your tiny mind.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.
It's very crazy. Indeed, you could argue that the government would be duty-bound *not* to allow the tabling of such a motion, which if passed would defer an election already provided for, by the necessity of having to keep parliament sitting for another 14 days.
To critics who argued that the government was silencing parliament, the simple answer would be that after the Dissolution motion, it was now for the people to choose a government, not a parliament which had just voted itself out of existence by the time being.
Such a motion - specifying a date - would have no effect under the FTPA. The motion has to be simply "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election."
If we laymen are aware of the terms of the FTPA, why isn't Mr Alexander Pelling-Bruce of the Spectator? Do they not allow him Internet access at work for some reason?
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
And make the Tories lose that slender 1 vote lead in the HoC?
That one vote lead is gone anyway.
Dr Wollaston was already sitting as an independent - or has another Tory defected?
I mean the notional majority count means buttons as there is no discipline on the fringes of all the parties right now anyway. O'Mara, Field, Lee, Grieve, Bebb to name a few will vote the way they want to do so on matters regardless of whether or not they're in a party or independent.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
No doubt his power to take any kind of decision would be set out in the agreement he reached with the other parties. And if he didn't stick to it he would be VONC'd PDQ. In practice I think the other parties would VONC him anyway as soon as an A50 extension had been agreed and this would precipitate an election during which purdah rules apply so Corbyn would probably exercise the full powers of PM for only a week or two at most.
To be fair, May announced the date of the 8th of June before the vote in parliament. There's no chance Johnson could get a 2/3rds majority to give him a blank cheque to name a date afterwards.
Unfortunately, there's no mechanism for the Commons to stipulate the date of the election, so a 2/3 vote for an election would in fact and in law give him the power to choose the date.
Agreed, but there would be an immense political cost to naming a date and then postponing it after the vote. Plus the government could simply be VoNCed if they did that.
What do you mean about being VONCed? Once the date had been fixed it would be out of parliament's hands.
Parliament wouldn't be dissolved immediately after the motion to approve an early election, so if the PM just banked the power to call one but decided to wait, parliament could still remove him.
You're suggesting that there could be a 2/3 vote for an early general election, and after that there could be a vote of no confidence, and the appointment of a different prime minister, who would then be able to choose the date of the general election?
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
Hmm, I think the fantasy is that the PM could win a 2/3 vote for an election and then change the date afterwards. It's not conceivable politically. If they tried it, there would be such a loss of trust, that the VONC would come into play.
But you really are suggesting there could be a VONC, after a 2/3 vote for an early election? I'm sorry, but that really is crazy.
It's very crazy. Indeed, you could argue that the government would be duty-bound *not* to allow the tabling of such a motion, which if passed would defer an election already provided for, by the necessity of having to keep parliament sitting for another 14 days.
To critics who argued that the government was silencing parliament, the simple answer would be that after the Dissolution motion, it was now for the people to choose a government, not a parliament which had just voted itself out of existence by the time being.
And of course, unless the Queen asked someone else to form a government - which she obviously wouldn't do once an election had been approved - it would make not the slightest difference to Johnson's ability to choose the date of the election.
It's the purest nonsense I've ever read here. And that's saying something!
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
My basic point is that despite the early election motion being silent on the date, in practice the PM would have to stick to the date they announced before asking parliament to vote on the motion.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
No doubt his power to take any kind of decision would be set out in the agreement he reached with the other parties. And if he didn't stick to it he would be VONC'd PDQ. In practice I think the other parties would VONC him anyway as soon as an A50 extension had been agreed and this would precipitate an election during which purdah rules apply so Corbyn would probably exercise the full powers of PM for only a week or two at most.
And make the Tories lose that slender 1 vote lead in the HoC?
That one vote lead is gone anyway.
Dr Wollaston was already sitting as an independent - or has another Tory defected?
I mean the notional majority count means buttons as there is no discipline on the fringes of all the parties right now anyway. O'Mara, Field, Lee, Grieve, Bebb to name a few will vote the way they want to do so on matters regardless of whether or not they're in a party or independent.
Not a bad idea. Whoever can get a majority. Ken's retiring at the GE, what about Harman?
Harman or Clarke would be ideal. They would be infinitely better than the collection of barely sentient idiots we have clowning around Downing St currently.
I was told that was Project FEAR so I dismissed it upon the guidance of Bojo and Banks.
How typical of Brexiteers to claim a mandate for No Deal on the basis that - even though they were all lying through their teeth during the referendum campaign - Philip Hammond was truthfully warning people of the very danger we're all facing now!
Yes, it's brilliant, particularly the reliance on the wisdom of Phil Hammond, of all people.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
With not that much more than a third of the MPs, if he didn't stick to the script, MPs could either replace him or trigger an election easily enough.
The Corbyn hot air all seems a little pathetic. In contrast Johnson's pre-electioneering tour of his fiefdom looks impressive. His new video channel which has been foolishly snubbed by the BBC (except Evan Davis) is particularly clever.
I think that Johnson's claiming MPs are in the pocket of the EU is gaining traction. I thought the guy had lost his touch, but he really hasn't.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
I don't wish to be rude, but I think you're out of your tiny mind.
Also, does the Minister for Magic have to meet him if he's only a caretaker?
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
This seems to be the crux of the matter - no one knows, no one.
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless, any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the party
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.
They haven't, Boris leads Corbyn as best PM in all the latest polls
Unfortunatly this article perpetuates the myth thst the aim of an extension is to prevent No Deal. It is not. It is to allow Remainers more time to try and reverse the Brexit vote. My preferencecwss for a deal and a soft Brexit. But given the antics of Remainers over the past three years I have run out of patience and will accept whatever sort of Brexit we can get.
Corbyn is suggesting a soft Brexit and a deal so why won’t you get behind him?
Because like you he is a liar and utterly untrustworthy.
Corbyn is many things - incompetent, pig headed, inflexible, lacking in judgement etc etc - but lying and untrustworthiness are hard to pin on him - his views have been known, and remained unchanged, for decades and he cannot be compared to Johnson, who has built an entire career on lies.
Yes, an honesty contest between them would be an unedifying spectacle but I guess you'd have to give it to the man in the red corner.
The problem is that he has (apart from many other faults!) a long history of anti-europeanism. Since the referendum he has been dragged reluctantly to the point where he grudgingly agrees a further referendum as the price of power. He cannot be trusted on the issue.
This is just horse trading over who gets the role of caretaker PM, lets see how things go over the next few weeks.
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the party
Makes no difference. You sound panicky
He is my mp and before you say anything I wrote to the constituency demanding he was deselected 6 months ago. He is very unpopular outside of brexit anyway
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x 2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament 3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y 4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.
They haven't, Boris leads Corbyn as best PM in all the latest polls
I am stating an opinion, not commenting on how the public at large view things. The public are way too relaxed about No Deal, generally in inverse proportion to how much they understand about it.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
And of course its all about optics. Part of the reason a lot of the public won't vote for Corbyn to be PM is because they just don't "see" him as PM.
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
Corbyn has already demonstrated that he is more suited to being PM than the current occupant of the position, by ruling out the chaos of No Deal. If Tories are so intent on clutching at their pearls when they imagine Corbyn at Number 10, they might like to ponder on how they have conspired to make him the sane option.
That shows a remarkable degree of trust in Corbyn sticking to the script, in the unlikely event of his persuading a majority of Parliament to give him the nod.
I don't understand what trust is involved. Corbyn's one job as PM would be to ask for an extension. He could be VONCed at any time, and then there would be an election. Unless the Commons came up with anyone preferable.
The trust is that he would stick to his "one job"
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
I don't wish to be rude, but I think you're out of your tiny mind.
You asked what "trust" was involved?
I gave you an answer. I haven't expressed an opinion at all.
So I don't understand why you need to respond in this fashion at all.
I also find it intriguing that you chose to cut out one of the three examples that I gave. Why would you do that, unless to try and influence how other posters might read the thread in future?
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're really over-thinking this. The sequence would be like this:
1. Boris would meet the Cabinet at about 9:30am on 4th September where they would agree to hold a general election on 10th October.
2. Boris would phone the Queen in Balmoral at about 10:30am to tell her of the decision to hold an election on 10th October.
3. Boris wiould make a speech in Donwing St. at about 11am and tell the public we're going to have an election on 10th October.
4. Boris could present the Bill to Parliament at about 12pm and tell MPs he wants them to agree to have an election on 10th October.
Now after doing all this the idea that after Parliament has voted for the election he'd make the date 1st November is fanciful in the extreme and it's no often I agree with @williamglenn but he's right that if Boris tried that the damage he'd get in the backlash from MPs, Great British Public and HMQ would be severe.
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the party
Makes no difference. You sound panicky
He is my mp and before you say anything I wrote to the constituency demanding he was deselected 6 months ago. He is very unpopular outside of brexit anyway
He is ex Plaid and if even you can't stand him BigG shows how awful he is
Well he should be thrown out of the party tomorrow regardless any Tory MP even considering voting for a Corbyn Premiership is a traitor and does not belong in the party
Makes no difference. You sound panicky
He is my mp and before you say anything I wrote to the constituency demanding he was deselected 6 months ago. He is very unpopular outside of brexit anyway
He is ex Plaid and if even you can't stand him BigG shows how awful he is
You don't think it's crazy to think that any PM could say, "I've decided we need a general election, to be held on October 10th," then win the 2/3 vote and say, "Gotcha! We're holding the election on November 1st instead"?
I'm asking you whether you really think a VONC and the appointment of a different PM could follow a 2/3 vote for an election.
Can you just clarify that, please?
If the PM catastrophically loses the confidence of the HoC by breaking their word on the date of an election then why not? Many of their own MPs would be disgusted by such a manoeuver.
I really can't believe I'm reading this.
Your sequence of event is this: (1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election (2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament (3) There is a vote of no confidence (4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
You're in one of your obtuse moods again.
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x 2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament 3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y 4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
Well, it's nonsensical anyway, because once the 2/3 vote has passed he just has to advise the Queen of the date, so "trying to change" the date doesn't come into it.
But I'll humour you. Go on. What do you suppose happens next?
A vote of no confidence, you said. And then you think we go into the 14-day period, and you think the Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And then what? If the other person gets a vote of confidence you think the election is off? Or if not they get to tell the Queen a different date?
Comments
He is evil and I hate him, but only the Lib Dem’s have actually told him to go do one.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/457548-warren-leads-field-by-5-points-in-wisconsin-poll
True, it comes very late in the primary cycle, but that is nonetheless a significant result, assuming it's not a rogue poll.
Also a key swing state.
"Let's make a far left nutcase PM. What could possibly go wrong?"
.....
Kudos to the Lib Dems for not going along with this madness.
Count me in as surprised if lorries and containers actually get shipped, rather then just their cargo.
I'm all for original thinking, but I think you're in the realms of fantasy there.
I could make a crude analogy regarding what she is receiving from Lucas and Sturgeon, but I won't.
Anyone not not possessing the implicit trust of MPs across the political spectrum is unlikely to get a majority.
I think Swinson's analysis is correct - though her political skills leave significant room for improvement...
I'm not entirely convinced that some motion along the lines of Cooper/Bowles, on the back of the Commons taking control of Parliamentary procedure, doesn't stand a better chance than the scheme to instal a temporary PM, whoever that might be.
Procedurally, it would be a very messy callifudge, with a highly uncertain outcome. But it might still stand more chance of succeeding.
Then on tape discuss have someone beaten up.
It could be a split decision.
What would his executive decision about the future our our nuclear arsenal be, for example?
Should he be briefed on national security matters and who would he choose to share that information with?
What happens if there is a foreign policy crisis during the period. Would he stand by Clause 5 of the Nato Agreement if, for example, Russia invaded Estonia?
He's clinging to his whip whilst believing Corbyn won't cling to Number 10.
If somebody told him his picture was next to 'gullible' in the illustrated dictionary he'd go and have a look.
I did say that during the 1st test though...
But if they wake up one morning in the middle of September and there he is standing on the steps of Downing St as PM (after being put there by Parliament itself) then that barrier to voting for him in the publics mind is instantly removed for a lot of people.
To critics who argued that the government was silencing parliament, the simple answer would be that after the Dissolution motion, it was now for the people to choose a government, not a parliament which had just voted itself out of existence by the time being.
Can you just clarify that, please?
O'Mara, Field, Lee, Grieve, Bebb to name a few will vote the way they want to do so on matters regardless of whether or not they're in a party or independent.
It's the purest nonsense I've ever read here. And that's saying something!
My basic point is that despite the early election motion being silent on the date, in practice the PM would have to stick to the date they announced before asking parliament to vote on the motion.
Your sequence of event is this:
(1) There is a 2/3 majority for an early election, which allows Johnson to choose the date of the election
(2) Johnson advises the Queen of a date, and a general election is fixed for that date, but no one bothers to dissolve parliament
(3) There is a vote of no confidence
(4) The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And there I lose track of it. What do you suppose happens then?
I think that Johnson's claiming MPs are in the pocket of the EU is gaining traction. I thought the guy had lost his touch, but he really hasn't.
This is just horse trading over who gets the role of caretaker PM, lets see how things go over the next few weeks.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457486-biden-allies-float-scaling-back-events-to-limit-gaffes
He is my mp and before you say anything I wrote to the constituency demanding he was deselected 6 months ago. He is very unpopular outside of brexit anyway
It rather suggests that the pitch has lost some of its demons.
The sequence of events is:
1) Johnson says we need an early election to be held on x
2) Johnson wins 2/3 vote in parliament
3) Because the motion doesn't name a date, he tries to change the proposed date from x to y
4) Political uproar leading to the fall of the government
I gave you an answer. I haven't expressed an opinion at all.
So I don't understand why you need to respond in this fashion at all.
I also find it intriguing that you chose to cut out one of the three examples that I gave. Why would you do that, unless to try and influence how other posters might read the thread in future?
1. Boris would meet the Cabinet at about 9:30am on 4th September where they would agree to hold a general election on 10th October.
2. Boris would phone the Queen in Balmoral at about 10:30am to tell her of the decision to hold an election on 10th October.
3. Boris wiould make a speech in Donwing St. at about 11am and tell the public we're going to have an election on 10th October.
4. Boris could present the Bill to Parliament at about 12pm and tell MPs he wants them to agree to have an election on 10th October.
Now after doing all this the idea that after Parliament has voted for the election he'd make the date 1st November is fanciful in the extreme and it's no often I agree with @williamglenn but he's right that if Boris tried that the damage he'd get in the backlash from MPs, Great British Public and HMQ would be severe.
But I'll humour you. Go on. What do you suppose happens next?
A vote of no confidence, you said. And then you think we go into the 14-day period, and you think the Queen asks someone else to form a government.
And then what? If the other person gets a vote of confidence you think the election is off? Or if not they get to tell the Queen a different date?