It doesn't really need a genius of Cummings level to work out the next steps for Johnson.
Once you reverse the question and ask what would his opponents NOT want him to do then it is pretty clear I think.
Remainers would prefer to vote down the deal, have Johnson sign the extension and, ideally, keep signing extensions until the lifeblood has been fully drawn from the government.
I'm pretty confident that the least preferable outcome for remainers is either the deal being signed or it being rejected and Boris resigning forcing Corbyn to sign the extension and call an immediate GE.
I may be wrong in this but the vibe I pick up from remainers on here is that they definitely would not choose the 2nd option.
I would rather Corbyn got the extension and then called a GE.
I am a Remainer, not a Tory. I do not give a d*mn about Boris and the fate of the Tory party.
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
Boris will refuse under any circumstances at all to ask for the extension, as Lord Sumption said a civil servant will send the letter if necessary.
Corbyn meanwhile will continue to leak Remsiners to the LDs and Leavers to the Tories and the Brexit Party
Labour is essentially going to be left as a collection of BAME voters plus hard left types and a structurally declining of traditional WWC voters who are "Labour till they die"
Indeed, much as in the European Parliament elections Labour only won the big Northern cities, the poorer parts of London, Leicester, Nottingham, Luton and Slough
Anne Mcelvoy doesn't think there's much wrong with a grope (I paraphrase). Only the young are disturbed by it.
Man up! Women
I thought it was clear I was being sarcastic and I wasn't approving of the dreadful Mcelvoy. After noticing a 'like' from Felix I realise I mustn't have been clear enough.
I was liking it because you're, as ever, a sublime hypocrite. Anyone other than Johnson and you'd be all over an unsubstantiable allegation like the rash you are.
It doesn't really need a genius of Cummings level to work out the next steps for Johnson.
Once you reverse the question and ask what would his opponents NOT want him to do then it is pretty clear I think.
Remainers would prefer to vote down the deal, have Johnson sign the extension and, ideally, keep signing extensions until the lifeblood has been fully drawn from the government.
I'm pretty confident that the least preferable outcome for remainers is either the deal being signed or it being rejected and Boris resigning forcing Corbyn to sign the extension and call an immediate GE.
I may be wrong in this but the vibe I pick up from remainers on here is that they definitely would not choose the 2nd option.
I would rather Corbyn got the extension and then called a GE.
I am a Remainer, not a Tory. I do not give a d*mn about Boris and the fate of the Tory party.
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
Boris will refuse under any circumstances at all to ask for the extension, as Lord Sumption said a civil servant will send the letter if necessary.
Corbyn meanwhile will continue to leak Remsiners to the LDs and Leavers to the Tories and the Brexit Party
Labour is essentially going to be left as a collection of BAME voters plus hard left types and a structurally declining of traditional WWC voters who are "Labour till they die"
Indeed, much as in the European Parliament elections Labour only won the big Northern cities, the poorer parts of London, Leicester, Nottingham, Luton and Slough
Some of the county swings are interesting. Durham has seen a 10% swing from Labour to Conservative from 2005 to 2017 with both Northumberland and Cumbria at 8%. On the other hand, Tyne and Wear and Lancashire have essentially seen no swing
Militarily a blockade of ROI is well within the UK’s capabilities. But, it’d be politically catastrophic.
We do have a land border with the Republic. To blockade it, we would have to enforce checks at entry points and search vehicles and people crossing the border. We'd have to think of a word for such things. Perhaps customs can guide us...
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
Why would Cummings give that message to that audience?
1 He wanted it leaked out 2 He wants to see the plans to combat this move 3 He is issuing red herrings and false trails to waste opponents energy and resources 4 It is true and he doesn't care 5 ??
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
It doesn't really need a genius of Cummings level to work out the next steps for Johnson.
Once you reverse the question and ask what would his opponents NOT want him to do then it is pretty clear I think.
Remainers would prefer to vote down the deal, have Johnson sign the extension and, ideally, keep signing extensions until the lifeblood has been fully drawn from the government.
I'm pretty confident that the least preferable outcome for remainers is either the deal being signed or it being rejected and Boris resigning forcing Corbyn to sign the extension and call an immediate GE.
I may be wrong in this but the vibe I pick up from remainers on here is that they definitely would not choose the 2nd option.
I would rather Corbyn got the extension and then called a GE.
I am a Remainer, not a Tory. I do not give a d*mn about Boris and the fate of the Tory party.
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
Boris will refuse under any circumstances at all to ask for the extension, as Lord Sumption said a civil servant will send the letter if necessary.
Corbyn meanwhile will continue to leak Remsiners to the LDs and Leavers to the Tories and the Brexit Party
Labour is essentially going to be left as a collection of BAME voters plus hard left types and a structurally declining of traditional WWC voters who are "Labour till they die"
Indeed, much as in the European Parliament elections Labour only won the big Northern cities, the poorer parts of London, Leicester, Nottingham, Luton and Slough
Some of the county swings are interesting. Durham has seen a 10% swing from Labour to Conservative from 2005 to 2017 with both Northumberland and Cumbria at 8%. On the other hand, Tyne and Wear and Lancashire have essentially seen no swing
Newcastle neighbours Tyne and Wear and Liverpool and Manchester neighbour Lancashire, Northumberland and Cumbria are more rural
The problem for the LDs is that they need to achieve true crossover with Labour to be seen as the new alternative, and the only way to stop the tories. For now, hovering a % or 2 below Labour isn't enough, and if they go into an election with polling numbers like that they will poll less on voting day as people will fall back into seeing the LDs as the 3rd party vote, can't win here.
Hard to see many more opportunities for the LDs to overtake Labour now that conference is done and Labour's brexit divisions will fall out of the news compared to ongoing government scandals etc.
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
I think you are right on both points - definitely on the first, and probably on the second.
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
I think you are right on both points - definitely on the first, and probably on the second.
All party consensus. I agree too. Voters are fairly pragmatic.
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
If Boris resigns rather than extend the Queen might request indicative votes from MPs before appointing a new PM
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
Given that Corbyn is offering to lead a temporary 'extend and election' government he presumably agrees with your analysis.
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
And Warren’s success is a serious possibility, because Warren’s steady rise has made her a real contender, maybe even the front-runner: While she still trails Joe Biden a bit in the polls, betting markets currently give her a roughly 50 percent chance of securing the nomination.
It doesn't really need a genius of Cummings level to work out the next steps for Johnson.
Once you reverse the question and ask what would his opponents NOT want him to do then it is pretty clear I think.
Remainers would prefer to vote down the deal, have Johnson sign the extension and, ideally, keep signing extensions until the lifeblood has been fully drawn from the government.
I'm pretty confident that the least preferable outcome for remainers is either the deal being signed or it being rejected and Boris resigning forcing Corbyn to sign the extension and call an immediate GE.
I may be wrong in this but the vibe I pick up from remainers on here is that they definitely would not choose the 2nd option.
I would rather Corbyn got the extension and then called a GE.
I am a Remainer, not a Tory. I do not give a d*mn about Boris and the fate of the Tory party.
The Tory Party ceased to exist when Boris expelled the Remainer MPs.
What we have are TWO Brexit Parties:
Brexit Party (Farage) Brexit Party (Johnson)
That is probably correct. I wonder which will be the first to come up with a uniform for its supporters?
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
Given that Corbyn is offering to lead a temporary 'extend and election' government he presumably agrees with your analysis.
For sure the potential risk to Corbyn of extending brexit is more than outweighed by the benefits of walking into 10 Downing Street, proclaiming all that he will do post election, much like Johnson is now, and being legitimised as a PM candidate.
Boris will refuse under any circumstances at all to ask for the extension, as Lord Sumption said a civil servant will send the letter if necessary.
A civil servant sent it last time. Somehow I don't seem to remember that that prevented the nutjobs from blaming Theresa May.
I've pointed out everal times here, that Johnson has always used the 1st person "I will not ask for an extension" leaving the loophole that someone else on his team can ask for the extension.
It is however absurd to think that he will be saved by "I did not ask for an extension, it was Sir Unkown Mandarin who asked for the extension"
And Warren’s success is a serious possibility, because Warren’s steady rise has made her a real contender, maybe even the front-runner: While she still trails Joe Biden a bit in the polls, betting markets currently give her a roughly 50 percent chance of securing the nomination.
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
If Boris resigns rather than extend the Queen might request indicative votes from MPs before appointing a new PM
Really really doubt this.
If Boris resigns on behalf of his government she will ask Corbyn to the Palace.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
If Boris resigns rather than extend the Queen might request indicative votes from MPs before appointing a new PM
Really really doubt this.
If Boris resigns on behalf of his government she will ask Corbyn to the Palace.
It might just about be conceivable were Corbyn then to fail to get a majority in Parliament.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
If Boris resigns rather than extend the Queen might request indicative votes from MPs before appointing a new PM
Really really doubt this.
If Boris resigns on behalf of his government she will ask Corbyn to the Palace.
Not unless the LDs and Tory rebels commit to back him which they are not
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
The Tories and the DUP are wholly separate parties. Other majorities are available. Tantrumming because your party is inept is futile.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
To really destroy the Tory party - Corbyn needs to ensure it is Boris not him who asks for the extension.
And (I know I repeat myself but) I don't see how Boris resigns - he can try to but he remains PM until someone else is appointed and in late October why would anyone willingly help Boris out of his mess.
It's in all party's (bar the Tory) interests to keep Boris in No 10 until he has gone cap in hand to the EU and we have an extension beyond October 31st.
There are two assumptions that are often made here that I don't understand. Could anyone help explain?
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
I agree, how stupid of Boris to lose his majority. Now that has changed and he has lost it, he should resign of course.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
The Tories and the DUP are wholly separate parties. Other majorities are available. Tantrumming because your party is inept is futile.
HYUFD is merely attempting constitutional innovation...
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
If Boris resigns rather than extend the Queen might request indicative votes from MPs before appointing a new PM
Really really doubt this.
If Boris resigns on behalf of his government she will ask Corbyn to the Palace.
Not unless the LDs and Tory rebels commit to back him which they are not
She will invite him to try and form a government and in meantime be PM. If they VoNC within hours then so be it.
I really can't see the Queen wanting to do anything that was not the standard protocol with respect to the Opposition.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
Err, Boris changed it by sacking 21 of his MPs.
Who refused to deliver the Tory manifesto commitment to take the UK out of the EU
Change the PM, change the Government. You know this.
NOT the governing party
Let me highlight the relevant words in the tweet to you. They do not say 'the governing party'.
In 2011, Brussels imposed civilian juntas on Italy and Greece, toppling elected governments in order to prop up the euro. Now British Europhiles dream of changing the government here without a general election. #StopTheCoup
The Tory Party changed The Government without an election.
You did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
Err, Boris changed it by sacking 21 of his MPs.
Who refused to deliver the Tory manifesto commitment to take the UK out of the EU
No they didn't. Nearly all of them are absolutely clear that they want to deliver the orderly Brexit promised by the Leave campaign and the manifesto. Unfortunately the current PM and many of his cabinet colluded with Labour to prevent that happening, going through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott etc.
Boris will refuse under any circumstances at all to ask for the extension, as Lord Sumption said a civil servant will send the letter if necessary.
A civil servant sent it last time. Somehow I don't seem to remember that that prevented the nutjobs from blaming Theresa May.
I've pointed out everal times here, that Johnson has always used the 1st person "I will not ask for an extension" leaving the loophole that someone else on his team can ask for the extension.
It is however absurd to think that he will be saved by "I did not ask for an extension, it was Sir Unkown Mandarin who asked for the extension"
I don't think the use of the 'first person' is devious'; it's because he doesn't think about anyone else.
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
When does the money for C&S run out? Was it for a parliament, a year, or what?
The Conservatives have no divine right to rule. Having thrown away their control of the House of Commons, they can expect to be thrown away themselves shortly.
The Tories and DUP won a majority in the UK in 2017 and that should not be changed without a general election
Err, Boris changed it by sacking 21 of his MPs.
Who refused to deliver the Tory manifesto commitment to take the UK out of the EU
Whatever the motivation, Boris changed the composition of the government without an election.
Not only that, in his monumental stupidity he managed to stop himself calling one, given the law of the land is that Parliament now decides when its elections will be held. One of many details that passed him by.
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
In our Parliamentary democracy the only thing that matters is whether the government has the confidence of the House. This is why closing down Parliament was so anti-democratic.
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
Same thing applies: HM has to appoint someone. Unless there is a clearly better alternative, the LotO is the default, especially if the reason for resignation is an inability to command the support of the Commons.
Yes but the palace would need to be convinced that he had a realistic chance of winning a confidence vote before Her Maj would appoint him.
I think it's very hard to see the Queen refusing since it's impossible to know for sure until you try, the leader of the opposition is the conventional choice, and it's the outgoing PM's recommendation.
Put another way, if Johnson proactively quits after losing a VoNC, the Queen has to appoint *someone*. Unless there's a clearly viable alternative candidate, that person is almost inevitably going to be the LotO. (Note - it doesn't necessarily matter if Corbyn then loses a VoC: he may get to stay as PM for the election campaign if there's no other candidate that the Palace / House could try).
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
The scenario I was talking about is where there is No VoNC but Boris resigns rather than asking for the extension.
Same thing applies: HM has to appoint someone. Unless there is a clearly better alternative, the LotO is the default, especially if the reason for resignation is an inability to command the support of the Commons.
Why does she have to appoint someone. Why not just call a GE?
Is this not also in the context of Catalonia, though? They did this to help Spain and UK. Well, now UK is leaving, and the Catalonia issue is less fraught, maybe they're more open to making life easier.
The Catalonia issue is very different. Scottish independence would have been constitutionally valid and with the reluctant blessing of London. Madrid wholly opposes Catalonia even having a vote, and its constitution is pretty tightly against secession. I get the sense that EU attitudes follow the lead of the relevant members, which is why I think they would have been fairly relaxed about Scotland. Simply put, the EU looks after its members' interests.
The Spanish Govt would make sure that an Indy Scotland re-entering the EU would have an absolutely torrid time. To do otherwise would be against their national interest, as they see it. Scotland becoming independent would be a huge boost to Catalan independence in any event. The fact that you see Catalan flags so often at Indy rallies is a sign of the close linkages. The Spanish would make sure Scotland would have to go through every conceivable hoop which would include slashing public spending to meet the EU's debt requirements. If you don't think so, just ask the Greeks (who are a much bigger country and not applying to join.)
On the contrary, the UK is saying ‘look, you’re preparing to accept this anyway, as part of No Deal, so why not accept it as a deal, and all avoid all the other horrors’. It’s perfectly logical
Which other horrors? The border issue has always been the essence of the deal. Without it there's nothing.
The other horrors of no deal. Chaos in the channel etc.
Chaos in the channel is mainly a problem for the British. This is just people asking for everything they want without offering anything in return.
We don't have the military might to impose those sorts of deals anymore.
The royal navy is still classed as a limited global reach force, one level below the maximum ability (held solely by the USA), the only other level 2 blue water navy is France (in decline) with Russia and China approaching this level but not yet there. I.e. the navy is quite capable of dealing with pretty much anything short term
I don't think we have the military might to maintain a naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland.
As a purely theoretical exercise, it would be very easy. If you have a blockade then you have to be prepared to use lethal force to enforce it (which I assume is why, in international law, a blockade is, of itself, defined as an act of war). If people believe you are prepared to enforce it, they will self-exclude. You don't need to sink every ship; just one or two might well have the necessary effect. Obviously, doing so would not be without repercussions.
The optics of the UK starving out a recalcitrant ROI would be pretty special.
The stupidity on here is amazing , as if the yanks would allow it for 5 minutes. Would be tail between legs and sent home.
Is this not also in the context of Catalonia, though? They did this to help Spain and UK. Well, now UK is leaving, and the Catalonia issue is less fraught, maybe they're more open to making life easier.
The Catalonia issue is very different. Scottish independence would have been constitutionally valid and with the reluctant blessing of London. Madrid wholly opposes Catalonia even having a vote, and its constitution is pretty tightly against secession. I get the sense that EU attitudes follow the lead of the relevant members, which is why I think they would have been fairly relaxed about Scotland. Simply put, the EU looks after its members' interests.
The Spanish Govt would make sure that an Indy Scotland re-entering the EU would have an absolutely torrid time. To do otherwise would be against their national interest, as they see it. Scotland becoming independent would be a huge boost to Catalan independence in any event. The fact that you see Catalan flags so often at Indy rallies is a sign of the close linkages. The Spanish would make sure Scotland would have to go through every conceivable hoop which would include slashing public spending to meet the EU's debt requirements. If you don't think so, just ask the Greeks (who are a much bigger country and not applying to join.)
Bollox
Care to explain, old chap.
The Spanish are a lot more hard-nosed than the Brits in this regard as the various exiled Catalans can testify.
There is nothing stopping us from letting in anyone and their children. Being in the EU does not put any restrictions on our own rules. We are draconian when it comes to immigration, regardless of the EU.
We are so 'draconian' when it comes to immigration that net immigration during the last five years is almost 1.4 million.
Despite it being government policy to reduce annual net immigration to the tens of thousands.
The big problem with a Lab/LD/SNP government is that it highlights the fact that England is the only country in Europe without it's own parliament. That government combination won't have an English majority so will have to involve Scottish votes for English laws. That ends the fantasy of EV4EL exposing them even more. English brexiteers will join with the SNP in a yes vote for Scottish independence creating the stable majority for separation Sturgeon has been seeking to build. Ending the UK automatically ends EU membership and an independent England with a Conservative majority can simply not apply to join.
Comments
It only really becomes an issue if Johnson doesn't resign but Corbyn demands the chance to form a government. At that point, it would be very difficult to dismiss Johnson in favour of a PM that the House might well reject. In those circumstances, I'd expect pressure from the Palace to enable the House to express its preferences informally before HM made a constitutionally abnormal move.
1 He wanted it leaked out
2 He wants to see the plans to combat this move
3 He is issuing red herrings and false trails to waste opponents energy and resources
4 It is true and he doesn't care
5 ??
1. Corbyn would be damaged by being the one to ask for an extension. I guess the idea is that this would alienate Labour Leavers, but the problem is that it's already extremely clear that Labour's policy is to extend, and most Labour Leavers don't want a No Deal crash out either. Plus we know that Labour Remainers are a softer target for switching to LD than Leavers, and care about Brexit more. And while Leavers have surely already priced in that Corbyn wants an extension, Remainers may not have since trust in him is very low, and actually seeing him be the saviour from No Deal, and seeing him in No 10 without the sky falling in would be be a positive for them.
So surely the gains from the larger, more elastic, group of potentially-Labour Remainers seeing Corbyn act on something they strongly support outweighs the losses from the smaller, more fixed, potentially-Labour Leavers seeing Corbyn do what they already know he'll do on something they mostly either weakly oppose or even support?
2. Handing Corbyn the keys the No 10 so that he can ask for an extension would be less damaging for Boris than asking for an extension himself. I guess this assumption is based on visions of soaring rhetoric from Boris about never giving up, staying true to his word at all costs, and so on. But think about how this would be covered by his many opponents on all sides- cowardice, abdicating responsibility, handing the top job to the great Satan Corbyn, and for what? It's not fulfilling his promise of exiting on the 31st, on the contrary it's giving up on that promise.
Most voters are relatively down to earth, and all they're going to see is "Boris makes Corbyn PM". So now instead of just having an unwanted extension they have an unwanted extension AND Corbyn in power. Why? So that Boris can keep his hands clean. Not convinced they're going to be impressed.
Hard to see many more opportunities for the LDs to overtake Labour now that conference is done and Labour's brexit divisions will fall out of the news compared to ongoing government scandals etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Brown shirts anyone???
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1178997996094152709?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1178997996094152709&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/01/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-conservative-conference-interviewed-as-ireland-dismisses-uk-border-plan-as-non-starter-live-news
Boris would be mad to resign in favour of Corbyn.
It is however absurd to think that he will be saved by "I did not ask for an extension, it was Sir Unkown Mandarin who asked for the extension"
If Boris resigns on behalf of his government she will ask Corbyn to the Palace.
I really can't see the Queen wanting to do anything that was not the standard protocol with respect to the Opposition.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-inquiry-in-the-senate-chief-justice-oversees.html
In 2011, Brussels imposed civilian juntas on Italy and Greece, toppling elected governments in order to prop up the euro. Now British Europhiles dream of changing the government here without a general election. #StopTheCoup
The Tory Party changed The Government without an election.
You did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did you did.
Move on please.... something to see (on the next thread)
Not only that, in his monumental stupidity he managed to stop himself calling one, given the law of the land is that Parliament now decides when its elections will be held. One of many details that passed him by.
In our Parliamentary democracy the only thing that matters is whether the government has the confidence of the House. This is why closing down Parliament was so anti-democratic.
The Spanish are a lot more hard-nosed than the Brits in this regard as the various exiled Catalans can testify.
Despite it being government policy to reduce annual net immigration to the tens of thousands.