Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The July plot to oust Mrs May

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited June 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The July plot to oust Mrs May

‘That was a dress rehearsal. Next time Theresa is toast’

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,267
    First like Scotland in the cricket.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,071
    Piano wire at the ready.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,494
    PB swallowed my comment. And for once it wasn't 'first' ;)

    But to summarise: if the Tory Brexiteers force May out, they're handing the keys of no.10 to Corbyn and his followers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    In a stroke of sheer genius, Mr Eagles, we have three threads on Vanilla forums. I'm just hoping his is the right one!

    FPT

    England to chase 372 to win.

    That was a mighty impressive innings from Calum Macleod. However, England do have considerable firepower right down to no. 10 and I think they will feel this is gettable.

    Am I the only person who thinks a bowler averaging 41 after 12 tests and 47 after 28 ODIs already in his late twenties with a long injury history isn't really an international standard bowler, rather someone who should be discarded?

    (Oh and NZ women might still squeak 400 at Malahide.)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    FPT:
    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    I tell a lie. It's now up to 4.

    Wtf is going on with bloody Vanilla?!!!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    Anyway, so my brilliant wisdom from one of the many phantom threads isn't lost:

    It's in the Sunday Times and from Tim Shipman.

    Are we really going to take it that seriously?

    I think they would be wary of ousting her unless they have a clear, plausible, better and more Brexitty alternative in place, and they haven't got anyone who matches even one of those criteria right now
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,866

    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,171

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.

    Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    On topic - a key may be in the Immigration bill with Javid reportedly ripping up the “open and generous offer” the EU would have simply banked anyway - if they want to treat us like a “third country” then we should reciprocate - only considering an “open and generous offer”’after any trade deal is agreed.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,963
    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714
    edited June 10
    July 20th 1969 was the first moon landing.

    Pause.

    I know that's not relevant to anything, I just wanted to point it out... :)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    I would have respected his right to form a government. Wouldn’t you?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,963
    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, so my brilliant wisdom from one of the many phantom threads isn't lost:

    It's in the Sunday Times and from Tim Shipman.

    Are we really going to take it that seriously?

    I think they would be wary of ousting her unless they have a clear, plausible, better and more Brexitty alternative in place, and they haven't got anyone who matches even one of those criteria right now

    Tim is fantastically well connected.

    He's produced the two best books on politics in recent years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,963
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,679
    Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,312
    edited June 10
    viewcode said:

    July 20th 1969 was the first moon landing.

    Pause.

    I know that's not relevant to anything, I just wanted to point it out... :)

    You might find a closer parallel on 20th July 1944.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690

    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, so my brilliant wisdom from one of the many phantom threads isn't lost:

    It's in the Sunday Times and from Tim Shipman.

    Are we really going to take it that seriously?

    I think they would be wary of ousting her unless they have a clear, plausible, better and more Brexitty alternative in place, and they haven't got anyone who matches even one of those criteria right now

    Tim is fantastically well connected.

    He's produced the two best books on politics in recent years.
    He's produced two books. They are not properly referenced or indexed and questions have been raised about their accuracy. They're compared with among others, Guilty Men and the work of Anthony Seldon, neither of which should be considered a compliment. He's also not a fan of May. Finally and most importantly I'm losing count of how many times the Brexiteers have threatened to topple May, so even if he is sincere in his reporting his sources have a massive credibility problem.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026

    What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.

    Who won a referendum.

    What does that make their opponents other than “more of the above”?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    NZ Women 418 ao off 49.5 overs.

    Seems to be a day for massive scores (we won't mention the Kent score). Will that make Scotland's bowlers nervous?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384
    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.

    Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
    Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    I think that seems fair, with the proviso that I think if her numbers are that low she would also need the public support of a very large majority of the cabinet. Recent scandals have somewhat reduced her top team and she can't afford much more wastage. If Hammond went, I think she would have to go too.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,379
    Hmm. I can’t see the reason to delay. Which makes me suspect the headbangers are all piss and wind.

    They almost certainly have the numbers to trigger a vote of no confidence. Do they have the numbers to win it? And if they win it, who comes next? I suspect the answers to these two important questions are No and TBD. So Theresa May has good chances of limping on for quite a while yet.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,250

    What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.

    Who won a referendum.

    What does that make their opponents other than “more of the above”?
    I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714
    edited June 10

    viewcode said:

    July 20th 1969 was the first moon landing.

    Pause.

    I know that's not relevant to anything, I just wanted to point it out... :)

    You might find a closer parallel on 20th July 1944.
    I know.

    I was being humorous.

    Ho. Ho. Ho.

    :)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,379

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    If she wins she can't be challenged for a year. A win is a win in those circumstances.

    Her authority may be ethereal but it's not exactly made of titanium now, is it?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,963

    Hmm. I can’t see the reason to delay. Which makes me suspect the headbangers are all piss and wind.

    They almost certainly have the numbers to trigger a vote of no confidence. Do they have the numbers to win it? And if they win it, who comes next? I suspect the answers to these two important questions are No and TBD. So Theresa May has good chances of limping on for quite a while yet.

    If they go now there's no guarantee the withdrawal bill will pass (let alone receive Royal Assent)

    Heck the whole Tory disclipline falls apart and the Commons votes to keep us in The Customs Union.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.

    Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
    Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.
    I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.

    That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,557
    Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714
    edited June 10

    I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.

    Tykejohnno Quagmire.

    Giggity.

    :)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714
    MaxPB said:

    Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.

    Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,171

    Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.

    +1
  • PurplePurple Posts: 150
    edited June 10
    I've just skimmed Dominic Cummings's "essay" (book, more like), Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities. There is no doubting that he's bright (thanks to a couple of years spent reading while living in a "bunker" on his dad's farm (source), but he's all over the place intellectually and he's possibly internally still trying to show off to Oxford tutor Robin Lane Fox (who has a number of family connections that will be well known to students of the byways of the English far right). David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".

    Never mind for the moment who sorted Cummings out with the Russian gig after he graduated. A key to his status lies in his full name:

    Dominic Mckenzie Cummings

    is an anagram of

    iz nice nice Dugin sock mmmm

    which must surely refer to this guy: Aleksandr Dugin.

    Odysseanism as a sockpuppet for Fourth Wayism?

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,800

    Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.

    Not just witless shits, but played by the Kremlin too.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,158

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    If she wins she can't be challenged for a year. A win is a win in those circumstances.

    Her authority may be ethereal but it's not exactly made of titanium now, is it?
    Yes, the idea that May could be fatally wounded by seeing off the ERG in a confidence vote doesn’t apply in the present circumstances.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,250
    viewcode said:

    I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.

    Tykejohnno Quagmire.

    Giggity.

    :)
    Lol
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714

    viewcode said:

    I'm trying the peace and love approach but the last couple of threads I have looked at,no love here from the remain camp.

    Tykejohnno Quagmire.

    Giggity.

    :)
    Lol
    :)
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,171

    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    I would have respected his right to form a government. Wouldn’t you?
    Respected his right to form a Government and supporting him are two different things!
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,463
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.

    Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
    Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.
    I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.

    That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.
    I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.

    Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.
    Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.

    Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
    Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.
    I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.

    That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.
    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714
    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.

    Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.
    Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...
    Don't be silly. He has a butler for things like that... :)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.

    Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
    Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.
    I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very unusual circumstances apply. 1923 there were such circumstances the second and third parties had campaigned on an identical one-issue manifesto. In February 1974 as one party had more votes and the other more seats there was at least an arguable case for the sitting PM to have first go, although I think Thorpe was right to reject a coalition (and isn't it fortunate he did)?! It is also why I was strongly opposed to Brown squatting like a gargoyle in Downing Street in defiance of mathematics and logic having come a dismal second in every way (I know it wasn't his fault and O'Donnell as usual gave him duff advice) and why I would have said the same should Theresa May have come second behind Corbyn, especially as she would have been the one losing seats in that scenario.

    That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.
    I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .
    I'm fairly sure he wouldn't accept my non-acquiescence :smiley:

    Incidentally I was very surprised on flicking through some population figures to find York weighs in at over 200,000 people. I had no idea it was that large, although admittedly I don't know it very well. I always thought it was roughly comparable to Worcester but it's more than twice the size. Are there big areas the tourists don't see or are there just a lot of people living very tightly packed together?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.

    Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.
    Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...
    Don't be silly. He has a butler for things like that... :)
    Gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'have you served her ladyship?'
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,026
    murali_s said:

    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    I would have respected his right to form a government. Wouldn’t you?
    Respected his right to form a Government and supporting him are two different things!
    Which is why your analogy was fatuous in the first place. I’m pleased you’ve worked that out.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    False comparison. What you want is situation equivalent to Corbyn being elected PM and before he has even had time to put together his first cabinet he should be deposed because the electorate 'made the wrong choice'.

    Those of us who actually believe in democracy would reserve the right to criticise him (as and when he did things we disagreed with him) and to campaign to defeat him at the next election. But we would not deny his absolute right to be PM and take the actions he saw fit as long as they were in accordance with the constitution and the law.

    Democracy is a process not a result.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212

    Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.

    LOL. This from the side that got beaten by a bus.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    justin124 said:


    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.

    Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently unaware of) states that if there is no realistic prospect of a government commanding the majority of the House of Commons, the Government resigns.

    I did note that where there is a single defining issue and two smaller parties with a majority between them campaigned ont he same side over that issue there is no issue with them forming a legitimate government, but that was of course not the case in 2010 where in several crucial areas, notably tax, the Liberal Democrats were actually quite a lot closer to the Conservatives than Labour.

    So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
  • PurplePurple Posts: 150
    edited June 10
    Purple said:

    David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".

    One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)

    Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690

    Yea, yea, yea.. We've heard all this from the Leavers before - a load of gutless wonders all of them. The Leavers are just an embarrassment. They persuaded the public to endorse their half-baked notion on a manifesto of xenophobia, fantasy and lies. Now, when their silly scheme has been exposed, they turn on Theresa rather than facing up to their own responsibilities. What a bunch of incompetent, smug, lazy, arrogant, pompous, creepy, dim, witless shits.

    LOL. This from the side that got beaten by a bus.
    If you wanted to make that a pun, you could say we were 'crushed by a bus.'
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,714
    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    Lol, more empty rubbish from the ERG. Do it or don't. Talking like this just makes them look weaker than they already are.

    Indeed. The prospect of Jacob Rees-Mogg trying to be hard makes me giggle.
    Well, given the number of children he's got he must have been hard on quite a large number of occasions...
    Don't be silly. He has a butler for things like that... :)
    Gives a whole new meaning to the expression 'have you served her ladyship?'
    :)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    edited June 10
    justin124 said:


    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.

    I suppose it comes down to who is given the right to try and form a government first. Under your example is it the incumbent or is it the party with the largest number of seats?

    I don't know what the constitutional position is and I am not sure which would be the better way as I can see arguments on both sides.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.
    I suppose it comes down to who is given the right to try and form a government first. Under your example is it the incumbent or is it the party with the largest number of seats?

    I don't know what the constitutional position is and I am not sure which would be the better way as I can see arguments on both sides.
    Constitutionally it is always the incumbent. There is no requirement for the PM to resign until defeated onthe Queens Speech. The FTPA might also now mean that under such circumstances a Vote of No Confidence would have to be passed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,957
    Afternoon all,

    Yeh, yeh, yeh. More anonymous quotes from ERG wingnuts. Pretty sure we can ignore them and carry on arguing about Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    Ireland women, chasing the small matter of 419 to win, off to a brilliant start - 3/1 after one over.

    England meanwhile galloping along at 51 without loss after 6 overs. Coetzer now turning to spin.

    Wouldn't it be perfect if Scotland could find a spinner called Alistair Campbell? Would definitely be a mystery spinner of course, very deceptive in bowling weapons of mass destruction googlies!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690

    Afternoon all,

    Yeh, yeh, yeh. More anonymous quotes from ERG wingnuts. Pretty sure we can ignore them and carry on arguing about Brexit.

    Must we? It's much more fun to talk about cricket, Rees-Mogg's butler and Stanley Baldwin's Electoral record.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:


    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.

    Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently unaware of) states that if there is no realistic prospect of a government commanding the majority of the House of Commons, the Government resigns.

    I did note that where there is a single defining issue and two smaller parties with a majority between them campaigned ont he same side over that issue there is no issue with them forming a legitimate government, but that was of course not the case in 2010 where in several crucial areas, notably tax, the Liberal Democrats were actually quite a lot closer to the Conservatives than Labour.

    So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
    But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.
    Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
  • PurplePurple Posts: 150

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,379
    I'm on @justin124's side here: the sitting Prime Minister has the right to try to form a government. In any case, as in 2010, in practice negotiations between different plausible governments take place in parallel.

    The aim is to find a government that commands the confidence of Parliament. In a hung Parliament that may not necessarily be led by the party with most votes or most seats. It may also require a change of leader within a party if a particular leader is especially controversial, as I have previously noted.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,379
    Purple said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.
    Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:


    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.

    Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently unaware of) states that if there is no realistic prospect of a government commanding the majority of the House of Commons, the Government resigns.

    I did note that where there is a single defining issue and two smaller parties with a majority between them campaigned ont he same side over that issue there is no issue with them forming a legitimate government, but that was of course not the case in 2010 where in several crucial areas, notably tax, the Liberal Democrats were actually quite a lot closer to the Conservatives than Labour.

    So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
    But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.
    Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
    Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.

    In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.

    The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 259
    In the nicest possible way, could the ERG just fuck off? If the Government had a majority of 100, they could force through whatever Singapore-on-Thames Brexit they wanted, and I'd applaud them. But in a minority position dependent on the DUP, their job is to keep the Corbyn disaster out by accepting whatever they need to accept to prevent both the Government and the economy from collapsing.

    Simple as that. Are they really too stupid to understand the reality of their position?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690

    Purple said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.
    Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.
    Several Cabinet ministers resigning would leave her unable to form a cabinet given the losses she's already experienced.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    edited June 10
    Over 9 - 25 runs from Bairstow. 50 off 27 balls.

    I said England would fancy their chances, I didn't expect a start like this. For Scotland to win I think from here they need to bowl them out. 280 off 40 is a target to knock off for fun in the T20 age.

    Edit - Bairstow now 75 off 34! Blink and you miss it!!!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,266
    edited June 10
    Totally off topic...how long can Eoin Morgan continue to have a place in the England ODI team? Just to keep him in, we could end up having to drop somebody like Woakes.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,957
    blueblue said:

    In the nicest possible way, could the ERG just fuck off? If the Government had a majority of 100, they could force through whatever Singapore-on-Thames Brexit they wanted, and I'd applaud them. But in a minority position dependent on the DUP, their job is to keep the Corbyn disaster out by accepting whatever they need to accept to prevent both the Government and the economy from collapsing.

    Simple as that. Are they really too stupid to understand the reality of their position?

    Yes.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:


    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.

    Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently

    So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
    But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.
    Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
    Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.

    In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.

    The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
    Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,158
    ydoethur said:

    Purple said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.
    Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.
    Several Cabinet ministers resigning would leave her unable to form a cabinet given the losses she's already experienced.
    She could fill the great offices of state with Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan, and she’d be untouchable for a year.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,379
    ydoethur said:

    Purple said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:


    If only 42 are backing a vote of confidence, that suggests they don't have the numbers to get her out.

    I think there's several ministers who have yet to submit letters.

    I suspect it might be like 1990 all over again.

    May wins a majority of MPs but is fatally damaged in the process.
    How much support would she need to stay on in practice? Two thirds? Or would she take less?
    I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
    I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.
    Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.
    Several Cabinet ministers resigning would leave her unable to form a cabinet given the losses she's already experienced.
    It wouldn't happen. They would simply look like bad losers. And they're all as weak as water anyway.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,856
    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    murali_s said:

    FPT:

    murali_s said:

    I thought you supported Remain? Have you changed your mind?

    Or are you the typical Tory idiot with very little between the ears?
    I did.

    I also support democracy.

    Why do you find that so difficult to understand?
    Ah, so if Corbyn had won the last GE, you would support him. Makes perfect sense now...
    Is there anyone on these threads who, if Corbyn had won most seats or an overall majority, would deny that he had the right to be PM? I would suggest the answer's no. Several of us might emigrate given the likely results of his nastiness, dishonesty and incompetence, but that's a far cry from saying he shouldn't be allowed to form a government.

    Because that's the real equivalent, and your suggestion I'm afraid doesn't match it.
    Certainly if he had an overall majority, though not necessarily if just leader of largest party short of a majority.
    I would argue the PM should always be the leader of the largest party unless very

    That applies even though Corbyn is utterly unfit to be Minister Without Portfolio, never mind PM. Most votes and most seats and he should be allowed to form a government.
    I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .
    I'm fairly sure he wouldn't accept my non-acquiescence :smiley:

    Incidentally I was very surprised on flicking through some population figures to find York weighs in at over 200,000 people. I had no idea it was that large, although admittedly I don't know it very well. I always thought it was roughly comparable to Worcester but it's more than twice the size. Are there big areas the tourists don't see or are there just a lot of people living very tightly packed together?
    That's not the size of the settlement of York, but includes the population of the administrative area of the local council which is about 110, square miles.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:


    I disagree on this. In my view it would be perfectly legitimate for the second and third largest parties to put together a majority - whether as a Coalition or C&S for a Minority Government - if the policy differences between them were much narrower than those separating the largest party and the third largest. Had the 2010 election come up with - say - Con 290 Lab 270 LD 60 there would have been nothing untoward about the LibDems agreeing to support a Minority Labour Government on an agreed policy programme. The incumbent PM always has the right to try to carry on and meet Parliament should he so choose - so Brown could have remained at Downing St for a further two weeks or so had he been so minded.

    Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently

    So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
    But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.
    Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
    Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.

    In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.

    The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
    Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.
    Our entire constitution is based on precedents.

    Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,463




    I am sure he accepts your acquiescence .

    I'm fairly sure he wouldn't accept my non-acquiescence :smiley:

    Incidentally I was very surprised on flicking through some population figures to find York weighs in at over 200,000 people. I had no idea it was that large, although admittedly I don't know it very well. I always thought it was roughly comparable to Worcester but it's more than twice the size. Are there big areas the tourists don't see or are there just a lot of people living very tightly packed together?

    Yes you are correct , outside the city centre , where the tourists go.There are very large suburbs, which used to be villages years ago.For example Heslington , then in the sixties the University of York was built and now it is part of the larger York area.

    I live a couple of miles from York Minster , but just outside the boundary of the York Central Parliamentary seat.So just in York Outer.However all the major suburbs around the walled city are in the City of York Council area.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,582
    If MPs challenge May on 20 July then if she loses they'll all have to cancel their summer holidays as it'll take a day or two for no confidence vote - if she loses it's then several days for nominations and then MPs ballots at Westminster every Tue and Thur.

    But everyone goes on holiday on 24 July!

    Doesn't seem a likely time does it?

    Does anyone even stop for a minute to think their predictions through?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    justin124 said:


    Constitutionally it is always the incumbent. There is no requirement for the PM to resign until defeated onthe Queens Speech. The FTPA might also now mean that under such circumstances a Vote of No Confidence would have to be passed.

    Cheers

    That makes sense.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,384
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:


    Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently

    So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
    But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.
    Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
    Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.

    In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.

    The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
    Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.
    Our entire constitution is based on precedents.

    Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?
    A precedent has to have been followed over an extended period before a constitutional convention can be claimed to have been created. I am aware of no example to date of Baldwin's decision being followed automatically . Heath failed to do so after the February 1974 election as did Brown in 2010.
  • collegeman7collegeman7 Posts: 16
    Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,039
    MikeL said:

    If MPs challenge May on 20 July then if she loses they'll all have to cancel their summer holidays as it'll take a day or two for no confidence vote - if she loses it's then several days for nominations and then MPs ballots at Westminster every Tue and Thur.

    But everyone goes on holiday on 24 July!

    Doesn't seem a likely time does it?

    Does anyone even stop for a minute to think their predictions through?

    That's perfect timing for TMay. Vote for her or stay behind after school. She should send in a letter herself.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,285
    Are you really telling us that Conservative MPs would choose this time of all times to indulge in a leadership election? Or would it be deliberate ploy to fritter time away until the A50 expires & we crash out as so many are expecting anyway?

    Who do they want to become PM instead? There doesn't seem to be anyone head & shoulders above the rest and, even if there were, why should he or she want to pick up such a poisoned chalice?

    Seems to me like a death wish, a desire to see what sort of a job Mr Corbyn can make of it all.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    @NickPalmer: Many thanks for a very interesting article on the previous thread. I'd only just finished reading the header when this new thread appeared.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,804
    Todays Tesco Strawberries score is a record breaking 11 (eleven!).

    Aberdeenshire
    Angus
    Fife
    Staffordshire
    Leicestershire
    Cambridgeshire
    Herefordshire
    Essex
    Kent
    Surrey
    Somerset

    That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,897

    Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.

    It looks indulgent.

    Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.

    (I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715
    dr_spyn said:

    Piano wire at the ready.

    Are you suggesting that the coup will fail, leaving the leader injured, followed by a purge?

    Presumably followed 9 months later by suicide in the bunker, and a change of government enforced by Stalinists?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576
    viewcode said:

    July 20th 1969 was the first moon landing.

    Pause.

    I know that's not relevant to anything, I just wanted to point it out... :)

    It’s June.

    And 2019 is next year.

    I just wanted to point it out... :)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715

    Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.

    It looks indulgent.

    Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.

    (I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
    "as good a Brexit deal as possible".

    Surely that is the reason for an insurrection, not to stop one. The problem being that even the Cabinet Brexit committee cannot agree what constitutes a "good deal"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:


    Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently

    So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
    But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so.
    Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
    Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.

    In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.

    The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
    Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.
    Our entire constitution is based on precedents.

    Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?
    A precedent has to have been followed over an extended period before a constitutional convention can be claimed to have been created.
    It really, really doesn't. A single precedent is enough in law. For example, the precedent that the Sovereign could not appoint or dismiss administrations at will was established by the Bedchamber Crisis.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,897

    Todays Tesco Strawberries score is a record breaking 11 (eleven!).

    Aberdeenshire
    Angus
    Fife
    Staffordshire
    Leicestershire
    Cambridgeshire
    Herefordshire
    Essex
    Kent
    Surrey
    Somerset

    That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.

    I think (as voiced by the Guardian yesterday) the Great Strawberry Famine is no longer the top concern.

    It is the Great Au Pair Famine.

    What use are strawberries in abundance, if there is no free labour from Gudrun to prepare them & serve them to your children.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576
    Purple said:

    I've just skimmed Dominic Cummings's "essay" (book, more like), Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities. There is no doubting that he's bright (thanks to a couple of years spent reading while living in a "bunker" on his dad's farm (source), but he's all over the place intellectually and he's possibly internally still trying to show off to Oxford tutor Robin Lane Fox (who has a number of family connections that will be well known to students of the byways of the English far right). David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".

    Never mind for the moment who sorted Cummings out with the Russian gig after he graduated. A key to his status lies in his full name:

    Dominic Mckenzie Cummings

    is an anagram of

    iz nice nice Dugin sock mmmm

    which must surely refer to this guy: Aleksandr Dugin.

    Odysseanism as a sockpuppet for Fourth Wayism?

    Do say. What connections to the far right are you referring to?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,690
    edited June 10
    Yorkcity said:

    Yes you are correct , outside the city centre , where the tourists go.There are very large suburbs, which used to be villages years ago.For example Heslington , then in the sixties the University of York was built and now it is part of the larger York area.

    I live a couple of miles from York Minster , but just outside the boundary of the York Central Parliamentary seat.So just in York Outer.However all the major suburbs around the walled city are in the City of York Council area.

    Thanks. That makes sense now.

    Although I don't know it very well, from what I have seen you live in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, and I've seen quite a number.
  • collegeman7collegeman7 Posts: 16
    If May were overthrown and replaced by someone more vigorous in pursuing what people voted for in 2016, this would not make a Corbyn premiership more likely at all. The FYP act would mean that there would be no general election before 2022, Tory MPs would certainly not precipitate one in a vote of confidence nor would the DUP do so, and Corbyn simply does not have the numbers in the Commons to become PM without an election.

    How does replacing May make a Corbyn premiership more likely? It is nonsense to argue that it does.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576
    Purple said:

    Purple said:

    David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".

    One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)

    Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.

    For OGH’s sake I would be wary of calling people in public life “traitors”
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,897
    Foxy said:

    Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.

    It looks indulgent.

    Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.

    (I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
    "as good a Brexit deal as possible".

    Surely that is the reason for an insurrection, not to stop one. The problem being that even the Cabinet Brexit committee cannot agree what constitutes a "good deal"
    There is no good deal (either for Remainers or Leavers).

    The country is split pretty much 50:50.

    With those numbers, we can’t stay in the EU and make it work for us. And we can’t leave and make it work for us.

    May has a shitty hand, but the cards in the hand remain the same whoever is holding them, and whether they want to take us out or keep us in.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,679

    Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.

    The Tory Leavers are now toxic nationally. By keeping them on some kind of leash, Theresa is at least getting a bit of respect. Were she to go and a Leaver take over, then the country's disgust and fury would know no limits. The Tory Leavers make Corbyn look palatable.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,576

    Todays Tesco Strawberries score is a record breaking 11 (eleven!).

    Aberdeenshire
    Angus
    Fife
    Staffordshire
    Leicestershire
    Cambridgeshire
    Herefordshire
    Essex
    Kent
    Surrey
    Somerset

    That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.

    While we all appreciate the information, is it a good use of your time?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,463
    edited June 10
    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yes you are correct , outside the city centre , where the tourists go.There are very large suburbs, which used to be villages years ago.For example Heslington , then in the sixties the University of York was built and now it is part of the larger York area.

    I live a couple of miles from York Minster , but just outside the boundary of the York Central Parliamentary seat.So just in York Outer.However all the major suburbs around the walled city are in the City of York Council area.

    Thanks. That makes sense now.

    Although I don't know it very well, from what I have seen you live in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, and I've seen quite a number.
    Cheers , I appreciate it more as I get older.Took it for granted as a young man.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,963
    edited June 10

    Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.

    1) Mrs May is ousted

    2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement

    3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach

    4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.

    5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992

    6) Corbyn becomes PM

    That's one scenario

    The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.

    There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
This discussion has been closed.