According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
To be fair, he's tried hard to get a dissolution.
Only when it suited him...which did not meet FTPA requirements
Right but then failed to resign when he couldn't, because the thing about treating the vote as a matter of confidence was a lie, it was just a bit of power politics.
I see HY and MM have both come out as Democrat supporters.
I've never been a Republican supporter.....
It depends who the Republican is.
Reagan was great but since then . . . only decent GOP candidate for Presidency in my adult lifetime was John McCain. He would have made a fantastic President, it is such a shame that he lost the 2000 Primaries and that when he finally won the primaries he ran into Obama.
The Democrats aren't much better though. Bill Clinton was OK, but the only decent Democratic candidate of my adult lifetime was Obama.
If I lived in America today I'd have to vote Democrat. If I'd been living in America 30 years ago [as myself now] I'd have been a swing voter identifying more with the GOP but not now.
Bush Sr was a good man, who became President at a point when he was no longer as sharp as he was. Bush Jr was not a bad man, he was just not up to the job.
In fact, I'd argue that the only genuinely bad President of the last 50 years was Carter.
Ford - good Reagan - good Bush Sr - OK Clinton - OK Bush Jr - OK Obama - OK
Trump - temperamentally unsuited to be POTUS. It's not the politics (although I don't like them). It's the attitude. Even if his policies aligned 100% with his, I hope I'd still oppose him.
I see HY and MM have both come out as Democrat supporters.
I've never been a Republican supporter.....
It depends who the Republican is.
Reagan was great but since then . . . only decent GOP candidate for Presidency in my adult lifetime was John McCain. He would have made a fantastic President, it is such a shame that he lost the 2000 Primaries and that when he finally won the primaries he ran into Obama.
The Democrats aren't much better though. Bill Clinton was OK, but the only decent Democratic candidate of my adult lifetime was Obama.
If I lived in America today I'd have to vote Democrat. If I'd been living in America 30 years ago [as myself now] I'd have been a swing voter identifying more with the GOP but not now.
Bush Sr was a good man, who became President at a point when he was no longer as sharp as he was. Bush Jr was not a bad man, he was just not up to the job.
In fact, I'd argue that the only genuinely bad President of the last 50 years was Carter.
Ford - good Reagan - good Bush Sr - OK Clinton - OK Bush Jr - OK Obama - OK
Trump - temperamentally unsuited to be POTUS. It's not the politics (although I don't like them). It's the attitude. Even if his policies aligned 100% with his, I hope I'd still oppose him.
You have to judge a politician by his times and context.
When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, America was in a bad place. The aftermath of Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, oil crisis of the early Seventies and most of all Watergate had made Washington a toxic place. Jimmy Carter was naive and an outsider, from rural America, but was a necessary dose of honesty and decency. His 4 years were a little bit like "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", but he did allow US politics to get itself cleaned up substantially.
The Iran revolution, hostage crisis and second oil crisis did for him, perhaps rather unfairly, but he remains one of the few former POTUS that I could enjoy an evening with. Politically he was centrist in a very bitterly divided country. He won support from independents and centrist Republicans that more left wing Democrats couldn't touch.
Perhaps not a great President, but a great restorative, and a genuinely nice guy.
It's sad to see such a beautiful, if ferociously effective war machine politicised. Our ability to replace losses quicker than the Nazis proved we could be better manufacturers than them, at least in the 1940s.
The Nazis were rubbish manufacturers because not enough was standardised. Everyone knows Spitfires were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, but might not know they were actually manufactured by Ford at Dagenham. There can also be an argument that the war was won on the production lines of Detroit.
It's sad to see such a beautiful, if ferociously effective war machine politicised. Our ability to replace losses quicker than the Nazis proved we could be better manufacturers than them, at least in the 1940s.
The Nazis were rubbish manufacturers because not enough was standardised. Everyone knows Spitfires were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, but might not know they were actually manufactured by Ford at Dagenham. There can also be an argument that the war was won on the production lines of Detroit.
It was only when Speer took over that Germany move to a war economy, several years behind us.
Indeed the Battle of Britain was won by industry as much as the RAF. To put it simply, we finished the BoB with as many planes as we had started, while the Germans had a much reduced air fleet. In many ways it was a battle of attrition.
Right but then failed to resign when he couldn't, because the thing about treating the vote as a matter of confidence was a lie, it was just a bit of power politics.
What a load of garbage - Labour had the chance for an election and a new PM and chickened out.
If anyone is to blame for weak government it’s Labour - for being too weak to govern.
This has been a problem with UK politics. Idiots popular with their own side get leadership roles, leaving a less than thrilled general public with a menu of unappetising options.
The electorate's like a burger fan trapped at a vegan dinner party.
I see HY and MM have both come out as Democrat supporters.
I've never been a Republican supporter.....
It depends who the Republican is.
Reagan was great but since then . . . only decent GOP candidate for Presidency in my adult lifetime was John McCain. He would have made a fantastic President, it is such a shame that he lost the 2000 Primaries and that when he finally won the primaries he ran into Obama.
The Democrats aren't much better though. Bill Clinton was OK, but the only decent Democratic candidate of my adult lifetime was Obama.
If I lived in America today I'd have to vote Democrat. If I'd been living in America 30 years ago [as myself now] I'd have been a swing voter identifying more with the GOP but not now.
Bush Sr was a good man, who became President at a point when he was no longer as sharp as he was. Bush Jr was not a bad man, he was just not up to the job.
In fact, I'd argue that the only genuinely bad President of the last 50 years was Carter.
Ford - good Reagan - good Bush Sr - OK Clinton - OK Bush Jr - OK Obama - OK
Trump - temperamentally unsuited to be POTUS. It's not the politics (although I don't like them). It's the attitude. Even if his policies aligned 100% with his, I hope I'd still oppose him.
You have to judge a politician by his times and context.
When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, America was in a bad place. The aftermath of Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, oil crisis of the early Seventies and most of all Watergate had made Washington a toxic place. Jimmy Carter was naive and an outsider, from rural America, but was a necessary dose of honesty and decency. His 4 years were a little bit like "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", but he did allow US politics to get itself cleaned up substantially.
The Iran revolution, hostage crisis and second oil crisis did for him, perhaps rather unfairly, but he remains one of the few former POTUS that I could enjoy an evening with. Politically he was centrist in a very bitterly divided country. He won support from independents and centrist Republicans that more left wing Democrats couldn't touch.
Perhaps not a great President, but a great restorative, and a genuinely nice guy.
Carter was the only genuinely good person to be US president in a long time, until maybe Obama. It's perhaps a sad reflection on the world that he didn't manage to do a good job as president, at least in the eyes of many.
Right but then failed to resign when he couldn't, because the thing about treating the vote as a matter of confidence was a lie, it was just a bit of power politics.
What a load of garbage - Labour had the chance for an election and a new PM and chickened out.
If anyone is to blame for weak government it’s Labour - for being too weak to govern.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
You have to judge a politician by his times and context.
When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, America was in a bad place. The aftermath of Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, oil crisis of the early Seventies and most of all Watergate had made Washington a toxic place. Jimmy Carter was naive and an outsider, from rural America, but was a necessary dose of honesty and decency. His 4 years were a little bit like "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", but he did allow US politics to get itself cleaned up substantially.
The Iran revolution, hostage crisis and second oil crisis did for him, perhaps rather unfairly, but he remains one of the few former POTUS that I could enjoy an evening with. Politically he was centrist in a very bitterly divided country. He won support from independents and centrist Republicans that more left wing Democrats couldn't touch.
Perhaps not a great President, but a great restorative, and a genuinely nice guy.
Carter was a poor President.
But, the Carter who was Governor of Georgia and whose speeches are reproduced in 'The Great Shark Hunt' does come across as a very reforming and fair-minded politician.
You have to judge a politician by his times and context.
When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, America was in a bad place. The aftermath of Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, oil crisis of the early Seventies and most of all Watergate had made Washington a toxic place. Jimmy Carter was naive and an outsider, from rural America, but was a necessary dose of honesty and decency. His 4 years were a little bit like "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", but he did allow US politics to get itself cleaned up substantially.
The Iran revolution, hostage crisis and second oil crisis did for him, perhaps rather unfairly, but he remains one of the few former POTUS that I could enjoy an evening with. Politically he was centrist in a very bitterly divided country. He won support from independents and centrist Republicans that more left wing Democrats couldn't touch.
Perhaps not a great President, but a great restorative, and a genuinely nice guy.
Carter was a poor President.
But, the Carter who was Governor of Georgia and whose speeches are reproduced in 'The Great Shark Hunt' does come across as a very reforming and fair-minded politician.
I think the problems of POTUS overwhelmed him.
There were also allegations of Republican dirty tricks to win the 1980 election, including Debategate (where Reagan's team got hold of Carter's briefing notes) and the October Surprise (which claims Republicans arranged with Iran that the release of the American hostages would be delayed until Reagan was elected).
Justin Trudeau's re-election campaign isn't exactly going to plan is it.
I'd say the latest quote that he can't remember how many times he's blacked up is the most damaging of all.
I am sure most people on pb.com can remember exactly how many times we have blacked up.
As with Tony, once the Teflon begins to peel, then the end is close at hand.
Blair never lost an election, even in 2005 when the shine had fully come off.
From what I have seen most Canadian voters interviewed don't seem that bothered, it was done when he was young before he was a politician and he has apologised.
The Canadian election may be won on many things but it will not be won on what parts Justin Trudeau played in school plays
Justin Trudeau's re-election campaign isn't exactly going to plan is it.
I'd say the latest quote that he can't remember how many times he's blacked up is the most damaging of all.
I am sure most people on pb.com can remember exactly how many times we have blacked up.
As with Tony, once the Teflon begins to peel, then the end is close at hand.
Blair never lost an election, even in 2005 when the shine had fully come off.
From what I have seen most Canadian voters interviewed don't seem that bothered, it was done when he was young before he was a politician and he has apologised.
The Canadian election may be won on many things but it will not be won on what parts Justin Trudeau played in school plays
technically, that’s not quite true. The Tories won the 1999 and 2004 Euros.
Carter was the only genuinely good person to be US president in a long time, until maybe Obama. It's perhaps a sad reflection on the world that he didn't manage to do a good job as president, at least in the eyes of many.
I would agree with that. It says something that the very small number of genuinely good human beings who became President, of whom Carter stands at the head of a very short list, none were ultimately very effective.
Mind, Carter was also very unlucky. I still think the rabbit story sums up his presidency perfectly.
It's sad to see such a beautiful, if ferociously effective war machine politicised. Our ability to replace losses quicker than the Nazis proved we could be better manufacturers than them, at least in the 1940s.
The Nazis were rubbish manufacturers because not enough was standardised. Everyone knows Spitfires were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, but might not know they were actually manufactured by Ford at Dagenham. There can also be an argument that the war was won on the production lines of Detroit.
It was only when Speer took over that Germany move to a war economy, several years behind us.
Indeed the Battle of Britain was won by industry as much as the RAF. To put it simply, we finished the BoB with as many planes as we had started, while the Germans had a much reduced air fleet. In many ways it was a battle of attrition.
The Germans were excellent at quality. Quantity? Not so much. The war was won on the Eastern Front. Whilst the Tiger was a much better tank than the T34, it was highly engineered and complex, and slow to complete. T-34s were less effective but much simpler. In a war of attrition, the Germans were overwhelmed by numbers.
The British War Economy was put in place during 1938 with the establishment of the shadow factories. Chamberlain is much maligned, but the breathing space he gained after Munich allowed the gearing up of the economy and the deployment of the Chain Home radar network. It was the latter that won the battle of Britain, allowing Dowding to deploy his limited resources to maximum effect. British aircraft were always in the right place at the right time and, as they were fighting over home territory, had much more time in the air available to them than the German escorts which had the disadvantage of coming from France.
Simlarly, British pilots could be back in action straight awayif shot down unharmed, whereas German pilots were captured. Pilots took longer to train than aircraft to build. The pilot reserve was another benefit of the post-Munich delay, with the establishment of the RAFVR
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
Your first point is valid that Johnson did try to secure a dissolution but failed.
But the problem is not that under the FTPA a GE cannot be called at the whim of the pM. It is that the MPs all of them including those currently in government and opposition are not prepared to work together to form a working government. It is using the mindset of the old system during the era of fixed terms. In countries where fixed terms have been in force for a long time, the MPs understand the need to cooperate not compete.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
Your first point is valid that Johnson did try to secure a dissolution but failed.
But the problem is not that under the FTPA a GE cannot be called at the whim of the pM. It is that the MPs all of them including those currently in government and opposition are not prepared to work together to form a working government. It is using the mindset of the old system during the era of fixed terms. In countries where fixed terms have been in force for a long time, the MPs understand the need to cooperate not compete.
Exactly. It’s the politicians who are to blame, not the system itself.
I see HY and MM have both come out as Democrat supporters.
I've never been a Republican supporter.....
It depends who the Republican is.
Reagan was great but since then . . . only decent GOP candidate for Presidency in my adult lifetime was John McCain. He would have made a fantastic President, it is such a shame that he lost the 2000 Primaries and that when he finally won the primaries he ran into Obama.
The Democrats aren't much better though. Bill Clinton was OK, but the only decent Democratic candidate of my adult lifetime was Obama.
If I lived in America today I'd have to vote Democrat. If I'd been living in America 30 years ago [as myself now] I'd have been a swing voter identifying more with the GOP but not now.
Bush Sr was a good man, who became President at a point when he was no longer as sharp as he was. Bush Jr was not a bad man, he was just not up to the job.
In fact, I'd argue that the only genuinely bad President of the last 50 years was Carter.
Ford - good Reagan - good Bush Sr - OK Clinton - OK Bush Jr - OK Obama - OK
Trump - temperamentally unsuited to be POTUS. It's not the politics (although I don't like them). It's the attitude. Even if his policies aligned 100% with his, I hope I'd still oppose him.
Bush "Christmas Pardons for Iran Contra" Snr a good man?
Bush Jnr a good man?
Clearly the worst part of the Trump presidency is white washing W as not the head of a kleptocratic regime.
Carter was the only genuinely good person to be US president in a long time, until maybe Obama. It's perhaps a sad reflection on the world that he didn't manage to do a good job as president, at least in the eyes of many.
I would agree with that. It says something that the very small number of genuinely good human beings who became President, of whom Carter stands at the head of a very short list, none were ultimately very effective.
Mind, Carter was also very unlucky. I still think the rabbit story sums up his presidency perfectly.
I remember the "Iranian Hostages" being held hostage for over a year. Carter led a lot of work to get the hostages released. They were released one hour after Reagan was sworn in. The timing was deliberate.
Carter probably would not have won a second term even if the Iranian Hostage Crisis had not taken place, but it is an indication of how Carter's strengths were not recognised.
I see HY and MM have both come out as Democrat supporters.
I've never been a Republican supporter.....
It depends who the Republican is.
Reagan was great but since then . . . only decent GOP candidate for Presidency in my adult lifetime was John McCain. He would have made a fantastic President, it is such a shame that he lost the 2000 Primaries and that when he finally won the primaries he ran into Obama.
The Democrats aren't much better though. Bill Clinton was OK, but the only decent Democratic candidate of my adult lifetime was Obama.
If I lived in America today I'd have to vote Democrat. If I'd been living in America 30 years ago [as myself now] I'd have been a swing voter identifying more with the GOP but not now.
Bush Sr was a good man, who became President at a point when he was no longer as sharp as he was. Bush Jr was not a bad man, he was just not up to the job.
In fact, I'd argue that the only genuinely bad President of the last 50 years was Carter.
Ford - good Reagan - good Bush Sr - OK Clinton - OK Bush Jr - OK Obama - OK
Trump - temperamentally unsuited to be POTUS. It's not the politics (although I don't like them). It's the attitude. Even if his policies aligned 100% with his, I hope I'd still oppose him.
Bush "Christmas Pardons for Iran Contra" Snr a good man?
Bush Jnr a good man?
Clearly the worst part of the Trump presidency is white washing W as not the head of a kleptocratic regime.
Given 50 years ago takes us to 1969, I'm also amazed anyone puts Carter below Nixon. Even allowing for the fact Nixon had some achievements in office as well as all the criminality, drunkenness and failure in Vietnam, I am still amazed.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
The FTPA didn’t stop Johnson resigning - as has been the custom when a vote on a matter of confidence is lost. That’s a different matter from the FTPA “vote of confidence”.
Carlotta's shown 5 overnight locals where substantial LD share gains from both the Johnson and Corbyn parties didn't result in any seat gains because the LibDems got only 12% in the previous elections.
In the sixth, Taunton Vivary, the LD's gained a seat, moving their share from 28.6% to 55.1%. More worryingly for what were once major parties: across the six, the average LD share moved from 14.7% to 30.4%: larger than both the Johnsonites and Corbynites.
Arguably, a random collection of locals give us insights into real voter behaviour in real elections that opinion polls about a hypothetical GE tomorrow don't. Apart from anything else, opinion polls still ask about voting intentions for Conservative and Labour parties - entities now destroyed by their extremist and totalitarian leadership.
And there's one thing most of us should agree on. FPTP means LDs polling 20% very likely will end up with 50 seats or so. LDs polling 30% mean over 200 seats, and a real possibility they'll be the biggest party at Westminter.
Which is the better guide to the next GE: Tuesday's Ipsos/Mori or last night's six locals? Psephologists don't seem to have yet quite twigged that reliable opinion polls really need to ask about voting intentions for parties that exist on the day a voter goes to vote.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
The FTPA didn’t stop Johnson resigning - as has been the custom when a vote on a matter of confidence is lost. That’s a different matter from the FTPA “vote of confidence”.
Let’s see how the Supreme Court views it.
The corollary of what you are saying is that every time a minority administration falls out with a junior partner, then that PM resigns. Good luck with making that work in an era of coalition politics. Every time the DUP threw their toys out the pram - new PM or new election?
Carlotta's shown 5 overnight locals where substantial LD share gains from both the Johnson and Corbyn parties didn't result in any seat gains because the LibDems got only 12% in the previous elections.
In the sixth, Taunton Vivary, the LD's gained a seat, moving their share from 28.6% to 55.1%. More worryingly for what were once major parties: across the six, the average LD share moved from 14.7% to 30.4%: larger than both the Johnsonites and Corbynites.
Arguably, a random collection of locals give us insights into real voter behaviour in real elections that opinion polls about a hypothetical GE tomorrow don't. Apart from anything else, opinion polls still ask about voting intentions for Conservative and Labour parties - entities now destroyed by their extremist and totalitarian leadership.
And there's one thing most of us should agree on. FPTP means LDs polling 20% very likely will end up with 50 seats or so. LDs polling 30% mean over 200 seats, and a real possibility they'll be the biggest party at Westminter.
Which is the better guide to the next GE: Tuesday's Ipsos/Mori or last night's six locals? Psephologists don't seem to have yet quite twigged that reliable opinion polls really need to ask about voting intentions for parties that exist on the day a voter goes to vote.
I’d also factor in the LD conference not being the week of the GE ..
Osborne is very, very bitter with everyone isn't he?
Imagine how pleased he would be if there had been a recession following a Leave vote as he claimed there would be.
If you had claimed there would be an enormous recession, almost a million job losses and that you would be delivering a punishment budget, you'd be upset if there was continuous modest growth, almost a million more jobs and you were writing a column on your local freesheet.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
The FTPA didn’t stop Johnson resigning - as has been the custom when a vote on a matter of confidence is lost. That’s a different matter from the FTPA “vote of confidence”.
Let’s see how the Supreme Court views it.
The corollary of what you are saying is that every time a minority administration falls out with a junior partner, then that PM resigns. Good luck with making that work in an era of coalition politics. Every time the DUP threw their toys out the pram - new PM or new election?
Alternatively don’t be so fecking stupid as to declare votes you might lose “matters of confidence.”
Either it was a matter of confidence and Johnson should have resigned, or it wasn’t and he had no right to sack the 21. He can’t have it both ways. Let’s see if the SC spots it....
Carlotta's shown 5 overnight locals where substantial LD share gains from both the Johnson and Corbyn parties didn't result in any seat gains because the LibDems got only 12% in the previous elections.
In the sixth, Taunton Vivary, the LD's gained a seat, moving their share from 28.6% to 55.1%. More worryingly for what were once major parties: across the six, the average LD share moved from 14.7% to 30.4%: larger than both the Johnsonites and Corbynites.
Arguably, a random collection of locals give us insights into real voter behaviour in real elections that opinion polls about a hypothetical GE tomorrow don't. Apart from anything else, opinion polls still ask about voting intentions for Conservative and Labour parties - entities now destroyed by their extremist and totalitarian leadership.
And there's one thing most of us should agree on. FPTP means LDs polling 20% very likely will end up with 50 seats or so. LDs polling 30% mean over 200 seats, and a real possibility they'll be the biggest party at Westminter.
Which is the better guide to the next GE: Tuesday's Ipsos/Mori or last night's six locals? Psephologists don't seem to have yet quite twigged that reliable opinion polls really need to ask about voting intentions for parties that exist on the day a voter goes to vote.
I’d also factor in the LD conference not being the week of the GE ..
Indeed a good night for the LD's and, against the conference bounce, there was a lot of other 'noise' in the political world. Does confirm the trend of recent weeks, though.
Carlotta's shown 5 overnight locals where substantial LD share gains from both the Johnson and Corbyn parties didn't result in any seat gains because the LibDems got only 12% in the previous elections.
In the sixth, Taunton Vivary, the LD's gained a seat, moving their share from 28.6% to 55.1%. More worryingly for what were once major parties: across the six, the average LD share moved from 14.7% to 30.4%: larger than both the Johnsonites and Corbynites.
Arguably, a random collection of locals give us insights into real voter behaviour in real elections that opinion polls about a hypothetical GE tomorrow don't. Apart from anything else, opinion polls still ask about voting intentions for Conservative and Labour parties - entities now destroyed by their extremist and totalitarian leadership.
And there's one thing most of us should agree on. FPTP means LDs polling 20% very likely will end up with 50 seats or so. LDs polling 30% mean over 200 seats, and a real possibility they'll be the biggest party at Westminter.
Which is the better guide to the next GE: Tuesday's Ipsos/Mori or last night's six locals? Psephologists don't seem to have yet quite twigged that reliable opinion polls really need to ask about voting intentions for parties that exist on the day a voter goes to vote.
Also factor in that opinion polls cover who they want people to govern us for five years, not fix their pot holes.
Locals are a free shot against the Govt. of the day in the same way as the European elections were in June. But I don't see the Brexit Party preparing for Govt....
OT How is Farage going to react to this purported deal? Does it depend on the specifics or is any deal a sell-out as far as he's concerned?
Farage's reaction could affect BoJo's prospects if the deal materialises and gets past the HoC.
Does it matter? If we get out of the EU with a deal and Boris falls that's surely a double win.
As a Remainer I was nevertheless keen to see May's deal approved so, assuming Boris's 'deal' is simply May's with a bit of added fudge and waffle, I'd be ok with it.
Still a lot of hurdles to cross though before Boris can declare a deal is done.
Why would Labour wish to provide someone as widely despised as Johnson with support which they denied to Theresa May?
I believe the thinking is*, if the EU have had enough of Brexit they won't offer an extension so the HoC would be faced with Deal or No Deal.
(*I don't buy it myself but I can see the logic)
If it came to that, it would be better to table a VNOC to effectively prevent the deal being presented to Parliament. It seems unlikely that the EU would refuse an Extension to facilitate an election being held.
Just think about that.
A Brexit deal is on the table. It is proposd by the PM. It is an advance on what May and Robbins spent 3 years telling us was impossible to achieve. But more importantly, it offers what virtually every sentient voter wants - an end to fucking Brexit.
And then Corbyn goes and fucks it all up by saying "actually you know, I DO want a General Election now."
Conservatives win Bootle......
Johnson can hardly complain given he has made two attempts to call an election. Labour and the other Opposition parties will vote against the Queens Speech. If that succeeds a VNOC would naturally follow.
I think the opposition will add a "tax transparency " clause to the Queens Speech, meaning Johnson would have to throw the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands under the bus to get it through.
Someone is going to use some technology to black him up in that video, like that episode of Jonathan Creek.
On the level of the wokies eating their own it's funny. In every other respect it's ott posturing of the highest order. I know Canada gets a lot of snowflakes every year but...
What seems very clear is that the LibDem electorate is extremely motivated. At a general eleciton, though, they will collide with a lot of people who drag themselves out to the polls much more reluctantly. For me, differential turnout will be a huge factor when the vote finally comes. The Tories have the old, who vote in large numbers; the LDs seem to have the middle classes, who also always turn out. What does Labour have?
Carlotta's shown 5 overnight locals where substantial LD share gains from both the Johnson and Corbyn parties didn't result in any seat gains because the LibDems got only 12% in the previous elections.
In the sixth, Taunton Vivary, the LD's gained a seat, moving their share from 28.6% to 55.1%. More worryingly for what were once major parties: across the six, the average LD share moved from 14.7% to 30.4%: larger than both the Johnsonites and Corbynites.
Arguably, a random collection of locals give us insights into real voter behaviour in real elections that opinion polls about a hypothetical GE tomorrow don't. Apart from anything else, opinion polls still ask about voting intentions for Conservative and Labour parties - entities now destroyed by their extremist and totalitarian leadership.
And there's one thing most of us should agree on. FPTP means LDs polling 20% very likely will end up with 50 seats or so. LDs polling 30% mean over 200 seats, and a real possibility they'll be the biggest party at Westminter.
Which is the better guide to the next GE: Tuesday's Ipsos/Mori or last night's six locals? Psephologists don't seem to have yet quite twigged that reliable opinion polls really need to ask about voting intentions for parties that exist on the day a voter goes to vote.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
The FTPA didn’t stop Johnson resigning - as has been the custom when a vote on a matter of confidence is lost. That’s a different matter from the FTPA “vote of confidence”.
Let’s see how the Supreme Court views it.
The corollary of what you are saying is that every time a minority administration falls out with a junior partner, then that PM resigns. Good luck with making that work in an era of coalition politics. Every time the DUP threw their toys out the pram - new PM or new election?
Alternatively don’t be so fecking stupid as to declare votes you might lose “matters of confidence.”
Either it was a matter of confidence and Johnson should have resigned, or it wasn’t and he had no right to sack the 21. He can’t have it both ways. Let’s see if the SC spots it....
I don't see why it can't be used as a tool of party discipline. "If you can't support the PM, then piss off. But he's still the PM...."
It's sad to see such a beautiful, if ferociously effective war machine politicised. Our ability to replace losses quicker than the Nazis proved we could be better manufacturers than them, at least in the 1940s.
The Nazis were rubbish manufacturers because not enough was standardised. Everyone knows Spitfires were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, but might not know they were actually manufactured by Ford at Dagenham. There can also be an argument that the war was won on the production lines of Detroit.
The Spitfire in the tweet actually has a Griffon engine and Merlins were built all over, Including a fifth of them at Hillington in Glasgow. Agree about the chaotic nature of Nazi war production which makes what German industry achieved all the more notable. The Luftwaffe had more aircraft by the end of 1940 than at the beginning.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
The FTPA changed that convention.
It didn't. All it did was to change the identity of the authority to whom the PM has to apply for a dissolution, from the monarch to the House of Commons. Under the previous arrangements, the Lascelles letter, the monarch could refuse a dissolution, as can the Commons under the FTPA. The consequence of a refusal of a dissolution remains the same - resignation.
It's sad to see such a beautiful, if ferociously effective war machine politicised. Our ability to replace losses quicker than the Nazis proved we could be better manufacturers than them, at least in the 1940s.
The Nazis were rubbish manufacturers because not enough was standardised. Everyone knows Spitfires were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, but might not know they were actually manufactured by Ford at Dagenham. There can also be an argument that the war was won on the production lines of Detroit.
The Spitfire in the tweet actually has a Griffon engine and Merlins were built all over, Including a fifth of them at Hillington in Glasgow. Agree about the chaotic nature of Nazi war production which makes what German industry achieved all the more notable. The Luftwaffe had more aircraft by the end of 1940 than at the beginning.
Edit: Actually on looking at the pic again it may be a Merlin, the alu finish put me off.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
The FTPA changed that convention.
I think what this learned person is struggling to say is that Boris is still PM and this parliament still continues despite the fact that it has lost its majority and loses all its votes because the LOTO has failed to bring or win a VONC, and the opposition parties collectively declined to bring an end to the parliament by voting against an election because they thought they were not popular or united enough to win it.
Of course this government should resign. It is doing its best to do so.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
Your first point is valid that Johnson did try to secure a dissolution but failed.
But the problem is not that under the FTPA a GE cannot be called at the whim of the pM. It is that the MPs all of them including those currently in government and opposition are not prepared to work together to form a working government. It is using the mindset of the old system during the era of fixed terms. In countries where fixed terms have been in force for a long time, the MPs understand the need to cooperate not compete.
Exactly. It’s the politicians who are to blame, not the system itself.
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
Indeed - what she has written appears to completely ignore the UK legal context - as if the FTPA didn't exist and the government is clinging on against the will of the Commons - her argument that the only reason prorogation is not lawful is to avoid an election is in Johnson's favour! I'm not sure what sort of constitutional expert she is but I think she is reaching a conclusion at odds with her own reasoning. Unless a government is trying to avoid an election then prorogation is constitutionally normal and say what you like about the government and this PM an election has been offered and declined by the House of Commons.
I see HY and MM have both come out as Democrat supporters.
I am not a Democrat, I would be an Independent if I was American and would probably vote for Kasich if he went third party in 2020 (I would have voted for Kasich over Hillary too).
Otherwise I would vote for Biden over Trump but Trump over Warren and Sanders
What is the story? I've read it and I'm none the wiser.
It's so she can pretend she didn't officially know anything about this
Glasgow’s “super-hospital” was permitted to open despite the ventilation systems failing to meet safety standards, The Times has learnt.
Outbreaks of infection, which may have spread through the ventilation system at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, have led to the deaths of two patients. A ten-year-old cancer patient and a 73-year-old woman died after testing positive for Cryptococcus, a fungus linked to pigeon droppings, which were found in air ducts.
The decision to open the Queen Elizabeth contrasts with the last-minute decision to postpone the transfer of patients to the new “Sick Kids” hospital in Edinburgh, which failed to meet the same ventilation standards.
Carlotta's shown 5 overnight locals where substantial LD share gains from both the Johnson and Corbyn parties didn't result in any seat gains because the LibDems got only 12% in the previous elections.
In the sixth, Taunton Vivary, the LD's gained a seat, moving their share from 28.6% to 55.1%. More worryingly for what were once major parties: across the six, the average LD share moved from 14.7% to 30.4%: larger than both the Johnsonites and Corbynites.
Arguably, a random collection of locals give us insights into real voter behaviour in real elections that opinion polls about a hypothetical GE tomorrow don't. Apart from anything else, opinion polls still ask about voting intentions for Conservative and Labour parties - entities now destroyed by their extremist and totalitarian leadership.
And there's one thing most of us should agree on. FPTP means LDs polling 20% very likely will end up with 50 seats or so. LDs polling 30% mean over 200 seats, and a real possibility they'll be the biggest party at Westminter.
Which is the better guide to the next GE: Tuesday's Ipsos/Mori or last night's six locals? Psephologists don't seem to have yet quite twigged that reliable opinion polls really need to ask about voting intentions for parties that exist on the day a voter goes to vote.
Common sense tells you you'd have to travel a long way to find voters in any numbers who don't loathe the Tories and Labour in equal measure. Perhaps we really are about to see a Lb Dem breakthrough. If they play their cards right and get the right people working for them I can't see why not.
The Spitfire in the tweet actually has a Griffon engine and Merlins were built all over, Including a fifth of them at Hillington in Glasgow.
My Grandad worked in the factory.
The housing estate built nearby for the workers contains a large grass square with no apparent purpose, but it was the site of a barrage balloon during the war.
You can find a photograph of it online. A German reconnaissance photo...
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Is this constitutional writer not aware of the terms of the FTPA? But for that there would have been a dissolution. And there should have been, just like there should have been in February when May's deal was so comprehensively defeated. The concept of matters of confidence (other than a specific motion in terms of that Act) has been destroyed and it is to our detriment leaving us with governments that cannot govern.
Indeed - what she has written appears to completely ignore the UK legal context - as if the FTPA didn't exist and the government is clinging on against the will of the Commons - her argument that the only reason prorogation is not lawful is to avoid an election is in Johnson's favour! I'm not sure what sort of constitutional expert she is but I think she is reaching a conclusion at odds with her own reasoning. Unless a government is trying to avoid an election then prorogation is constitutionally normal and say what you like about the government and this PM an election has been offered and declined by the House of Commons.
One of the great frustrations of Brexit over the last few years has been the ability of MPs to vote against things without consequence. The FTPA has added to that lack of consequence and made our MPs more irresponsible, not less. I don't disagree with those that say it is for the politicians to make the system work but our system now bears no resemblance to what this constitutional writer is describing. I wish it did.
Normally I wouldn't extrapolate from Council Elections to the GE but in the current febrile state of national politics there is a better reason for doing so than usual.
As you indicate, the Council votes are real ones, not the hypothetical responses to opinion polls. Normally such opinions are reliable enough but at the moment the respondent has to make an assumption about how Brexit will pan out. The uncertainty factor suggests the polls are likely to be less reliable than usual. Their widely varying resuts is an indication that this is the case.
I'd still be careful about overinterpeting LD council by-election success, but they are on a long successful run so whilst caution is still necessary, it is perfectly possible that the 'councils' are giving a truer picture than the national polls.
It's sad to see such a beautiful, if ferociously effective war machine politicised. Our ability to replace losses quicker than the Nazis proved we could be better manufacturers than them, at least in the 1940s.
The Nazis were rubbish manufacturers because not enough was standardised. Everyone knows Spitfires were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, but might not know they were actually manufactured by Ford at Dagenham. There can also be an argument that the war was won on the production lines of Detroit.
The Spitfire in the tweet actually has a Griffon engine and Merlins were built all over, Including a fifth of them at Hillington in Glasgow. Agree about the chaotic nature of Nazi war production which makes what German industry achieved all the more notable. The Luftwaffe had more aircraft by the end of 1940 than at the beginning.
Edit: Actually on looking at the pic again it may be a Merlin, the alu finish put me off.
Yeah, that threw me as well. At first glance I thought it was a Mustang...
Europe is our region, geographically and culturally, and we are threatening to destabilise it.
We can as much escape Europe as Jordan can escape the Middle East or Australia can escape Asia-Pacific. Trump’s wall will not allow the US to escape North America and Brexit will not remove us from Europe’s sphere of influence. We are surrounded by it. In our case, however, we are removing ourselves from any chance of shaping the destiny of the region we are in.
I see HY and MM have both come out as Democrat supporters.
I've never been a Republican supporter.....
It depends who the Republican is.
Reagan was great but since then . . . only decent GOP candidate for Presidency in my adult lifetime was John McCain. He would have made a fantastic President, it is such a shame that he lost the 2000 Primaries and that when he finally won the primaries he ran into Obama.
The Democrats aren't much better though. Bill Clinton was OK, but the only decent Democratic candidate of my adult lifetime was Obama.
If I lived in America today I'd have to vote Democrat. If I'd been living in America 30 years ago [as myself now] I'd have been a swing voter identifying more with the GOP but not now.
Bush Sr was a good man, who became President at a point when he was no longer as sharp as he was. Bush Jr was not a bad man, he was just not up to the job.
In fact, I'd argue that the only genuinely bad President of the last 50 years was Carter.
Ford - good Reagan - good Bush Sr - OK Clinton - OK Bush Jr - OK Obama - OK
Trump - temperamentally unsuited to be POTUS. It's not the politics (although I don't like them). It's the attitude. Even if his policies aligned 100% with his, I hope I'd still oppose him.
Last 50 years? Has Nixon been airbrushed from history?
Bush Jr.- OK? If W gets a free pass over the debacle that was Iraq shouldn't Blair?
Comments
Con 36%
Lib 33%
NDP 13%
Grn 9%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election
According to long-standing convention, when a government is defeated on a bill that is central to government policy, or which it has itself treated as a matter of confidence, it must either resign, secure a fresh vote of confidence, or secure a dissolution of parliament. This convention has been recorded in all the standard works of constitutional law, including those by Eugene Forsey, Vernon Bogdanor, Rodney Brazier, Robert Blackburn and Geoffrey Marshall.
The Johnson government has suffered such a defeat by the passage of a non-government bill that it treated as a matter of confidence and which was opposed to its central policy. Yet Johnson has neither resigned nor secured a dissolution. His failure to resign, in the face of a clear loss of confidence, not once but on every substantive vote put during his government’s short existence, has breached convention and is at the root of the current constitutional difficulties.
Bush Jr was not a bad man, he was just not up to the job.
In fact, I'd argue that the only genuinely bad President of the last 50 years was Carter.
Ford - good
Reagan - good
Bush Sr - OK
Clinton - OK
Bush Jr - OK
Obama - OK
Trump - temperamentally unsuited to be POTUS. It's not the politics (although I don't like them). It's the attitude. Even if his policies aligned 100% with his, I hope I'd still oppose him.
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1174684918342926337?s=21
When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, America was in a bad place. The aftermath of Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, oil crisis of the early Seventies and most of all Watergate had made Washington a toxic place. Jimmy Carter was naive and an outsider, from rural America, but was a necessary dose of honesty and decency. His 4 years were a little bit like "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", but he did allow US politics to get itself cleaned up substantially.
The Iran revolution, hostage crisis and second oil crisis did for him, perhaps rather unfairly, but he remains one of the few former POTUS that I could enjoy an evening with. Politically he was centrist in a very bitterly divided country. He won support from independents and centrist Republicans that more left wing Democrats couldn't touch.
Perhaps not a great President, but a great restorative, and a genuinely nice guy.
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1174661216750452736?s=19
Indeed the Battle of Britain was won by industry as much as the RAF. To put it simply, we finished the BoB with as many planes as we had started, while the Germans had a much reduced air fleet. In many ways it was a battle of attrition.
With those positives, Warren looks nailed on. Her selfie lines are the practical end of that.
She is only 5 years younger than Biden, but looks 20 years younger. I suspect she will romp home as candidate.
As POTUS, I have my doubts, as most presidents get a second term, but I think she can do it.
https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/1174138559139328000?s=19
If anyone is to blame for weak government it’s Labour - for being too weak to govern.
This has been a problem with UK politics. Idiots popular with their own side get leadership roles, leaving a less than thrilled general public with a menu of unappetising options.
The electorate's like a burger fan trapped at a vegan dinner party.
On those numbers and changes the Lib Dems started on 34.2% and the Tories on 28.1% so how can it be a Lib Dem gain from the Tories?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1174823932135968769?s=19
But, the Carter who was Governor of Georgia and whose speeches are reproduced in 'The Great Shark Hunt' does come across as a very reforming and fair-minded politician.
I think the problems of POTUS overwhelmed him.
No wonder Remainers are furious.
https://twitter.com/STorsi/status/1174897770320125953?s=19
How is that progress?
The key question for me is whether the current chatter represents any genuine progress or is it positioning in the ongoing blame game.
My hunch is the latter.
At this rate of progress we should have a FTA by 2050.
The Establishment is crapping itself. Their strategy for the past three years is falling apart....
Mind, Carter was also very unlucky. I still think the rabbit story sums up his presidency perfectly.
https://twitter.com/MojoBeastLP/status/1174927677381152769
The British War Economy was put in place during 1938 with the establishment of the shadow factories. Chamberlain is much maligned, but the breathing space he gained after Munich allowed the gearing up of the economy and the deployment of the Chain Home radar network. It was the latter that won the battle of Britain, allowing Dowding to deploy his limited resources to maximum effect. British aircraft were always in the right place at the right time and, as they were fighting over home territory, had much more time in the air available to them than the German escorts which had the disadvantage of coming from France.
Simlarly, British pilots could be back in action straight awayif shot down unharmed, whereas German pilots were captured. Pilots took longer to train than aircraft to build. The pilot reserve was another benefit of the post-Munich delay, with the establishment of the RAFVR
But the problem is not that under the FTPA a GE cannot be called at the whim of the pM. It is that the MPs all of them including those currently in government and opposition are not prepared to work together to form a working government. It is using the mindset of the old system during the era of fixed terms. In countries where fixed terms have been in force for a long time, the MPs understand the need to cooperate not compete.
Bush Jnr a good man?
Clearly the worst part of the Trump presidency is white washing W as not the head of a kleptocratic regime.
This is however because 100x0 is still 0.
Carter probably would not have won a second term even if the Iranian Hostage Crisis had not taken place, but it is an indication of how Carter's strengths were not recognised.
Let’s see how the Supreme Court views it.
In the sixth, Taunton Vivary, the LD's gained a seat, moving their share from 28.6% to 55.1%. More worryingly for what were once major parties: across the six, the average LD share moved from 14.7% to 30.4%: larger than both the Johnsonites and Corbynites.
Arguably, a random collection of locals give us insights into real voter behaviour in real elections that opinion polls about a hypothetical GE tomorrow don't. Apart from anything else, opinion polls still ask about voting intentions for Conservative and Labour parties - entities now destroyed by their extremist and totalitarian leadership.
And there's one thing most of us should agree on. FPTP means LDs polling 20% very likely will end up with 50 seats or so. LDs polling 30% mean over 200 seats, and a real possibility they'll be the biggest party at Westminter.
Which is the better guide to the next GE: Tuesday's Ipsos/Mori or last night's six locals? Psephologists don't seem to have yet quite twigged that reliable opinion polls really need to ask about voting intentions for parties that exist on the day a voter goes to vote.
Either it was a matter of confidence and Johnson should have resigned, or it wasn’t and he had no right to sack the 21. He can’t have it both ways. Let’s see if the SC spots it....
Locals are a free shot against the Govt. of the day in the same way as the European elections were in June. But I don't see the Brexit Party preparing for Govt....
Of course this government should resign. It is doing its best to do so.
Otherwise I would vote for Biden over Trump but Trump over Warren and Sanders
Glasgow’s “super-hospital” was permitted to open despite the ventilation systems failing to meet safety standards, The Times has learnt.
Outbreaks of infection, which may have spread through the ventilation system at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, have led to the deaths of two patients. A ten-year-old cancer patient and a 73-year-old woman died after testing positive for Cryptococcus, a fungus linked to pigeon droppings, which were found in air ducts.
The decision to open the Queen Elizabeth contrasts with the last-minute decision to postpone the transfer of patients to the new “Sick Kids” hospital in Edinburgh, which failed to meet the same ventilation standards.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/queen-elizabeth-university-hospital-in-glasgow-opened-despite-not-meeting-safety-standards-hmvrw0ntl
The housing estate built nearby for the workers contains a large grass square with no apparent purpose, but it was the site of a barrage balloon during the war.
You can find a photograph of it online. A German reconnaissance photo...
They are still polling less than those heady days of 2010, aren’t they?
Labour are fucked, though.
Their only chance is to get rid of Corbyn and that of course they will not do.
Saying she uses paper not emails is ridiculous as emails, with their attachments, are often the most efficient way of moving paper around.
And also a safeguard against paper being lost.
Normally I wouldn't extrapolate from Council Elections to the GE but in the current febrile state of national politics there is a better reason for doing so than usual.
As you indicate, the Council votes are real ones, not the hypothetical responses to opinion polls. Normally such opinions are reliable enough but at the moment the respondent has to make an assumption about how Brexit will pan out. The uncertainty factor suggests the polls are likely to be less reliable than usual. Their widely varying resuts is an indication that this is the case.
I'd still be careful about overinterpeting LD council by-election success, but they are on a long successful run so whilst caution is still necessary, it is perfectly possible that the 'councils' are giving a truer picture than the national polls.
In short, I think LD seats are a buy.
https://www.ft.com/content/8f3d0374-dadc-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
Europe is our region, geographically and culturally, and we are threatening to destabilise it.
We can as much escape Europe as Jordan can escape the Middle East or Australia can escape Asia-Pacific. Trump’s wall will not allow the US to escape North America and Brexit will not remove us from Europe’s sphere of influence. We are surrounded by it. In our case, however, we are removing ourselves from any chance of shaping the destiny of the region we are in.
Bush Jr.- OK? If W gets a free pass over the debacle that was Iraq shouldn't Blair?