Snap General Election called

[Sandydragon]

It looks like Boris hasn’t submitted his resignation to the queen. I assumed that he needed to speak to the palace first and once the queen had accepted his resignation, then brief the media etc.

Instead he has promised to resign once a new leader is found. I’m sure May and Cameron both resigned as prime minister and agreed to continue until a replacement was found. Why do I have a feeling that Boris is trying to pull a fast one?

[Zhivago]

It looks like Boris hasn’t submitted his resignation to the queen. I assumed that he needed to speak to the palace first and once the queen had accepted his resignation, then brief the media etc.

Instead he has promised to resign once a new leader is found. I’m sure May and Cameron both resigned as prime minister and agreed to continue until a replacement was found. Why do I have a feeling that Boris is trying to pull a fast one?

cos he's a liar

[Galfon]

If he is forced out of office before 30 July, he well be hoping the new incumbent is of a generous nature ..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 18263.html

[Sandydragon]

If he is forced out of office before 30 July, he well be hoping the new incumbent is of a generous nature ..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 18263.html

Send him the bill

[Zhivago]

He would be my pick out of the obvious candidates.

I also wouldn't mind Tugendhat, but I'm not sure he's in the running.

I’d like him to have some proper ministerial responsibility first, so one for the future.

Ben Wallace as PM
Tom Tugendhat as Home Secretary
Tobias Ellwood as Defence Secretary
Lucy Allan as Chancellor
Richard Graham as Foreign Secretary

[Banquo]

So Labour will table a no confidence vote- do they need a 2/3 majority to get parliament dissolved and an election?

[Galfon]

So Labour will table a no confidence vote- do they need a 2/3 majority to get parliament dissolved and an election?

Looks like it..
'An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).'

'The Queen has a duty to appoint as PM the MP best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. That duty only arises once it is clear who is best placed. The Queen has no residual discretion.'
(i.e. sorted somehow in the House..)

As the hard-working MP's are due the Summer recess in 2 weeks,
they'd have to get pedalling.
Can't see the Tories wanting the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Puja]

So Labour will table a no confidence vote- do they need a 2/3 majority to get parliament dissolved and an election?

Looks like it..
'An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).'

'The Queen has a duty to appoint as PM the MP best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. That duty only arises once it is clear who is best placed. The Queen has no residual discretion.'
(i.e. sorted somehow in the House..)

As the hard-working MP's are due the Summer recess in 2 weeks,
they'd have to get pedalling.
Can't see the Tories wanting the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I had thought they only needed a majority - the 2/3rd thing was with the fixed term parliaments act, which is no longer law. I thought if a vote showed that the house did not have confidence in the government, then the government had to go down?

I reserve the right to be wrong, at all times.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I reserve the right to be wrong, at all times.

Puja

I had assumed this was in the t&c’s when we signed up? If I need to state it every time I make a post I’m not 100% on I’m going to have to tell the family they won’t be seeing as much of me.

[Mellsblue]

He would be my pick out of the obvious candidates.

I also wouldn't mind Tugendhat, but I'm not sure he's in the running.

I’d like him to have some proper ministerial responsibility first, so one for the future.

Here’s his pitch:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -minister/

[Banquo]

So Labour will table a no confidence vote- do they need a 2/3 majority to get parliament dissolved and an election?

Looks like it..
'An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).'

'The Queen has a duty to appoint as PM the MP best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. That duty only arises once it is clear who is best placed. The Queen has no residual discretion.'
(i.e. sorted somehow in the House..)

As the hard-working MP's are due the Summer recess in 2 weeks,
they'd have to get pedalling.
Can't see the Tories wanting the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I had thought they only needed a majority - the 2/3rd thing was with the fixed term parliaments act, which is no longer law. I thought if a vote showed that the house did not have confidence in the government, then the government had to go down?

I reserve the right to be wrong, at all times.

Puja

Its no lose for labour tbh- the vote if carried leads to an election the tories can't win (not least cos Boris would probs be leader) and if as more likely doesn't win, they can just point to Tories voting to keep Boris at the helm, even if as caretaker.

Meanwhile, Rome is burning.

[Mellsblue]

Meanwhile, Rome is burning.

You’ve seen the covid rates on the continent then

[Banquo]

Meanwhile, Rome is burning.

You’ve seen the covid rates on the continent then

aye, gone a bit bonkers

[Sandydragon]

So Labour will table a no confidence vote- do they need a 2/3 majority to get parliament dissolved and an election?

Looks like it..
'An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).'

'The Queen has a duty to appoint as PM the MP best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. That duty only arises once it is clear who is best placed. The Queen has no residual discretion.'
(i.e. sorted somehow in the House..)

As the hard-working MP's are due the Summer recess in 2 weeks,
they'd have to get pedalling.
Can't see the Tories wanting the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I had thought they only needed a majority - the 2/3rd thing was with the fixed term parliaments act, which is no longer law. I thought if a vote showed that the house did not have confidence in the government, then the government had to go down?

I reserve the right to be wrong, at all times.

Puja

Yes, I think the 2/3s bit was all about the fixed term act. Traditionally, losing a no confidence vote by any margin was enough

[Sandydragon]

I reserve the right to be wrong, at all times.

Puja

I had assumed this was in the t&c’s when we signed up? If I need to state it every time I make a post I’m not 100% on I’m going to have to tell the family they won’t be seeing as much of me.

FFS, you both need to try harder. This board demands perfection or else the inability to admit to not being entirely correct all of the time!

[Banquo]

Looks like it..
'An early parliamentary general election is to take place if—
the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).'

'The Queen has a duty to appoint as PM the MP best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. That duty only arises once it is clear who is best placed. The Queen has no residual discretion.'
(i.e. sorted somehow in the House..)

As the hard-working MP's are due the Summer recess in 2 weeks,
they'd have to get pedalling.
Can't see the Tories wanting the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I had thought they only needed a majority - the 2/3rd thing was with the fixed term parliaments act, which is no longer law. I thought if a vote showed that the house did not have confidence in the government, then the government had to go down?

I reserve the right to be wrong, at all times.

Puja

Yes, I think the 2/3s bit was all about the fixed term act. Traditionally, losing a no confidence vote by any margin was enough

Is the FTA fully obliterated?

[Galfon]

I had thought they only needed a majority - the 2/3rd thing was with the fixed term parliaments act, which is no longer law. I thought if a vote showed that the house did not have confidence in the government, then the government had to go down?

I reserve the right to be wrong, at all times.

Puja

Yes, I think the 2/3s bit was all about the fixed term act. Traditionally, losing a no confidence vote by any margin was enough

Is the FTA fully obliterated?

it appears so, this year..
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/trie ... s-restored

standing corrected

[Sandydragon]

The first line of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Act is that the FTA is repealed, with no exceptions identified. Everything seems to point towards it being a simple majority of the votes cast.

[Which Tyler]

I was pretty sure it was 50%+1 to dissolve the government.
After that, anyone who (thinks they can, with some cause) can command a majority has 2 weeks to form a government, failing that, or if no-one tries, we go to the polls.



Elsewhere, luckily there's no angst in NI about their place in the Union...

[Sandydragon]

I was pretty sure it was 50%+1 to dissolve the government.
After that, anyone who (thinks they can, with some cause) can command a majority has 2 weeks to form a government, failing that, or if no-one tries, we go to the polls.



Elsewhere, luckily there's no angst in NI about their place in the Union...

Oops. Im amazed that the new ministers can even find NI on a map; they are scraping the barrel.

[Puja]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

[Banquo]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

Lol, quite the reversal; before it was good on principle, sh*te on politics. Frankly turning round and saying no business case for rejoining Europe is a tad worse than no principles.
It comes to something when someone gets praise for having no principles, but that's where we have got to.

[Puja]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

Lol, quite the reversal; before it was good on principle, sh*te on politics. Frankly turning round and saying no business case for rejoining Europe is a tad worse than no principles.
It comes to something when someone gets praise for having no principles, but that's where we have got to.

He is the anti-Corbyn isn't he - the complete reverse of someone who might've meant well, but just couldn't stop walking into rhetorical landmines even when he knew they were there. And of course, that's exactly how Starmer defused the anti-semitism meme, by waiting until Corbyn said something that wasn't particularly controversial but still should've been kept behind his teeth, and then slamming the banhammer down on him.

Brings up the age-old left-winger question - would you rather have someone in favour of real change, or someone capable of winning the power needed to effect it.

Puja

[Banquo]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

Lol, quite the reversal; before it was good on principle, sh*te on politics. Frankly turning round and saying no business case for rejoining Europe is a tad worse than no principles.
It comes to something when someone gets praise for having no principles, but that's where we have got to.

He is the anti-Corbyn isn't he - the complete reverse of someone who might've meant well, but just couldn't stop walking into rhetorical landmines even when he knew they were there. And of course, that's exactly how Starmer defused the anti-semitism meme, by waiting until Corbyn said something that wasn't particularly controversial but still should've been kept behind his teeth, and then slamming the banhammer down on him.

Brings up the age-old left-winger question - would you rather have someone in favour of real change, or someone capable of winning the power needed to effect it.

Puja

I give up, what's the answer . Livingstone answered it to me in person once- mind he was pi55ed.

Starmer has certainly learned on the job, whether he has any ideas or execution skill remains the question.

(by the way, the question should be/is a false dichotomy, but remains until someone great turns up)

[Sandydragon]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

A surprise to no one. If Boris only got one FPN for all of his transgressions then for Starmer to get one for that would have been idiotic.

At the moment I'll settle for a PM who is competent and doesn't make us look like any more of a basket case than we actually are. Its a low bar but after this current bunch of quarter wits its a step in the right direction.