dyqik wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:47 pm
Question now is how many of the 148 would press for, and/or vote for, a no confidence vote in the House.
Even having the vote would force MPs to explain why they have confidence in Johnson as the PM, but not as Tory leader.
Hardly any of them of them. I suspect that after losing the by elections, Johnson will be using a no confidence vote for this reason, like what Major did. It'll put the rebels in line*, because they might want to change leader, but they don't want to lose power.
It's easy to explain - "The public chose the Conservatives to lead for 5 years, so we don't need a new election, Our MPs voted for confidence in Johnson, and I will respect that vote. Democracy prevails"
IvanV wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 4:43 pm
It's also plausible that the Conservatives might vote against a No Confidence motion, because that would lead to a general election in an unattractive situation.
A no confidence vote doesn't need to lead to an election if a government can be formed, does it? If the Tories have a new leader who has the House's confidence, a new government can be formed.
Moot point now, but I think this is precisely the point that DAG was making. The House has to express its confidence to make regime change happen. If it doesn't Mr Johnson can be like Louis XIV, and say "the government, that's me", regardless of being ditched by his ministers, etc. If he doesn't resign, then the only known process for removing him from the premiership is for the house to express its lack of confidence in his government, even if that government is reduced to one man. And that has to happen explicitly. If it doesn't, then that leaves us in a gridlocked position, like in the May administration when the House rejected every kind of Brexit put in front of it. Maybe in reality the house would have the vote to ensure that he left when it came to it. But since a vote is necessary, it is at least logically possible that he would win that vote, for some curious reason.
That's wrong. It never needs to happen explicitly. The House never needs to vote for or against. A choice is recommended to the sovereign and that's it.
The Queen has done this 13 times. "You should invite Anthony, very decent chap". "I recommended Harold, awfully good sort." There's no need for any vote in the House to confirm or deny the Queen's choice.
The idea that the "House has to express its confidence to make regime change happen" has no basis in reality.
51% is will of the people in newspeak. Johnson is fine.
The Conservative party might have real problems though. I think a bunch of them are about to have their Mitchell and Webb "are we the baddies?" moment.
And electorally I suspect they might be f.cked. Johnson is absolutely not going to pull anything impressive out of his hat, and the rest of them are tainted shitecunts too.
I haven't felt this hopeful about British politics for a long time.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
lpm wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:19 pm
That's wrong. It never needs to happen explicitly. The House never needs to vote for or against. A choice is recommended to the sovereign and that's it.
The Queen has done this 13 times. "You should invite Anthony, very decent chap". "I recommended Harold, awfully good sort." There's no need for any vote in the House to confirm or deny the Queen's choice.
The idea that the "House has to express its confidence to make regime change happen" has no basis in reality.
The David Allen Green article was based upon an assumption that after the negative reaction to the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis in practice the Queen wouldn't dismiss a sitting prime minister without that being the explicit wish of Parliament. That would be part of the long process by which the exercise of royal power has been transferred to democratic institutions.
I assume that you don't share that opinion. I don't know the answer, which I guess is either a benefit or drawback of an uncodified constitution.
What Australia shows is both that the sovereign most definitely has the power to dismiss a Prime Minister, and that the sovereign would be appalled if she had to use that power.
It would be frightfully bad form to drag the Queen into it and the establishment would be enraged at Johnson. She would get 100% support if she dismissed him and invited the new leader to form a government. The circumstances are almost the opposite to the Australia situation - the Queen would be continuing the status quo Conservative rule, not switching control.
But if there was ever any doubt and they wanted it explicit, the House could simply pass a meaningless motion. For example "This House congratulates Jane Brown on her appointment as Prime Minister". The Speaker does the usual voice acclamation thing, supporters shout Aye, nobody says No, it doesn't even go to a formal vote in the division. The House of Commons is full of these little traditions to keep processes moving along in an official way. It's completely wrong to think a full-on Vote of No Confidence is the only way the House can be explicit, even if it needed to be explicit.
lpm wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:05 am
. For example "This House congratulates Jane Brown on her appointment as Prime Minister". The Speaker does the usual voice acclamation thing, supporters shout Aye, nobody says No, it doesn't even go to a formal vote in the division. The House of Commons is full of these little traditions to keep processes moving along in an official way.
I assume this includes a tradition of locking Nadine Dorries in a broom cupboard in the Clock Tower for the duration and getting some of the more-corpulent Tory backbenchers to physically sit on Johnson while it all goes down.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Trinucleus wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 3:16 pm
In this case.... Boris would just stay. Be interesting to see how low the poll ratings could go before he would grudgingly move out.
I think we are at the point where he could get chased through the streets by an angry mob before being ripped limb from limb in-front of cheering Tory backbenchers, as the armed police of the Diplomatic Protection Group studiously look at their mobile phones, then his bloodied, quartered remains could get dragged through the streets to the four corners of the nation, past jubilant street party after street party festooned in "Bunter's Dead!" bunting, and Dorries would STILL be claiming 96% of the public was behind Johnson and that he was guaranteed to rise from the dead on the third day to lead the Tory Party to glorious victory at the next four General Elections.
JRM meanwhile would surface briefly on the Today programme to put on record his observation that it is very well-known that every British PM in history has "done a Gadhafi" before going on to pass key legislation, in Thatcher's case twice.
The Mail's headline to this all this of course would be "Shocking new PHOTO shows Sneering Starmer wearing pyjamas in bed - lock him up!" obviously.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Also what was all that sniffing last night? I made jokes about it but I’m beginning to think he might have actually had a bump.
Damn, it won't let you vote more than once
Might if you clear out your cookies between votes. I've found that works for some previous vox-pop votes.
I think it must use your twitter id, as it knew on my phone that I'd voted on my laptop.
And it is asking me to log in if I try and vote in an incognito window
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Might if you clear out your cookies between votes. I've found that works for some previous vox-pop votes.
I think it must use your twitter id, as it knew on my phone that I'd voted on my laptop.
And it is asking me to log in if I try and vote in an incognito window
Didn't really matter - the final results had 139k votes.
Might if you clear out your cookies between votes. I've found that works for some previous vox-pop votes.
I think it must use your twitter id, as it knew on my phone that I'd voted on my laptop.
And it is asking me to log in if I try and vote in an incognito window
Didn't really matter - the final results had 139k votes.
I think it must use your twitter id, as it knew on my phone that I'd voted on my laptop.
And it is asking me to log in if I try and vote in an incognito window
Didn't really matter - the final results had 139k votes.
Do you have confidence in the Prime Minister?
Yes 8.9%
No 91.1%
139,338 votes
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina
What? I thought it had direct bearing on the government!
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
