why should the opposition or the fired MPs even agree to an election?

Spearthrower wrote:
No, this was a war won. There's no mistaking that at all. This is not a minor skirmish but a major, historic defeat. There may be more wars, but right at this moment, BoJo's been sent scampering off with his tail between his legs. He's still got to convince his own party that he's credible, and given he's sacked a bunch of them, that's not even in the bag. It's entirely possible we could have a new PM before there's a general election.

If the war is Brexit this, however historic, hasn't won it.

If you notice BJ hasn't tucked his tail yet.

What is the next battle? A vote of no confidence or wait for 19/9 when Benn's law comes into play?

As for a general election, I'm seeing far, far too many comments supporting Johnson and "clean Brexit". We can hope that the British electorate will see a democracy denying, law breaking, scheming, dishonest buffoon as unelectable, but to others he is a hero of "British independence" fighting the establishment that want to deny "the people what they voted for".

It's a grand fuck up.

Girly Swot 1 - 0 Thicko Tory Boy

Agi Hammerthief wrote:why should the opposition or the fired MPs even agree to an election?

There are plenty of reasons they should, since at bottom a democracy derives its legitimacy from the demos, the people. Not to mention it makes very little practical sense to ensure there's effectively no government for an extended period.

In the near future they probably won't though, because they don't see it as politically expedient. As time goes by that becomes a more difficult position to sustain.

Thommo wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:why should the opposition or the fired MPs even agree to an election?

There are plenty of reasons they should, since at bottom a democracy derives its legitimacy from the demos, the people. Not to mention it makes very little practical sense to ensure there's effectively no government for an extended period.

In the near future they probably won't though, because they don't see it as politically expedient. As time goes by that becomes a more difficult position to sustain.

they certainly can‘t trust this PM to call an election before Brexit if they agree to dissolve parlament for an election.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:they certainly can‘t trust this PM to call an election before Brexit if they agree to dissolve parlament for an election.

That's true. After Oct 31 and the now inevitable extension that changes though.

There's probably no reason they couldn't craft legislation constraining the election date anyway, but time pressure is probably a greater factor before than after.

Unfortunately an extension only puts us where we were 2 months ago, and precious little has happened since then. I guess we'll see what happens.

Thommo wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:they certainly can‘t trust this PM to call an election before Brexit if they agree to dissolve parlament for an election.

That's true. After Oct 31 and the now inevitable extension that changes though.

There's probably no reason they couldn't craft legislation constraining the election date anyway, but time pressure is probably a greater factor before than after.

Unfortunately an extension only puts us where we were 2 months ago, and precious little has happened since then. I guess we'll see what happens.

What do you mean 2 months?? 3 years mate

Well, I can't argue with that!

GrahamH wrote:
If the war is Brexit this, however historic, hasn't won it.

This war isn't Brexit. This is Dominic Cummings' subversion of parliamentary democracy. His motivation may be geared towards Brexit, but that's essentially a complete aside to the constitutional situation he's basically created.

GrahamH wrote:If you notice BJ hasn't tucked his tail yet.

Well, he has had his ass rudely spanked in a very public fashion. He lost and lost bad. This was the one play he's so far actually managed to pull off, and it turns out to be a historic disaster.

GrahamH wrote:What is the next battle? A vote of no confidence or wait for 19/9 when Benn's law comes into play?

I can only imagine there has to be a vote of no confidence now. It's interesting that something similar is happening on the other side of the Atlantic where there's now apparently little choice but to impeach the President, regardless of how well it plays out with the electorate, because there are some lines that have to be maintained.

GrahamH wrote:As for a general election, I'm seeing far, far too many comments supporting Johnson and "clean Brexit".

Well, you always have to recall that comments aren't really indicative of anything other than the type of people a given site draws. The BBC, for example, seems to have become an absolute cesspit of the most ignorant, reality-denying tools the British populace contains. But there's not many of them, they're just loud and obnoxious.

Polls have so far suggested a slim lead for Conservatives, but nowhere near a majority, so it's just as reasonable to imagine a coalition succeeding as a new Tory government

GrahamH wrote:We can hope that the British electorate will see a democracy denying, law breaking, scheming, dishonest buffoon as unelectable, but to others he is a hero of "British independence" fighting the establishment that want to deny "the people what they voted for".

They'll be so desperately torn when it comes to deciding which hero of British independence they want to vote for, they might even end up killing the Conservatives' lead. We can but hope.

GrahamH wrote:It's a grand fuck up.

It is that, but at the very least, an institution has been shored up giving some hope that the catastrophe of the Trump Presidency is not going to have such an easy time getting a foothold in the UK.

I give him 3 more days. Place your bets, kids.

Less than 1% chance of no confidence vote or Johnson being removed by other means in the next few weeks, at least until the October deadline is resolved one way or another.

The Tories just voted him in internally, and nothing has changed on that front. Jeremy Corbyn cannot command the support of the commons, which means a vote of no confidence results in a general election that parliament has flatly refused to have.

like a bad smell ...

LOL

.@JoshuaRozenberg nails it live on Sky News.

@KayBurley: "How would you feel if you were the PM and given bad legal advice?"

JR: "If I were the PM and thought I'd been given bad legal advice I'd probably leak it to Sky News so that they could report it"

https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/statu ... 5804227585

Don't forget, de Piffle basically want's 'no-deal'. He was not voted in by the 'normal' process but appointed by a select committee who also want a 'no-deal'. This 'committee' has its own secretive agenda and is not publically accountable. Many of its members are unknown - ERG, for instance.

I wonder how many of them avoid paying tax...

Oh. Boris might be in more trouble than even I thought

Contact in J Cox office.
The full legal advise says, while concluding it was legal to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks, J Cox advise against such a move as it could be challenged up to & including the Supreme Court.
NO10 are pressuring J Cox not to release the full text.

https://twitter.com/number10leaks/statu ... 6413292544

Doesn't sound like it would make even the slightest difference.

Thommo wrote:Doesn't sound like it would make even the slightest difference.

What would these days?
Being a known liar is not a barrier to high office
Being a serial adulterer is not a barrier to high office
Misappropriating funds is not a barrier to high office
Lying to the queen is not a barrier to high office...

I think the acid test is whether he can go to the west end, shoot someone and lose a single vote

I think the acid test is whether he can go to the west end, shoot someone and lose a single vote

Also certainly depends on where the person he shoots was born, also if its London that is just one less Londoners to Brexit voters

mattthomas wrote:

Thommo wrote:Doesn't sound like it would make even the slightest difference.

What would these days?
Being a known liar is not a barrier to high office
Being a serial adulterer is not a barrier to high office
Misappropriating funds is not a barrier to high office
Lying to the queen is not a barrier to high office...

I think the acid test is whether he can go to the west end, shoot someone and lose a single vote

Funny how it applies to Trump if you remove "to the queen"...

aban57 wrote:

mattthomas wrote:

Thommo wrote:Doesn't sound like it would make even the slightest difference.

What would these days?
Being a known liar is not a barrier to high office
Being a serial adulterer is not a barrier to high office
Misappropriating funds is not a barrier to high office
Lying to the queen is not a barrier to high office...

I think the acid test is whether he can go to the west end, shoot someone and lose a single vote

Funny how it applies to Trump if you remove "to the queen"...

Still works if you replace Queen with Putin, they have similar powers ...