PM Boris forms a government

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Which, of course, demonstrates that this country is not full of rich pensioners. There are still many who are worse off and can't even afford to heat their houses properly.

This ageist nonsense that we are hearing from some on here has got to stop.

My parents had very reasonable jobs as Dad was in the Royal Navy and Mum worked in the Civil Service for the last 20 years of her working life before she has to retire early because of ill health.

l can assure you they are not well off as they have to budget everything just like our household does.

whether someone is 49 , 68 . 80 or whatever age they are its only a age at the end of the day and it does not make a iota of difference at the end of the day.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

My parents had very reasonable jobs as Dad was in the Royal Navy and Mum worked in the Civil Service for the last 20 years of her working life before she has to retire early because of ill health.

l can assure you they are not well off as they have to budget everything just like our household does.

whether someone is 49 , 68 . 80 or whatever age they are its only a age at the end of the day and it does not make a iota of difference at the end of the day.

I am sure you are right, Den, and the majority of people are certainly not well off in old age.

However, to see some of the posts on here you would think that pensioners were slimy, child eating monsters cashing in at the expense of the younger generation. I think these ageists need to look at how much the old age pension actually is and wonder whether they could live on that.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am sure you are right, Den, and the majority of people are certainly not well off in old age.

However, to see some of the posts on here you would think that pensioners were slimy, child eating monsters cashing in at the expense of the younger generation. I think these ageists need to look at how much the old age pension actually is and wonder whether they could live on that.

George Orwell would have be proud of you. Respinning a discussion based on objective facts into pearl clutching outrage. Bravo ..

The temporary diversion of the relative disparity of the Baby Boomer generation's wealth & advantage was never about the individual. To make it one, as some have tried to so, is disingenuous. Discussions of trends on a macro scale can never be defined by individual case studies.

BTW, I think this diversion away from the topic of Mr Johnson is at an end?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

However, to see some of the posts on here you would think that pensioners were slimy, child eating monsters cashing in at the expense of the younger generation. I think these ageists need to look at how much the old age pension actually is and wonder whether they could live on that.

I think a lot of young people feel that the pension, that they don't expect to get, should be high for old people. You don't find any of the parties that younger people support supporting a reduction in the state pension.

What they're angry about is that the government doesn't do anything to address the economic problems of younger people. In fact the Government makes those problems worse but cutting as much as possible from jobseekers allowance for the under-25s, tripling tuition fees and prioritising protecting property values rather than increase the supply.

[Sephiroth]

Boris’s guvmin has been told by the EU that there’s nothing to talk about.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Boris’s guvmin has been told by the EU that there’s nothing to talk about.

That's why Boris is preparing for a no deal Brexit.

They won't be doing EU countries any favours by continuing that stance. Ah, well, at least we will have overcome the backstop stalemate.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Boris’s guvmin has been told by the EU that there’s nothing to talk about.

You forgot to add the important part that Johnson told the EU that he will not talk to them unless the backstop is removed:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...scrap-backstop

Boris Johnson is refusing to sit down for talks with EU leaders until they agree to ditch the Irish backstop from the Brexit withdrawal agreement, despite invitations to meetings from the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

In fact, the Leavers pulling Johnson's strings are quite brazen about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...enario-eu-told

Boris Johnson has no intention of renegotiating the withdrawal agreement and a no-deal Brexit is his “central scenario”, European diplomats have been told, amid hardening evidence in Westminster that the government is expecting to crash out of the EU.

Brussels diplomats briefed after a meeting between the prime minister’s chief envoy and senior EU figures in Brussels said that Britain’s refusal to compromise was understood to have been clear to those attending.

This whole deal spin is just a sham. Those who control the PM just want the ruinous No Deal. Nothing else. In fact the ERG are quite open about it:

Mark Francois says ERG will vote down Withdrawal Agreement even if Boris Johnson gets rid of the backstop

So even if the EU cave in which is unlikely, the ERG would impose their vision of hell on this country.

In today’s Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...TM_1Imag_CR1_2

Boris Johnson would refuse to resign even after losing a confidence vote so he could force through a no-deal Brexit on October 31, under plans being considered by Downing Street.

Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s most senior aide, told colleagues last week that Mr Johnson would not quit if Tory Remainers voted with Labour to bring down the government.

The Times has been told that Mr Johnson could stay on as prime minister even if Tory MPs were able to form a “government of national unity” opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Mr Johnson would ignore the result of the confidence vote and call a “people v politicians” general election to be held shortly after Britain had left the EU.

By what convention can a PM be removed if they refuse to acknowledge losing the confidence of Parliament?

Originally Posted by Damien

By what convention can a PM be removed if they refuse to acknowledge losing the confidence of Parliament?

Just what I was wondering..

Seems fair enough. Mr Speaker and his allies have played fast and loose with convention often enough over the last few months. They should have realised the chickens would come home to roost eventually. When you work in a system that is governed so extensively by convention, then you can’t afford to try to pick and choose the conventions you respect and the ones you’re prepared to bend or break to suit your agenda. There is no written statute that compels Her Majesty’s Prime Minister to resign following a lost no confidence vote; choosing instead to remain PM until after the outcome of a general election may not have the same weight of convention behind it, but then we’ve been led to believe convention is quite flexible, especially when it’s inconvenient.

I think the reality is, there is going to have to be a general election right after Brexit anyway. Bojo’s Commons majority is barely workable as it is and might be expected to vanish well before 2022. With the Brexit Party neutralised and the possibility of some of the pro-EU uber-rebels getting deselected, it’s as good a time as any for him to go all in.

It would appear that’s the plan anyway. His grand tour of the UK followed by NHS spending announcements looks suspiciously like the opening salvo of an election campaign.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Damien

By what convention can a PM be removed if they refuse to acknowledge losing the confidence of Parliament?

Thing is though I'm not sure that's how it works:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ral-elections/

The statutory no confidence process
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 sets a five-year term between general elections, subject to the two ‘triggers’ for an early election above. The ‘no confidence’ trigger is pulled if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative Government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days by means of a positive motion of confidence.

Section 2 of the Act specifies the form of the motion:

“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”

If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:

“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”

Under Standing Orders, a debate on a motion arising from an Act is limited to 90 minutes. However, it is likely that a longer debate would be provided on a motion of no confidence.

What happens if a Government does not gain the confidence of the House of Commons in the 14-day period?

If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, an early general election will take place and dissolution is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14-day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown. A proclamation for a new Parliament can then be issued.

So there isn't actually a requirement for the PM to resign, as it's a no confidence vote against the whole Government.

But in this case they're saying even if a 'Government of National Unity' is formed, i.e Parliament has confidence in a different Government, he would refuse to acknowledge that. Until there is a Government the last PM remains but if Parliament says 'Hey, this is the government and this is who leads it' what compels the last PM to go?

[Mr K]

Time for the Roundheads to reform and assert Parliamentary democracy. Boris' head on a stake at Traitors gate I should think

Appointing the PM is the Queen’s job, having taken advice as to who is most likely to command the confidence of the Commons. The PM, plus whoever s/he appoints as a minister, is the government. All the Commons can do is vote to express its confidence on the government. It cannot hire or fire a government.

In fact, the FTPA’s effect here would appear to be to strengthen Boris’ hand in staying in post for 14 days, enduring a second lost confidence vote and then seeing a general election triggered. As long as the election date falls after 31 October, he gets his wish.