Boris Johnson- Prime Minister

[Mr Penfold]

Nickgnome said:

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Not strictly true, as parliament can use the time as well in that period and providing the ‘Unity government’ succeeds in getting a parliamentary vote of confidence then parliament will not be dissolved.

It would be a very high risk strategy for the current government to engineer a loss of a vonc.

I think you are missinformed,have you read the 2011 act? do you know how parliament works?

Yes and it doesn’t say what you think it does.

oooooh mind reader eh

[anonymous-user]

andymadmak said:

Mr Penfold said:

For boris he needs to lose, as it would then show parliament stopping brexit and a landslide electiom victory, for boris actually delivering on the 31st could mean he loses an election or has to scrape along as may did.

That's an interesting take on the question. I actually think he (Boris) needs to win.

If he loses a VONC he either has to let some Government of National (dis)Unity take over - in which case goodbye Brexit - it will be submerged under an avalanche of Remainer lies and fear. - or he has to agree to call an election to take place after 31st October.

If he calls an election the Remain campaigners will fudge a deal with the EU to get them to wait until after the election before recognising our 'departure'. In other words an 'extension' will be offered by the EU, even if there is no mechanism under the A50 process for them to do so.

Boris will struggle to win an election unless Brexit has been delivered imho, because too many people will simply vote for TBP in the hope that they are guaranteeing Brexit by doing so - the irony being that in doing so they have probably lost themselves Brexit.

If Boris wins the VONC, then his hand is strengthened massively. He can keep pushing for October 31st, and if there is to be any blink from the EU it will be once they realise that Brexit is coming for sure. Of course, the EU may not blink. It is their choice when all is said and done.
Once Brexited and TBP is neutralised, Boris will call a snap election and he will walk it (the more so if he is still up against Corbyn)

Good post, I agree, however I can't actually see him losing and Corbyn will run out of steam well before the deadline.

People see him as an opportunist now rather the man of principle and conviction he purports to be.

However, there is still Grieve/Starmer to consider. hopefully they will get laughed down as most Politicians like to be employed.

They are not stupid though, unfortunately neither have anything to lose now, st or bust as they say

[Nickgnome]

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Not strictly true, as parliament can use the time as well in that period and providing the ‘Unity government’ succeeds in getting a parliamentary vote of confidence then parliament will not be dissolved.

It would be a very high risk strategy for the current government to engineer a loss of a vonc.

I think you are missinformed,have you read the 2011 act? do you know how parliament works?

Yes and it doesn’t say what you think it does.

oooooh mind reader eh

I do not have to be. Do you believe that parliament after the government’s loss of a vonc are prevented from trying to form a government which would get the support of the house?

[oyster]

andymadmak said:

Once Brexited and TBP is neutralised, Boris will call a snap election and he will walk it (the more so if he is still up against Corbyn)

It's not entirely in Boris's hands though.

If the polls point to a landslide, why would Labour MPs support an election?

[Ridgemont]

Robertj21a said:

vonuber said:

Robertj21a said:

Far from it, but I have had to try to recruit numerous people, who then make me doubt whether a degree has improved their chances out in the real world.

So you are saying education is a waste of time unless it 'improves your chances in the real world'?

?? - where did I say that ?

I think you’ve just been Newmanned

[Nickgnome]

digimeistter said:

Good post, I agree, however I can't actually see him losing and Corbyn will run out of steam well before the deadline.

People see him as an opportunist now rather the man of principle and conviction he purports to be.

However, there is still Grieve/Starmer to consider. hopefully they will get laughed down as most Politicians like to be employed.

They are not stupid though, unfortunately neither have anything to lose now, st or bust as they say

Starmer’s income would increase massively if he left parliament.

Grieve’s not short of a few bob either.

Corbyn is the only liability in the remain camps plan, but then he was always a leaver at heart.

[Nickgnome]

Robertj21a said:

vonuber said:

Robertj21a said:

Do you feel that a degree produces well-rounded, sensible, mature people who can be relied upon to use common sense ?

Sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about people who have gone to university.

Far from it, but I have had to try to recruit numerous people, who then make me doubt whether a degree has improved their chances out in the real world.

Here are the first few exchanges re uncle bob’s view on degree educated people.

He doesn’t seem overly enthusiastic, although I would agree that graduates sometimes take some time to adjust to the world of work and all that entails.

[vonuber]

Ridgemont said:

I think you’ve just been Newmanned

No. Guy posts about degrees not preparing people for the 'real world'.
Then goes on to state he interviews people who, in his judgement depsite having a degree, aren't prepared for the 'real world'.

The inference here is that degrees should prepare you for the 'real world' and not just be for their own sake. It's hardly a massive leap, is it.

[Nickgnome]

vonuber said:

Ridgemont said:

I think you’ve just been Newmanned

No. Guy posts about degrees not preparing people for the 'real world'.
Then goes on to state he interviews people who, in his judgement depsite having a degree, aren't prepared for the 'real world'.

The inference here is that degrees should prepare you for the 'real world' and not just be for their own sake. It's hardly a massive leap, is it.

I’m a bit old fashioned and still like the idea of people studying for a degree in the subject they like rather than automatically linking it to the world of work.

I expect some here thinks that’s a complete anathema.

[andymadmak]

oyster said:

andymadmak said:

Once Brexited and TBP is neutralised, Boris will call a snap election and he will walk it (the more so if he is still up against Corbyn)

It's not entirely in Boris's hands though.

If the polls point to a landslide, why would Labour MPs support an election?

That's a good point.. FTPA and all that. But then, maybe Corbyn would be arrogant enough to think he could win? He's certainly have a hard time saying no to it, given he asks for one every other day!

[Crackie]

golf_addict said:

Seems to me that there are certain Remainers that seem to want to pretend that anyone who voted for Brexit must be in this situation, but I don’t think that’s accurate.

It's far from accurate but the same old names use this simplistic argument time and time again.

"XYZ voted for Brexit; they're an unhappy, angry, gammon blaming someone else for how their life's turned out." or some similarly dimwitted trope on that theme.

Very odd.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 19th August 18:32

[anonymous-user]

Nickgnome said:

digimeistter said:

Good post, I agree, however I can't actually see him losing and Corbyn will run out of steam well before the deadline.

People see him as an opportunist now rather the man of principle and conviction he purports to be.

However, there is still Grieve/Starmer to consider. hopefully they will get laughed down as most Politicians like to be employed.

They are not stupid though, unfortunately neither have anything to lose now, st or bust as they say

Starmer’s income would increase massively if he left parliament.

Grieve’s not short of a few bob either.

Corbyn is the only liability in the remain camps plan, but then he was always a leaver at heart.

Nothing to do with money for those two, more about ego and self importance.

However the rest of the trough snufflers will back what they perceive to be the winning side in Parliament.

[Nickgnome]

digimeistter said:

Nickgnome said:

digimeistter said:

Good post, I agree, however I can't actually see him losing and Corbyn will run out of steam well before the deadline.

People see him as an opportunist now rather the man of principle and conviction he purports to be.

However, there is still Grieve/Starmer to consider. hopefully they will get laughed down as most Politicians like to be employed.

They are not stupid though, unfortunately neither have anything to lose now, st or bust as they say

Starmer’s income would increase massively if he left parliament.

Grieve’s not short of a few bob either.

Corbyn is the only liability in the remain camps plan, but then he was always a leaver at heart.

Nothing to do with money for those two, more about ego and self importance.

However the rest of the trough snufflers will back what they perceive to be the winning side in Parliament.

You really should not judge others by your own standards.

It is a concern that you have no understanding of the thought processes of some who want to make a difference.

Perhaps if you’d spent some time in their company you may have had a different opinion.

You do not need to agree with their political leaning to be able to do this.

[Mr Penfold]

Nickgnome said:

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Not strictly true, as parliament can use the time as well in that period and providing the ‘Unity government’ succeeds in getting a parliamentary vote of confidence then parliament will not be dissolved.

It would be a very high risk strategy for the current government to engineer a loss of a vonc.

I think you are missinformed,have you read the 2011 act? do you know how parliament works?

Yes and it doesn’t say what you think it does.

oooooh mind reader eh

I do not have to be. Do you believe that parliament after the government’s loss of a vonc are prevented from trying to form a government which would get the support of the house?

f curse they arent prevented from trying but our parliament operates with age-old customs it won't happen if Boris doesn't want it to, it must be him that tells her Maj to invite somebody else to form a government. I remember the coalition couldn't do anything because Gordon brown sat on his hands.

[Nickgnome]

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Not strictly true, as parliament can use the time as well in that period and providing the ‘Unity government’ succeeds in getting a parliamentary vote of confidence then parliament will not be dissolved.

It would be a very high risk strategy for the current government to engineer a loss of a vonc.

I think you are missinformed,have you read the 2011 act? do you know how parliament works?

Yes and it doesn’t say what you think it does.

oooooh mind reader eh

I do not have to be. Do you believe that parliament after the government’s loss of a vonc are prevented from trying to form a government which would get the support of the house?

f curse they arent prevented from trying but our parliament operates with age-old customs it won't happen if Boris doesn't want it to, it must be him that tells her Maj to invite somebody else to form a government. I remember the coalition couldn't do anything because Gordon brown sat on his hands.

Would you mind pointing that out in the FPA please? Surely Brown was before that in any case.

What happens if the speaker gets involved?

[Mr Penfold]

Nickgnome said:

Would you mind pointing that out in the FPA please? Surely Brown was before that in any case.

The age-old customs have not changed, how a prime minister leaves the office and a new one enters is still the same, nothing stops Boris from sitting on his hands for 14 days. The last time we had such a constitutional problem was in the 1830's and the Monarch decided to force a general election by effectively sacking all MP's, her Maj still has this power and I believe if petitioned by other parliamentarians against the wishes of the sitting PM she would use that if necessary.

Nickgnome said:

What happens if the speaker gets involved?

That would breach custom, and as such, I have no idea.

[Nickgnome]

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Would you mind pointing that out in the FPA please? Surely Brown was before that in any case.

The age-old customs have not changed, how a prime minister leaves the office and a new one enters is still the same, nothing stops Boris from sitting on his hands for 14 days. The last time we had such a constitutional problem was in the 1830's and the Monarch decided to force a general election by effectively sacking all MP's, her Maj still has this power and I believe if petitioned by other parliamentarians against the wishes of the sitting PM she would use that if necessary.

Nickgnome said:

What happens if the speaker gets involved?

That would breach custom, and as such, I have no idea.

Age old custom has been superseded by the Fixed Parliament Act and I can find nothing in there to substantiate what you have stated. As you were the one who raised that act as your evidence why are you now ignoring it.

In terms of convention, it does evolve and is not immutable if the situation so dictates. This situation has no precedent.

I think all we can say is nothing is certain.

[Mr Penfold]

Nickgnome said:

Mr Penfold said:

Nickgnome said:

Would you mind pointing that out in the FPA please? Surely Brown was before that in any case.

The age-old customs have not changed, how a prime minister leaves the office and a new one enters is still the same, nothing stops Boris from sitting on his hands for 14 days. The last time we had such a constitutional problem was in the 1830's and the Monarch decided to force a general election by effectively sacking all MP's, her Maj still has this power and I believe if petitioned by other parliamentarians against the wishes of the sitting PM she would use that if necessary.

Nickgnome said:

What happens if the speaker gets involved?

That would breach custom, and as such, I have no idea.

Age old custom has been superseded by the Fixed Parliament Act and I can find nothing in there to substantiate what you have stated. As you were the one who raised that act as your evidence why are you now ignoring it.

In terms of convention, it does evolve and is not immutable if the situation so dictates. This situation has no precedent.

I think all we can say is nothing is certain.

Customs were not replaced by the act. The act says after a VoNC a new government can be formed, but the actual custom of going to the monarch e.t.c to dissolve the old and bring in the new still remains, so Boris could effectively sit on his hands and after 14 days go to her Maj to dissolve parliament, nothing in that act says he must resign and he can't be sacked by anybody other than the monarch.

How they would counter this is anybody's guess but at some point, they would have to petition the queen

[psi310398]

Nickgnome said:

I’m a bit old fashioned and still like the idea of people studying for a degree in the subject they like rather than automatically linking it to the world of work.

I expect some here thinks that’s a complete anathema.

I’d agree.

There is value in education as an end in itself.

A decent non-vocational degree should teach one to think, analyse arguments, reconcile differences of view and recognise other perspectives.

Such a degree might also help develop “muscles” not otherwise deployed - as part of my degree I studied formal logic, which was of no earthly direct application to me at work until I had to get to grips with HTML fifteen years later!

Such development is applicable to, and enhances, almost any job. Some of the best staff I’ve had have been classicists, theologians and geographers!

[Vaud]

psi310398 said:

Nickgnome said:

I’m a bit old fashioned and still like the idea of people studying for a degree in the subject they like rather than automatically linking it to the world of work.

I expect some here thinks that’s a complete anathema.

I’d agree.

There is value in education as an end in itself.

A decent non-vocational degree should teach one to think, analyse arguments, reconcile differences of view and recognise other perspectives.

Such a degree might also help develop “muscles” not otherwise deployed - as part of my degree I studied formal logic, which was of no earthly direct application to me at work until I had to get to grips with HTML fifteen years later!

Such development is applicable to, and enhances, almost any job. Some of the best staff I’ve had have been classicists, theologians and geographers!

The likes of Accenture hire (and pay well) for talent and brains - history, philosophy, etc. Outside of deep domain capabilities where you need certain foundational knowledge they want inquisitive, articulate brains.