Robert Peston's: Tory Party Conference 2017

[mrtickle]

deleted duplicate post.
 

Edited October 6, 2017 by mrtickle
can't delete post.

[mrtickle]

46 minutes ago, rantnrave said:

I don't. It would still need a significant number of Tory votes to pass. Why would turkeys vote for Christmas?

I wrote a reply which was lost. Grrr.

 

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011#Provisions

Quote

Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:^[2]

• If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first. This provision recognises that in a hung parliament it might be possible for a new government to be formed, commanding a majority.

• If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

It's VERY difficult to do it the first way, which doesn't need a 2/3rd majority. Lots of things have to happen in the right order and not happen. It was designed that way.

Which is why this year, they did it the second way.

I do not believe there will be an early general election, again. 

Vested interest: I WANT fixed-term parliaments to stay forever, and I WANT this system of fixed-term parliaments to succeed.

 

Also:

Quote

According to Colin Talbot, the Act makes minority governments much more stable than in the past: events that previously might have forced a government out of power—such as loss of supply, defeat of a Queen's Speech or other important legislation, or a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister rather than the government as a whole—cannot formally do so.^[3]

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by mrtickle

[The Knimbies who say No]

Too funny it's Shapps doing the maneouvering, lest we forget his scammy software past.

 

Whatever the 1922 committee internal party leadership system says about minimum numbers of MPs required to hold a leadership challenge is somewhat beside the point given May's majority is well below that number. If 30 are seriously considering supporting a challenge, that ought to be enough to sink her administration. We'll see...

 

[spyguy]

36 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

In a socialist society, perhaps.

In a capitalist economy, one makes ones own opportunity.

The UK has got a funny deadend/culdesac.

Its less labour v. capital. Or left v. right.

Its now public sector spend v. private sector income. Or BigUKGOV. v littleUKGOV.

UKGIV has to decide whether to tax and print more, with the risk all that entails.

This has bee ncaused by the loon Brown and then BoE QE.

There's no price signal anymore. We wont know we know we are ill til we hear the soil by shovelled onto the coffin.

 

[sPinwheel]

2 hours ago, Simhadri said:

And Mr Bean as foreign secretary.

No, Corinne Stockheath actually.

[The Knimbies who say No]

2 minutes ago, sPinwheel said:

No, Corinne Stockheath actually.

It's almost as if he/he and she (Shapps, Green & Stockheath) are untrustworthy. I still can't quite believe how his political career was not ended by those revelations.

[Bruce Banner]

40 minutes ago, spyguy said:

The UK has got a funny deadend/culdesac.

Its less labour v. capital. Or left v. right.

Its now public sector spend v. private sector income. Or BigUKGOV. v littleUKGOV.

UKGIV has to decide whether to tax and print more, with the risk all that entails.

This has bee ncaused by the loon Brown and then BoE QE.

There's no price signal anymore. We wont know we know we are ill til we hear the soil by shovelled onto the coffin.

 

BigUKGOV. v littleUKGOV. sums it up nicely.

[spyguy]

12 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

BigUKGOV. v littleUKGOV. sums it up nicely.

For example, look a the boat thing going on today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41511790

Now, defense is a 'right' thing - or Daddy topic as merkins say.

'Oh no this is a disaster!'

Then you think - What do we need the marines for - mainly fighting, with a bit of disaster relief.

OK, who are we likely to fight - China or Russia.

Closest place we'll fight them - Ukraine Id guess.

Would these boats be of any use? Nope - theyd have been missiled to the bottom of the ocean before they got within 100miles of the warzone.

What about disaster relief? Most places are so far away they are useless for that.

Again the same logic appleis to tanks/heavy artillery - the UK's tank divisions need placing close to where we expect to fight - unless Russia/Chine give us a 2 week notice, so we can but the Chunnel tickets.

 

[Bruce Banner]

Defence, another area in which The Swiss seem to have got it right.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Bruce Banner

[Wayward]

15 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

There's plenty of empty land. Most of it isn't close to a tube station, or a short drive from work, or next to a good school.  

Valuable locations are always in short supply. 

 

Okay so you build new towns...when did we lose all ambition and vision?  Just think what our leaders faced up to and achieved in the past and look at the current crop and compare - a miserable cohort.

[Shrink Proof]

3 hours ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

It's almost as if he/he and she (Shapps, Green & Stockheath) are untrustworthy. I still can't quite believe how his political career was not ended by those revelations.

Ditto Liam Fox.

[The Knimbies who say No]

1 hour ago, Shrink Proof said:

Ditto Liam Fox.

Agreed. Perhaps we are partly seeing the results of parties defending indefensible behaviour over many years- a cohort of senior MPs who feel (with some justification) politically indestructible. Pisspoor characters/judgement and unsavoury types to a man or woman, just gets to the point there are too many to deal with.

[Shrink Proof]

Apparently ISIS has just claimed responsibility for May's speech.

[winkie]

 

[frederico]

6 hours ago, spyguy said:

For example, look a the boat thing going on today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41511790

Now, defense is a 'right' thing - or Daddy topic as merkins say.

'Oh no this is a disaster!'

Then you think - What do we need the marines for - mainly fighting, with a bit of disaster relief.

OK, who are we likely to fight - China or Russia.

Closest place we'll fight them - Ukraine Id guess.

Would these boats be of any use? Nope - theyd have been missiled to the bottom of the ocean before they got within 100miles of the warzone.

What about disaster relief? Most places are so far away they are useless for that.

Again the same logic appleis to tanks/heavy artillery - the UK's tank divisions need placing close to where we expect to fight - unless Russia/Chine give us a 2 week notice, so we can but the Chunnel tickets.

 

 Exactly its all just a charade , aimed at both the UK and abroad although anyone that matters isn't fooled.

The establishment and like to maintain this image of Britain's place in the world.

The forces are brainwashed or riding the gravy train.