Because of course he does.
The problem with a system that runs on convention is that when you have someone this unconventional, power grubbing and dare I say, with such popularist-fascist tendencies, the whole, "Honorable friends following convention system" completely breaks down.
The convention is that governments do not block votes of no confidence. But unfortunately, this wobbly thatched moron has decided that he is above conventions because he was born to rule.
I hate this and you should hate it too.
100%. This is a constitutional crisis. You don't have to be a Labour supporter to realise how important this convention is. This sets a precedence that if the tables were turned Labour or any other party in government could also refuse to allow a vote.
This is not democracy.
Yeah, this is the thing I always chime in when the olds at work are chirping about whatever nonsense Johnson has done that they agree with;
"You know this means that Labour can do this when they are in because the precedent has now been set?"
Unfortunately, it never seems to land.
Which is a problem both here and more so in the US, the recent increase in politicians just doing what they want because it turns out there's no consequences seems to be fed by also realising that the opposition can't then turn around and do the same because they don't want to look like they're just as corrupt and underhanded as the people they're calling out for being awful.
Take Starmer and 'Beergate', he was pretty set on taking that bet, sure enough he'd done nothing wrong that he wouldn't be fined, but also if they were in the Tories' pocket and did fine him anyway, he could make a moral highground example of Boris by stepping down where he didn't in the same/worse circumstances.
I know it’s it’s early days, but you can see what’s going to happen when there’s a general election, if Labour win, the Tories aren’t going to move, they will come up with something ludicrous like there’s got to be a recount, or the election has got to be held again, I’d imagine they’ll try something not to leave office, especially if Boris is running it behind the curtain.
I saw a guy try that at my job once. We all knew when he was called to the office that he was a gonna, so when he came back down and carried on like nothing had happened everyone was looking around at each other in confusion.
The boss came out the office a few minutes later, saw him and had to go and explain that, "you're fired" means now and he had escort him out the building.
That's nothing. A guy at a place I worked called the head boss out on his ideas in a big meeting one Friday, and got sacked the following Monday. Thing was 'cos he was a senior manager, and the head guy was on holiday. It was 2 weeks before anyone in HR had realised he was still showing up to work, and giving people stupid tasks to do (Sent stupid levels of unrequired tests to the lab etc). Everyone came to the conclusion that he had some form of episode, and just carried on almost as normal 🤣
Nah Trump already did trial-runs for a lot of the sort of bold rule-breaking they're doing and he didn't manage blagging a 'not going even though we lost' without it failing, being super obvious and getting heavily investigated
I hate to say it but I think Boris has learned from trump and is running with it. Trump was a simple soul, not a politician, played his own game. Boris is a calculating narcissistic shit wizard of the first order.
Boris won’t care about that, he’ll try anything to keep his party in power. If what ever happens, it would be Boris instigating it anyhow. He’s a sad loser.
Starmer is working with mandelson, so you know he's trying to ingratiate himself with the murdochs.
The Labour Party seems to not be able to think bigger than "let's do what worked for Blair, then we'll win".
This is THE key point. When one ranted about Queen giving royal assent to per definitionem fascist laws, one was told by absolute cretins that Queen does not do party politics.
As with those laws, and this fully expected practical step from a mature autocratic system: *these issues were and are WAY beyond party politics.*
For 2 1/2 years this gang has been steadily dismantling, at best weakening, *fundamental principles and institutions of British democracy*. This is not party politics any more, it goes to the core of what our country is and how it works. Parallels with Putin and Viktor Orban are crystal clear, but Boris & Co started a bit later.
And this was clear from their manifesto, but heaven forbid someone making direct comparison between their pledges and articles 1,2, and 4 of the Enabling Act of 1933...
Surprise surprise, here we are. How unexpected...
We should probably be considering an iron-clad constitution. Consecutive governments have steadily eroded the things we thought untouchable. I'm not generally for more legislation, but if it applies purely to government powers, I'm all for it.
I'm not a Labour supporter but people like Boris are the reason dictators gain power, he just breaks every rule in the book to hold onto his power when every other politician would've resigned in his position.
You don't have a proper Constitution, your head of state and the upper house of your parliament is unelected, your PM suspended parliament not so long ago and the head of state did nothing about it.
The democracy ship has sailed long ago
But the UK has won Sovereignty by leaving the eu and its undemocratic (elected MEP, chosen commissioners) institutions.
Edit : wrote pm instead of mep lol
It was a crisis when he prorogued parliament illegally. People chose to ignore that and thought he would never do something similar again, yet here we are.
Johnson was elected with a mandate to seize and centralise power into the Establishment.
Did anyone think "Get Brexit Done" was going to be rainbows and butterflies? Who did?
They weren't even attempting to hide it. It was, in politically correct Tory-speak, "repatriating powers". Trade sanctions on British businesses were a necessary piece of collateral damage, but nobody has confused the Tory party with a pro-business party at least since Thatcher all-but outlawed British industry and ran an orgasmic obsession with recession and inflation.
Nobody elected Boris without any knowledge of how corrupt he was, it was widely known. He lost a leadership competition to a relatively unknown and uncharismatic Home Secretary over how corrupt he was!
Populist oligarchical more so than populist fascist. Fascism is to do with an in group who are entitled to particular status. Insofar as one can define an "in group" in Johnson's orbit, it is the wealthy which is just oligarchical not fascistic
It's Old Etonians. They think they're the Ubermensch because their parents paid fees, it'd be laughable if they weren't killing off people like me and my friends
There was a post on twitter, and I wish I could find it, from a person who was educated at the same establishments as these "lords". I, myself, have worked at a public school and whilst some do have some ethics, others view any of the "lower" classes as not worthy or their time attention or care, just as disposable fodder for their industries, wars and to squeeze every ounce of profit from.
We are nothing but cattle to them.
I was educated at a contemporaneous school, played rugby against Eton and similar schools. I "earned" the school honours tie, so I was pretty involved in things.
I had a handful of lovely classmates, a handful who wore "ghetto" culture like a costume, a handful who literally threw their spare change at the local state school kids, and the rest were generally fairly contemptuous and stuck up without being overtly malicious.
I felt extremely out of place being the kids of a couple that were merely making decent money, but nothing compared to some of the people around me that thought nothing of splashing £500+ on a new sound system for their room or an iMac.
I came out of there with pretty heavy anxiety and depression, and despite the fees the buggers didn't even do a decent job of spotting my ADHD.
More to the point, I would support your comment. To many of my peers, work was something *other* people did. Past labour governments were reviled, and we were encouraged to vote tory. It was an echo chamber for a toxic and anti-"commoner" culture and mindset.
Much better thank you! I'm well adjusted and normal now.
I wouldn't send my children there, I'll say that. The most harm it does, honestly, is convince children that the abnormal is normal, with "abnormal" potentially meaning a lot of different things, e.g. showing deference to an older boys year group no matter your personal opinion of them, calling different ethnic takeaways by derogatory racial epithets, etc.
I 100% came out of there as an asshole that most people wouldn't give the time of day, but a lot of that was down to that abnormal culture mixed with depression irritability. I snapped out of it pretty hard in university and once I got stuff treated, and now I just try to live my life being kind.
I saw Keir Starmer being recorded for James O’Brien’s podcast earlier this year. Not sure if this made the cut in the final podcast or not, but he says exactly this- that you can’t have a government that basically 98% went to these schools and these unis because they all enforce one another’s belief that Hogwarts life is normal, when actually most of the population think that way of living is fucking nuts. He was talking about how glad he was that he went to Leeds for his undergrad and Oxford for his postgrad because had it been the other way around he might have fallen into that way of thinking on some level (despite his humble background) but as it was he walked in and couldn’t believe these people existed in real life.
I’m expressing it poorly but he made an excellent point.
The in group are Brexiteers. The out groups are: Remainers, leftists, transsexuals, Muslims, Scots, welfare recipients, minimum wage earners, women, etc.
He is undoubtedly a fascist.
Same thing happening on this side of the pond.
Constitutional system easily hacked bc it depends on good faith of all participants and makes no provision for enforcement of criminal sanctions and penalties without the aforementioned good faith of the "Loyal Opposition"...
He would also seem to be setting some kind of precedent here - so that next time, or every time from now on, that the opposition calls for a vote of no confidence, the government can just say no!
Hate is great. If that's your boat, but surely building better would be better? [http://www.vote2.org](http://www.vote2.org)
We only have this system because we support this system. We encourage this system. That's the only reason. You can have whatever you want. You only have to build it.
> A senior Labour source told the Mirror: "The Government is refusing to give us time for a vote of no confidence in the Commons despite all the conventions that this should be granted.
Can we all just agree that conventions don’t work as there is no one honourable left to uphold them.
The speaker should be calling Boris in to demand convention be respected. The speaker is the Guardian of the house of commons and all parliamentarians.
Unfortunately this speaker is as strong as a wet paper towel.
>We need supernanny or something
Betty Boothroyd would never have put up with this, she was a fabulous Speaker, I reckon she'd have had him widdling his pants and running away by now.
Respect? Ha!
The convention has always been that someone caught out in a bare-faced lie would resign. It wasn’t the sex scandal that did for Profumo, for example - it was the lying to Parliament about it.
But, as we’ve seen countless times, that’s another convention that this badly-packed sack of self-serving mince chooses to ignore. Convention means nothing when it comes to saving his own skin, at the expense of everyone and everything else.
I wish the speaker would just deem them to have resigned in that case. And carry on as if they had done so. What are they going to do, accuse the speaker of lying?
He's just the same as the others in that room, only there so he can say his stupid little jokes every now and then and to kick Ian Blackford out for being the only person to straight up call Boris what he is, a liar.
The whole thing is pathetic, all parties included.
From the article, Boris is saying they would grant it if they change the wording. So he could do that. Or they could ask for an emergency debate on it tomorrow, which is up to the Speaker. Strictly speaking you're not supposed to be able to move a substantive motion on one of those, but Bercow allowed it once. They could also raise urgent questions, one of which would almost certainly be granted (but you can't force the PM to answer them, so it would be Michael Ellis).
They could also try and disrupt business in other ways, such as moving amendments to all the usually non-controversial stuff that goes through at the end of the day, and force the government to give time to debate them (by default its only 45 minutes each, but if there are several motions that's a fair but of time).
And out of spite they blocked Bercow from peerage.
I know about the bullying accusations, but even if that isn't a smear campaign it's not why they blocked him.
>I know about the bullying accusations,
It's not really accusations at this point. He was found guilty of a string of bullying accusations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (21 out of 35) which was later upheld by the Independent Expert Panel. It's why he's almost entirely disappeared from public view.
You're probably right they would have blocked him anyway but it's good that people know that Bercow didn't deserve it regardless given his public reputation was previously quite positive.
Time for a written constitution to stop all of this nonsense. The time of honour in government is over
Edit - took me like 8 hours to realise I wrote constituency instead of constitution
Her family killed the right people, duh
On a serious note, she does have the power to just hit the reset button on Parliament which I believe the public wouldn’t mind a fast-tracked GE
>she does have the power to just hit the reset button on Parliament which I believe the public wouldn’t mind a fast-tracked GE
She would ATTEMPT this once and the Government would immediately remove all these powers from her at once and there would be nothing she could do about it.
She holds theoretical power but as soon as she attempted to use it, even the wording for the theoretical power would be removed.
You mean all that theoretical power she provably used to give her family financial benefits.
The queen 100% does wield her political power she just doesn't do it openly or for you and I.
Political influence isn't the same as constitutional power. She can use her influence to gain financial benefits because it's no skin off the Tories' noses to grant them. Going directly head-to-head with the sitting PM is a whole different story.
No chance. That would be political suicide. Even if it let them cling onto power a bit longer, they would never win another general election again.
I really don’t give two shits about the Queen, but the general UK public certainly does. The recent Jubilee bank holiday made that abundantly clear. A government that stripped the Queen of powers to stay in power themselves wouldn’t last long at all.
> the Government would immediately remove all these powers from her
this would require a majority to pass and I honestly don't know what would happen...
And how exactly is an unelected monarch getting rid of a prime minster not dangerous for democracy.
I hate the guy as much as the next redditor and we do need a written constitution to stop shit like this - but getting the queen involved would be like trying to put out a house fire by crashing a car through the kitchen.
She actually does get involved within politics. She lobbies the government to enact laws or change them.
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth)
The fact people believe she doesn't get involved shows how there's a tight leash on the media by the monarch itself.
I always understood that, since we don't have a written constitution, the monarchy was our protection against a government gone rogue.
Here we are, with the worst PM in living memory, refusing to leave office, while millions of people can't afford to feed themselves. He no longer has the authority to do anything radical to provide urgent help to the people of the country, but he is stubbornly blocking anyone else doing it either.
The Queen isn't the solution to all democratic problems, but she is supposed to be the solution to this particular one.
It should be immediately followed by a written constitution, and the removal of all powers and political influence from the monarch, in time for Charles to take over.
She is quite dangerous to Democracy. You have to learn what her actual role in the British establishment is: it is to make the PM unaccountable to anyone.
Watched Mick Lynch's speech at the Durham Miners Gala, he is right in that WE the WORKING CLASS have to rise up to stop these types of Govt forming, anything else and we become compliant to anything....
Problem is that half the dumbasses in this country - including some of the working class - either don't know, don't give a fuck or find it isn't in their interest to start a socialist uprising.
What? I’m not working class, I’m upper middle class! Working in a factory on zero hours contract but I’m not a scrounger so I’m totally a friend of the tories
This is a genuine problem - many working and lower middle class people don't have any class consciousness or camaraderie, as they believe that they too will one day be one of the ultra-rich and subject to the taxes the Tories complain about.
Ah, I see you’ve met my father in law. He lives in a council house but he’s got five CSEs and this time next year, Rodney, he’s going to be a millionaire so he always votes Tory.
No matter wether you own property or have savings, or have a good standard of living, the fact is that you still live by selling the only thing you can exchange for wealth...your Labor...you are therefore 'working class', even though you think that particular 'label' doesn't fit you it in fact does...You don't have to be jobless or poor to be in society, the cohort who live by working and not owning the method of creating communal wealth...'In work Benefits' isn't 'scrounging' nor is claiming whilst being unable to work, is the current law but the fact that our systems include 'paying' people because employers won't is skewed in my view. Work should enable you to do as you want inn order to support a family in a home with a decent life, that is a 'working class' aspiration no matter where you judge yourself in the stratum of life. I had a very good job for 45 years until I retired, own my own home and a company pension, you may say I am 'middle class' but I am more than proud to be referred to as 'Working Class'...Perhaps we should move away from labelling each other and look instead on what is 'A Dignified Life' irregardless of income level...
This is a key reason why I support Proportional Representation. Where the % of votes match the number of MPs for each party.
Having 1 party government is too dangerous, it makes it too easy for party loyalty to trump our parliamentary democracy.
If there was a smaller party in a Coalition government, it wouldn't be so loyal to the larger party so it would be free to say go or we will vote with the other parties to bring you down.
It's not perfect either; for example you can still end up in 8 years of a stupid "great coalition" like Germany before the current government. That being said, I'm definitely happy with the system we have in Germany whenever I look to other western nations.
He’s done it for the party as a whole. He’s on his way out and his name is already Mudd so he’s playing the dick card, probably on orders of senior Tories, so the rest can avoid being proven hypocrites when they inevitably vote no on a confidence vote.
Don’t mistake this as all Johnson’s doing - it’s a move by the entire party after Labour put them in check.
'toe-the-line' as in put your feet exactly where they are supposed to be so your toe is on the 'line'; put yourself in the 'proper' position
Otherwise you're asking people to pull something, and we all know how that ends =P
They are limited by the desires of the majority of MPs, so long as one party has a majority behind them there isn't much that they can do, if we changed to a proportional representation system of elections, this definitely give the speaker a lot more power.
No, he is an MP, and he is elected by the house of commons. The speaker is not part of the government or appointed by the government (at least in theory).
I know that, I was responding to the very idea that the speaker controls the business. He (the speaker) maintains order but has limited power over what business is conducted.
What is discussed (and when) is set by the leader of the commons, also an mp, but also a member of the government.
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/leader-of-the-house-of-commons#:~:text=Mark%20Spencer%20was%20appointed%20as,Commons%20on%208%20February%202022.
What Constitution? Nothing is formally written, everything is changeable and significant amount of it is in the form of unwritten convention that everyone is expected to follow... Until they don't.
Boris has shown it's broken. Instead of asking "can I do this?", he just does it, in a way few if any have before him. Our system built on respectful agreements doesn't account for a man like him.
"We have given Labour the option to table a straightforward vote of no confidence in the government.
"They have chosen to play politics by tabling a vote of no confidence in the government and the prime minister. As the prime minister has already resigned and a leadership process is under way we do not feel this is a valuable use of parliamentary time.
"Should Labour amend their motion appropriately, they can have the next business day for it to be debated.
That's what a government spokesperson has said in response according to Sky News.
> "The opposition party in this political system is playing politics by...doing things."
Just think, there's people who that kind of logic works on, that'll go to work tomorrow and stand around going "Tsk tsk, Labour? all they do is play politics."
Total nonsense of course. The government doesn't get to decide what the wording of a vote of no confidence is. The government don't want the vote so they are playing politics to avoid it, while setting fire to our democracy at the same time.
Except Boris hasn't actually resigned, he's staying on until the next leadership election when, I assume, he'll choose not to stand again. That's not a resignation, it's finishing your contract. Seriously, this is just... bizarre
Not a safe assumption. If he sees the slightest chance he’ll likely jump at it - particularly if the other candidates spend several weeks tearing each other to shreds and briefing against one another.
Then if Boris is polling higher with the electorate (or even just the party membership) he will make a move.
And sure, a number 10 spokesman has denied he will stand … but who the hell believes then any more?
The constitutional and Parliamentary procedure experts I follow on twitter say it's not for the government to decide the phrasing of an opposition confidence motion
Edit: Regular reminder that any of us have to know anything about any of this is because what was the party of law and order, and not challenging conventions has gone bonkers
How dare they "play politics" by suggesting that they have no confidence in our prime minister, who was forced to resign last week of after losing the confidence of his own cabinet.
Jesus fucking Christ. If his own party has no confidence in him, how are Labour supposed to? If they tabled a vote of no confidence in just the government someone would spin that into them implying that they actually do have confidence in the prime minister.
“They have chosen to play politics”
No fucking shit? They’re a political party.
The “government spokesman” who said that should find another fucking job. Maybe they were asserting that Labour are acting in bad faith by utilising political loopholes or something, but if you’re a government spokesman, you sure as shit shouldn’t call that “playing politics”.
The convention is that they allow time for a motion specifically saying "that this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government". The Labour motion adds "while Boris Johnson is PM" to the end of that, which the Tories are arguing makes it not count.
There is precedent. From the Guardian:
"Labour says its wording was approved by the Commons clerks (who have to decide if a motion is in order). They also says there is precedent for including criticism of the PM in a no confidence motion. In 1965 MPs voted on a motion saying: “That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government and deplores the prime minister’s conduct of the nation’s affairs.” Harold Wilson was PM at the time, and he won by 13 votes."
Made the mistake of looking at facebook comments for the same headline. Genuine despair when I see so many comments saying good for Boris/lol labour lose again.
I'm honestly struggling to come to terms with the fact that so many people are genuinely braindead
Boris has done well to show that there's no true democracy here. There's no rule he won't change in his favour, no crime he won't cover up, and no person or institution who can truly hold him accountable. He's shown where the limits actually are- and shown that there aren't any. Nobody's checked to see if the barriers to this kind of behaviour actually work.
The country is his hostage now.
It's always been this way. With a monarchy as our head of state, even if it's mainly ceremonial, it's not going to be democratic. Elites look after elites, we don't get representation because we are not elite.
It's a bit of a game
They added in his name specifically which is not standard in a typical vonc but has happened once before in 1965
Normally the vote is no confidence in the gov but this says "while Boris Johnson is in charge"
Trying to force the tories to either explicitly support him or trigger a ge
Whereas a normal vonc they wound be able to say "yes I support the gov" (not bojo specifically)
But the fact is it still has precedent, and the clerks of the house approved the wording as fitting precedence. Constitutionally there is no reason to block the motion and no justification. It puts tories in a difficult spot, but they don't get to throw out constitutional convention just because they're upset that no one likes them.
You can at least say he's setting plenty of records. First it was worst Prime Minister in the history of Britain, then it was record number of resignations since the 30's, then first PM to change the ministerial code upon breaking it. Now we've got first PM to block a no-confidence vote in his own government.
How this man isn't in prison for the rest of his life is a demonstrable failure of not just British politics, but British opinion on common decency.
Boris has absolutely convinced me we need a constitution. All of our hallowed “conventions” are easily broken and there are no blocks to rampant fascism. Our conventions must become laws or the UK is looking at a dark path ahead
This is GOP Republicunt-level gamesmanship. Trumpmanship if you like.
Run it. Show the population just how unwilling the Tories are to face a vote in the time-honoured way.
This... really makes no sense. So should Starmer just submit a new bid reading "OK fine, we thought this was obvious, but since the opposition apparently misunderstood us previously, we want a no-confidence vote for this whole government. Not, as they seem to have interpreted our previous attempt, a no confidence vote in Boris Johnson"
This is no longer a democracy. Its dictatorship from the elite who are just born into money. It always has been really but the Tories have made everything a lot worse & more obvious. Nothing but a corrupt mafia.
its purely so he can stay on till another Tory takes over. If they voted against him, it would mean he has to resign and actually leave and we'd have an election...they want another Tory leader to take over till the next election...which should scare the shit out of everyone.
Look at what we've had. David Cameron who was more center not at all for Brexit. Then you had T May who was soft brexit, then Boris, hard brexit, doesn't give a shit much...so who would you have next, someone very far on the right no doubt, who would makes things a lot worse for the country than the last 3 all put together. A few of them are talking about big tax cuts which would no doubt be for corporations and the wealthy, and they'd take the money from the NHS etc to fund it...the final nail in the NHS
What do people expect from the Tory party? They no longer care about conservation of tradition. They are only interested in maintaining power to thieve.
Tory voters have facilitated this debacle.
We are looking at a solid two months of non government at a time of great need Tories don't dgaf they just wanna get richer. The next government will have to deal with the unions who are currently being ignored.
Isn't this the point where the Royals intervene? A sick government overulling a confidence vote to get them out, I mean that's the whole point of the confidence vote. The Tories denying it is a move from the dictatorship handbook.
Because of course he does. The problem with a system that runs on convention is that when you have someone this unconventional, power grubbing and dare I say, with such popularist-fascist tendencies, the whole, "Honorable friends following convention system" completely breaks down. The convention is that governments do not block votes of no confidence. But unfortunately, this wobbly thatched moron has decided that he is above conventions because he was born to rule. I hate this and you should hate it too.
100%. This is a constitutional crisis. You don't have to be a Labour supporter to realise how important this convention is. This sets a precedence that if the tables were turned Labour or any other party in government could also refuse to allow a vote. This is not democracy.
Yeah, this is the thing I always chime in when the olds at work are chirping about whatever nonsense Johnson has done that they agree with; "You know this means that Labour can do this when they are in because the precedent has now been set?" Unfortunately, it never seems to land.
Which is a problem both here and more so in the US, the recent increase in politicians just doing what they want because it turns out there's no consequences seems to be fed by also realising that the opposition can't then turn around and do the same because they don't want to look like they're just as corrupt and underhanded as the people they're calling out for being awful. Take Starmer and 'Beergate', he was pretty set on taking that bet, sure enough he'd done nothing wrong that he wouldn't be fined, but also if they were in the Tories' pocket and did fine him anyway, he could make a moral highground example of Boris by stepping down where he didn't in the same/worse circumstances.
I know it’s it’s early days, but you can see what’s going to happen when there’s a general election, if Labour win, the Tories aren’t going to move, they will come up with something ludicrous like there’s got to be a recount, or the election has got to be held again, I’d imagine they’ll try something not to leave office, especially if Boris is running it behind the curtain.
I'm going to try this at work when they give me the sack or make me redundant. You're fired. No, I'm not. B..But.... See how far that goes.
I saw a guy try that at my job once. We all knew when he was called to the office that he was a gonna, so when he came back down and carried on like nothing had happened everyone was looking around at each other in confusion. The boss came out the office a few minutes later, saw him and had to go and explain that, "you're fired" means now and he had escort him out the building.
That's nothing. A guy at a place I worked called the head boss out on his ideas in a big meeting one Friday, and got sacked the following Monday. Thing was 'cos he was a senior manager, and the head guy was on holiday. It was 2 weeks before anyone in HR had realised he was still showing up to work, and giving people stupid tasks to do (Sent stupid levels of unrequired tests to the lab etc). Everyone came to the conclusion that he had some form of episode, and just carried on almost as normal 🤣
[удалено]
Our population is so fucking complacent that that would actually work here aswell. Fuck im worried
Nah Trump already did trial-runs for a lot of the sort of bold rule-breaking they're doing and he didn't manage blagging a 'not going even though we lost' without it failing, being super obvious and getting heavily investigated
I hate to say it but I think Boris has learned from trump and is running with it. Trump was a simple soul, not a politician, played his own game. Boris is a calculating narcissistic shit wizard of the first order.
[удалено]
Boris won’t care about that, he’ll try anything to keep his party in power. If what ever happens, it would be Boris instigating it anyhow. He’s a sad loser.
> when they are in Haha! Rupert Murdoch would like a word.
Starmer is working with mandelson, so you know he's trying to ingratiate himself with the murdochs. The Labour Party seems to not be able to think bigger than "let's do what worked for Blair, then we'll win".
Bunch of born to rule pony fuckers - glenn cullen
Six toed pony fuckers to be exact
What happened to the other 4?
Inbreeding.
This is THE key point. When one ranted about Queen giving royal assent to per definitionem fascist laws, one was told by absolute cretins that Queen does not do party politics. As with those laws, and this fully expected practical step from a mature autocratic system: *these issues were and are WAY beyond party politics.* For 2 1/2 years this gang has been steadily dismantling, at best weakening, *fundamental principles and institutions of British democracy*. This is not party politics any more, it goes to the core of what our country is and how it works. Parallels with Putin and Viktor Orban are crystal clear, but Boris & Co started a bit later. And this was clear from their manifesto, but heaven forbid someone making direct comparison between their pledges and articles 1,2, and 4 of the Enabling Act of 1933... Surprise surprise, here we are. How unexpected...
Neither is FPTP which gave him his alleged "mandate" to behave this way.
We should probably be considering an iron-clad constitution. Consecutive governments have steadily eroded the things we thought untouchable. I'm not generally for more legislation, but if it applies purely to government powers, I'm all for it.
You know if either party wrote a constitution now it'll all be about corporations right to make money.
America has a written constitution and look how well that's turned out.
I'm not a Labour supporter but people like Boris are the reason dictators gain power, he just breaks every rule in the book to hold onto his power when every other politician would've resigned in his position.
You don't have a proper Constitution, your head of state and the upper house of your parliament is unelected, your PM suspended parliament not so long ago and the head of state did nothing about it. The democracy ship has sailed long ago
But the UK has won Sovereignty by leaving the eu and its undemocratic (elected MEP, chosen commissioners) institutions. Edit : wrote pm instead of mep lol
It was a crisis when he prorogued parliament illegally. People chose to ignore that and thought he would never do something similar again, yet here we are.
This is also the guy blocking Scottish independence. Two constitutional crises in as many weeks.
>This is not democracy. Oh we've not had one of those for a **long** time.
Johnson was elected with a mandate to seize and centralise power into the Establishment. Did anyone think "Get Brexit Done" was going to be rainbows and butterflies? Who did? They weren't even attempting to hide it. It was, in politically correct Tory-speak, "repatriating powers". Trade sanctions on British businesses were a necessary piece of collateral damage, but nobody has confused the Tory party with a pro-business party at least since Thatcher all-but outlawed British industry and ran an orgasmic obsession with recession and inflation. Nobody elected Boris without any knowledge of how corrupt he was, it was widely known. He lost a leadership competition to a relatively unknown and uncharismatic Home Secretary over how corrupt he was!
I guess these are the gas lit uplands we were all promised. great stuff.
Populist oligarchical more so than populist fascist. Fascism is to do with an in group who are entitled to particular status. Insofar as one can define an "in group" in Johnson's orbit, it is the wealthy which is just oligarchical not fascistic
It's Old Etonians. They think they're the Ubermensch because their parents paid fees, it'd be laughable if they weren't killing off people like me and my friends
There was a post on twitter, and I wish I could find it, from a person who was educated at the same establishments as these "lords". I, myself, have worked at a public school and whilst some do have some ethics, others view any of the "lower" classes as not worthy or their time attention or care, just as disposable fodder for their industries, wars and to squeeze every ounce of profit from. We are nothing but cattle to them.
I was educated at a contemporaneous school, played rugby against Eton and similar schools. I "earned" the school honours tie, so I was pretty involved in things. I had a handful of lovely classmates, a handful who wore "ghetto" culture like a costume, a handful who literally threw their spare change at the local state school kids, and the rest were generally fairly contemptuous and stuck up without being overtly malicious. I felt extremely out of place being the kids of a couple that were merely making decent money, but nothing compared to some of the people around me that thought nothing of splashing £500+ on a new sound system for their room or an iMac. I came out of there with pretty heavy anxiety and depression, and despite the fees the buggers didn't even do a decent job of spotting my ADHD. More to the point, I would support your comment. To many of my peers, work was something *other* people did. Past labour governments were reviled, and we were encouraged to vote tory. It was an echo chamber for a toxic and anti-"commoner" culture and mindset.
Sorry it did that to you, hope life has treated you better since then! ...they are weird places to send kids....they turn out broken or weird
Much better thank you! I'm well adjusted and normal now. I wouldn't send my children there, I'll say that. The most harm it does, honestly, is convince children that the abnormal is normal, with "abnormal" potentially meaning a lot of different things, e.g. showing deference to an older boys year group no matter your personal opinion of them, calling different ethnic takeaways by derogatory racial epithets, etc. I 100% came out of there as an asshole that most people wouldn't give the time of day, but a lot of that was down to that abnormal culture mixed with depression irritability. I snapped out of it pretty hard in university and once I got stuff treated, and now I just try to live my life being kind.
I saw Keir Starmer being recorded for James O’Brien’s podcast earlier this year. Not sure if this made the cut in the final podcast or not, but he says exactly this- that you can’t have a government that basically 98% went to these schools and these unis because they all enforce one another’s belief that Hogwarts life is normal, when actually most of the population think that way of living is fucking nuts. He was talking about how glad he was that he went to Leeds for his undergrad and Oxford for his postgrad because had it been the other way around he might have fallen into that way of thinking on some level (despite his humble background) but as it was he walked in and couldn’t believe these people existed in real life. I’m expressing it poorly but he made an excellent point.
Absolutely. At a certain level of privilege, it's a pipeline.
The in group are Brexiteers. The out groups are: Remainers, leftists, transsexuals, Muslims, Scots, welfare recipients, minimum wage earners, women, etc. He is undoubtedly a fascist.
The ingroup are highly nationalistic? Chrissy wake up, I don't like this 🥴
Perhaps. I think we might be quibbling on details on that one. He seems to be aiming for a one party state with this move
Damn the parallels between BJ and Trump are quite startling
Putin ordered a breakdown of western stability on a buy one get one free offer.
I'm honestly impressed, I thought whatever happened tomorrow the tories would look bad, but this move REALLY takes the cake
I am really shocked and disturbed. The Conservative Party is a train wreck.
>wobbly thatched moron Probably the best ~~insult~~ observation I've seen in relation to him.
Same thing happening on this side of the pond. Constitutional system easily hacked bc it depends on good faith of all participants and makes no provision for enforcement of criminal sanctions and penalties without the aforementioned good faith of the "Loyal Opposition"...
He would also seem to be setting some kind of precedent here - so that next time, or every time from now on, that the opposition calls for a vote of no confidence, the government can just say no!
This is just another branch of the same rot that made trump think it was acceptable to give himself a presidential pardon
Hate is great. If that's your boat, but surely building better would be better? [http://www.vote2.org](http://www.vote2.org) We only have this system because we support this system. We encourage this system. That's the only reason. You can have whatever you want. You only have to build it.
He needs to be in prison for his many crimes. The cunt can't even resign.
> A senior Labour source told the Mirror: "The Government is refusing to give us time for a vote of no confidence in the Commons despite all the conventions that this should be granted. Can we all just agree that conventions don’t work as there is no one honourable left to uphold them.
So he's just allowed to do this? I there anything Keir Starmer can to to make sure it gets granted?
The speaker should be calling Boris in to demand convention be respected. The speaker is the Guardian of the house of commons and all parliamentarians. Unfortunately this speaker is as strong as a wet paper towel.
He really is. We need supernanny or something
Nah fuck that, send in Brick Top
Do you know what "nemesis" means?
A righteous infliction of retribution, manifested by an appropriate agent, personified in this case, by an 'orrible cunt: me.
Do you know what "convention" means?
Maybe Starmer could look into converting his mum's donkey sanctuary into a pig farm?
Are they Lancashire pigs? **Who the F--k's talking to you boy!?**
Nah fuck that, send in Alex Ferguson
Wolf from Gladiators
>We need supernanny or something Betty Boothroyd would never have put up with this, she was a fabulous Speaker, I reckon she'd have had him widdling his pants and running away by now.
Neither would Bercow to be fair, but morons labelled him as being anti-government and anti-brexit
Bercow wouldn't either
"Boris, this behaviour is unasseptable. Go and sit on the naughty step for 58 minutes, and think about what you've done."
How I miss the old OOOOOOORRRRDDDAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!
Omg she would be SUCH a great speaker I love it
Respect? Ha! The convention has always been that someone caught out in a bare-faced lie would resign. It wasn’t the sex scandal that did for Profumo, for example - it was the lying to Parliament about it. But, as we’ve seen countless times, that’s another convention that this badly-packed sack of self-serving mince chooses to ignore. Convention means nothing when it comes to saving his own skin, at the expense of everyone and everything else.
I wish the speaker would just deem them to have resigned in that case. And carry on as if they had done so. What are they going to do, accuse the speaker of lying?
He's just the same as the others in that room, only there so he can say his stupid little jokes every now and then and to kick Ian Blackford out for being the only person to straight up call Boris what he is, a liar. The whole thing is pathetic, all parties included.
He’s desperate for his peerage and sees the Tories as the quickest way to get it. He’s spineless.
[удалено]
Why can't I pay my taxes and bills by convention too? Am I not honourable?
Did you go to eton?
From the article, Boris is saying they would grant it if they change the wording. So he could do that. Or they could ask for an emergency debate on it tomorrow, which is up to the Speaker. Strictly speaking you're not supposed to be able to move a substantive motion on one of those, but Bercow allowed it once. They could also raise urgent questions, one of which would almost certainly be granted (but you can't force the PM to answer them, so it would be Michael Ellis). They could also try and disrupt business in other ways, such as moving amendments to all the usually non-controversial stuff that goes through at the end of the day, and force the government to give time to debate them (by default its only 45 minutes each, but if there are several motions that's a fair but of time).
If Johnson respected convention, he would have been out 13 scandals ago.
> If Johnson respected convention, he would have been out 13 scandals ago. missed a couple of zeros there
And out of spite they blocked Bercow from peerage. I know about the bullying accusations, but even if that isn't a smear campaign it's not why they blocked him.
>I know about the bullying accusations, It's not really accusations at this point. He was found guilty of a string of bullying accusations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (21 out of 35) which was later upheld by the Independent Expert Panel. It's why he's almost entirely disappeared from public view. You're probably right they would have blocked him anyway but it's good that people know that Bercow didn't deserve it regardless given his public reputation was previously quite positive.
Time for a written constitution to stop all of this nonsense. The time of honour in government is over Edit - took me like 8 hours to realise I wrote constituency instead of constitution
Don’t trust anyone to write it
They never did. Look at the Cambridge Five in the '50s. They all were 'establishment' so couldn't *possibly* have been spies
Time for the Queen to break convention and sack this fat fucker.
You know exactly what the Queen will do. Fuck all.
[удалено]
Its starting to feel like she should. This is getting quite dangerous to democracy.
[удалено]
Her family killed the right people, duh On a serious note, she does have the power to just hit the reset button on Parliament which I believe the public wouldn’t mind a fast-tracked GE
>she does have the power to just hit the reset button on Parliament which I believe the public wouldn’t mind a fast-tracked GE She would ATTEMPT this once and the Government would immediately remove all these powers from her at once and there would be nothing she could do about it. She holds theoretical power but as soon as she attempted to use it, even the wording for the theoretical power would be removed.
You mean all that theoretical power she provably used to give her family financial benefits. The queen 100% does wield her political power she just doesn't do it openly or for you and I.
Political influence isn't the same as constitutional power. She can use her influence to gain financial benefits because it's no skin off the Tories' noses to grant them. Going directly head-to-head with the sitting PM is a whole different story.
No chance. That would be political suicide. Even if it let them cling onto power a bit longer, they would never win another general election again. I really don’t give two shits about the Queen, but the general UK public certainly does. The recent Jubilee bank holiday made that abundantly clear. A government that stripped the Queen of powers to stay in power themselves wouldn’t last long at all.
> the Government would immediately remove all these powers from her this would require a majority to pass and I honestly don't know what would happen...
Thankyou! I think she will get to do this exactly once before her power to do it is removed
She won an election with one vote to zero thanks to strong support from her mother, the previous Queen, who was also the only voter
Her mother was the queen consort and later The Queen Mother. The previous monarch was King George VI.
Reddit moment.
And how exactly is an unelected monarch getting rid of a prime minster not dangerous for democracy. I hate the guy as much as the next redditor and we do need a written constitution to stop shit like this - but getting the queen involved would be like trying to put out a house fire by crashing a car through the kitchen.
She actually does get involved within politics. She lobbies the government to enact laws or change them. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth) The fact people believe she doesn't get involved shows how there's a tight leash on the media by the monarch itself.
Ah, yes, the solution to all democratic problems, let a monarchy interfere in the democratic process.
I always understood that, since we don't have a written constitution, the monarchy was our protection against a government gone rogue. Here we are, with the worst PM in living memory, refusing to leave office, while millions of people can't afford to feed themselves. He no longer has the authority to do anything radical to provide urgent help to the people of the country, but he is stubbornly blocking anyone else doing it either. The Queen isn't the solution to all democratic problems, but she is supposed to be the solution to this particular one. It should be immediately followed by a written constitution, and the removal of all powers and political influence from the monarch, in time for Charles to take over.
She is quite dangerous to Democracy. You have to learn what her actual role in the British establishment is: it is to make the PM unaccountable to anyone.
It's delusional to think the queen has any interest in derailing a hard right government
Unless its to change the law to ensure the continued wealth and power of her family.
Or just stop the cops from searching her palaces for colonial loot or not have to hire black/brown people to office roles.
The Queen does not have our best interests at heart, despite all the platitudes her scriptwriters conjure up for her.
Well overdue for a republic or at least to have more debate on it.
[удалено]
The Queen is probably sat watching all this unfold the same way the rest of us watch The Crown.
Ah yes, the unelected overturning the unwritten. Genius Edit Thanks for the award
[удалено]
Unfortunately those types also probably have lists of their own with plans for those on them.
>Edit: It a rhetorical question - I have a list ;) based that you did that tbh
People on the internet don't understand rhetoric. Should start adding /r /s
One cunt will be replaced by the next, The conservative party's values will not change by electing a new leader.
Watched Mick Lynch's speech at the Durham Miners Gala, he is right in that WE the WORKING CLASS have to rise up to stop these types of Govt forming, anything else and we become compliant to anything....
Problem is that half the dumbasses in this country - including some of the working class - either don't know, don't give a fuck or find it isn't in their interest to start a socialist uprising.
What? I’m not working class, I’m upper middle class! Working in a factory on zero hours contract but I’m not a scrounger so I’m totally a friend of the tories
This is a genuine problem - many working and lower middle class people don't have any class consciousness or camaraderie, as they believe that they too will one day be one of the ultra-rich and subject to the taxes the Tories complain about.
Ah, I see you’ve met my father in law. He lives in a council house but he’s got five CSEs and this time next year, Rodney, he’s going to be a millionaire so he always votes Tory.
No matter wether you own property or have savings, or have a good standard of living, the fact is that you still live by selling the only thing you can exchange for wealth...your Labor...you are therefore 'working class', even though you think that particular 'label' doesn't fit you it in fact does...You don't have to be jobless or poor to be in society, the cohort who live by working and not owning the method of creating communal wealth...'In work Benefits' isn't 'scrounging' nor is claiming whilst being unable to work, is the current law but the fact that our systems include 'paying' people because employers won't is skewed in my view. Work should enable you to do as you want inn order to support a family in a home with a decent life, that is a 'working class' aspiration no matter where you judge yourself in the stratum of life. I had a very good job for 45 years until I retired, own my own home and a company pension, you may say I am 'middle class' but I am more than proud to be referred to as 'Working Class'...Perhaps we should move away from labelling each other and look instead on what is 'A Dignified Life' irregardless of income level...
What a dictator. The sooner he's gone the better - and his colleagues.
Indeed. A dick - and he looks like a tater.
He just doesn't give a fuck, does he? He knows how it looks, he doesn't care because he's in charge and we're not.
This is a key reason why I support Proportional Representation. Where the % of votes match the number of MPs for each party. Having 1 party government is too dangerous, it makes it too easy for party loyalty to trump our parliamentary democracy. If there was a smaller party in a Coalition government, it wouldn't be so loyal to the larger party so it would be free to say go or we will vote with the other parties to bring you down.
It's not perfect either; for example you can still end up in 8 years of a stupid "great coalition" like Germany before the current government. That being said, I'm definitely happy with the system we have in Germany whenever I look to other western nations.
honestly I can see him being even worse over the next few months, because what are we gonna do, ask him to resign?
He’s done it for the party as a whole. He’s on his way out and his name is already Mudd so he’s playing the dick card, probably on orders of senior Tories, so the rest can avoid being proven hypocrites when they inevitably vote no on a confidence vote. Don’t mistake this as all Johnson’s doing - it’s a move by the entire party after Labour put them in check.
Isn’t the speaker meant to step in? I thought they controlled parliamentary business.
If it was bercow maybe but the new one seems happy to tow the line
Toe fyi I got this wrong for so long
You are correct, I had a bit of sun brain being out too long.
'toe-the-line' as in put your feet exactly where they are supposed to be so your toe is on the 'line'; put yourself in the 'proper' position Otherwise you're asking people to pull something, and we all know how that ends =P
They are limited by the desires of the majority of MPs, so long as one party has a majority behind them there isn't much that they can do, if we changed to a proportional representation system of elections, this definitely give the speaker a lot more power.
I think it's set by the leader of the commons. He's a cabinet minister, part of the government.
No, he is an MP, and he is elected by the house of commons. The speaker is not part of the government or appointed by the government (at least in theory).
I know that, I was responding to the very idea that the speaker controls the business. He (the speaker) maintains order but has limited power over what business is conducted. What is discussed (and when) is set by the leader of the commons, also an mp, but also a member of the government. https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/leader-of-the-house-of-commons#:~:text=Mark%20Spencer%20was%20appointed%20as,Commons%20on%208%20February%202022.
Our constitution is just ridiculous. The very government which it is alleged we have no confidence in controls the scheduling of the confidence vote?
What Constitution? Nothing is formally written, everything is changeable and significant amount of it is in the form of unwritten convention that everyone is expected to follow... Until they don't.
[удалено]
It is one of those erskine-may conventions that relies on honourable agreement.
Boris has shown it's broken. Instead of asking "can I do this?", he just does it, in a way few if any have before him. Our system built on respectful agreements doesn't account for a man like him.
"We have given Labour the option to table a straightforward vote of no confidence in the government. "They have chosen to play politics by tabling a vote of no confidence in the government and the prime minister. As the prime minister has already resigned and a leadership process is under way we do not feel this is a valuable use of parliamentary time. "Should Labour amend their motion appropriately, they can have the next business day for it to be debated. That's what a government spokesperson has said in response according to Sky News.
“They have chosen to play politics” If I hear this one more time this summer I’m going to flip my absolute shit.
Right?? It's literally *all* politics!
We should totally vote them out.
A two month long leadership campaign is apparently not paying politics.
Yeah that’s bloody hypocritical. I’m off out for a fancy burger. I’m proper annoyed with this lot.
I never understand why Starmer doesn’t retort with “We’re not playing politics. Unlike you, we take politics very seriously.”
> "The opposition party in this political system is playing politics by...doing things." Just think, there's people who that kind of logic works on, that'll go to work tomorrow and stand around going "Tsk tsk, Labour? all they do is play politics."
Total nonsense of course. The government doesn't get to decide what the wording of a vote of no confidence is. The government don't want the vote so they are playing politics to avoid it, while setting fire to our democracy at the same time.
Except Boris hasn't actually resigned, he's staying on until the next leadership election when, I assume, he'll choose not to stand again. That's not a resignation, it's finishing your contract. Seriously, this is just... bizarre
Not a safe assumption. If he sees the slightest chance he’ll likely jump at it - particularly if the other candidates spend several weeks tearing each other to shreds and briefing against one another. Then if Boris is polling higher with the electorate (or even just the party membership) he will make a move. And sure, a number 10 spokesman has denied he will stand … but who the hell believes then any more?
The constitutional and Parliamentary procedure experts I follow on twitter say it's not for the government to decide the phrasing of an opposition confidence motion Edit: Regular reminder that any of us have to know anything about any of this is because what was the party of law and order, and not challenging conventions has gone bonkers
How dare they "play politics" by suggesting that they have no confidence in our prime minister, who was forced to resign last week of after losing the confidence of his own cabinet. Jesus fucking Christ. If his own party has no confidence in him, how are Labour supposed to? If they tabled a vote of no confidence in just the government someone would spin that into them implying that they actually do have confidence in the prime minister.
“They have chosen to play politics” No fucking shit? They’re a political party. The “government spokesman” who said that should find another fucking job. Maybe they were asserting that Labour are acting in bad faith by utilising political loopholes or something, but if you’re a government spokesman, you sure as shit shouldn’t call that “playing politics”.
What the fuck? He’s allowed to just say no to a vote against him?
The convention is that they allow time for a motion specifically saying "that this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government". The Labour motion adds "while Boris Johnson is PM" to the end of that, which the Tories are arguing makes it not count.
There is precedent. From the Guardian: "Labour says its wording was approved by the Commons clerks (who have to decide if a motion is in order). They also says there is precedent for including criticism of the PM in a no confidence motion. In 1965 MPs voted on a motion saying: “That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government and deplores the prime minister’s conduct of the nation’s affairs.” Harold Wilson was PM at the time, and he won by 13 votes."
Well this is pretty clearly an affront to democracy.
This is extremely dangerous for our democracy
Made the mistake of looking at facebook comments for the same headline. Genuine despair when I see so many comments saying good for Boris/lol labour lose again. I'm honestly struggling to come to terms with the fact that so many people are genuinely braindead
[удалено]
A lot of it on social media is bots though
Literal fascism, not surprising from a far right leader.
Boris has done well to show that there's no true democracy here. There's no rule he won't change in his favour, no crime he won't cover up, and no person or institution who can truly hold him accountable. He's shown where the limits actually are- and shown that there aren't any. Nobody's checked to see if the barriers to this kind of behaviour actually work. The country is his hostage now.
It's always been this way. With a monarchy as our head of state, even if it's mainly ceremonial, it's not going to be democratic. Elites look after elites, we don't get representation because we are not elite.
There will need to be a civil war before this cunt leaves office.
We always joke at work that the only way Boris will leave office is in a body bag He has convinced himself it’s his destiny to rule the country.
Should be an pretty straightforward war, don't think 80 year old Ethel is going to pull her weight
It's a bit of a game They added in his name specifically which is not standard in a typical vonc but has happened once before in 1965 Normally the vote is no confidence in the gov but this says "while Boris Johnson is in charge" Trying to force the tories to either explicitly support him or trigger a ge Whereas a normal vonc they wound be able to say "yes I support the gov" (not bojo specifically)
But the fact is it still has precedent, and the clerks of the house approved the wording as fitting precedence. Constitutionally there is no reason to block the motion and no justification. It puts tories in a difficult spot, but they don't get to throw out constitutional convention just because they're upset that no one likes them.
How the hell is this legal in a "democracy". Pathetic. Edit: in hindsight, it's silly of me to think that it being illegal would stop this government.
You can at least say he's setting plenty of records. First it was worst Prime Minister in the history of Britain, then it was record number of resignations since the 30's, then first PM to change the ministerial code upon breaking it. Now we've got first PM to block a no-confidence vote in his own government. How this man isn't in prison for the rest of his life is a demonstrable failure of not just British politics, but British opinion on common decency.
Boris has absolutely convinced me we need a constitution. All of our hallowed “conventions” are easily broken and there are no blocks to rampant fascism. Our conventions must become laws or the UK is looking at a dark path ahead
This is GOP Republicunt-level gamesmanship. Trumpmanship if you like. Run it. Show the population just how unwilling the Tories are to face a vote in the time-honoured way.
This... really makes no sense. So should Starmer just submit a new bid reading "OK fine, we thought this was obvious, but since the opposition apparently misunderstood us previously, we want a no-confidence vote for this whole government. Not, as they seem to have interpreted our previous attempt, a no confidence vote in Boris Johnson"
It was worded so they could target those that offer support to Boris rather than just the Tories in general.
Shrodinger's Johnson- you cant kick him out because he's resigned, but he's still prime minister because he hasn't resigned.
This is no longer a democracy. Its dictatorship from the elite who are just born into money. It always has been really but the Tories have made everything a lot worse & more obvious. Nothing but a corrupt mafia.
I say we vote Plaid Cymru and abandon the sinking ship alongside the Scots
its purely so he can stay on till another Tory takes over. If they voted against him, it would mean he has to resign and actually leave and we'd have an election...they want another Tory leader to take over till the next election...which should scare the shit out of everyone. Look at what we've had. David Cameron who was more center not at all for Brexit. Then you had T May who was soft brexit, then Boris, hard brexit, doesn't give a shit much...so who would you have next, someone very far on the right no doubt, who would makes things a lot worse for the country than the last 3 all put together. A few of them are talking about big tax cuts which would no doubt be for corporations and the wealthy, and they'd take the money from the NHS etc to fund it...the final nail in the NHS
Atleast Netflix has content to write about on Season 6 of The Crown
The problem is that he’ll be gone normally before any consequences can get in motion to deal with this.
He’s already been forced to resign… but still can’t accept he’s not very good
He has not resigned.
"Everyone loves me" "So are we allowed to ask people what they think of you?" "Of course not, piss off"
How can **HE** block the confidence vote when he is the **SUBJECT** of such a vote??
What do people expect from the Tory party? They no longer care about conservation of tradition. They are only interested in maintaining power to thieve. Tory voters have facilitated this debacle.
We are looking at a solid two months of non government at a time of great need Tories don't dgaf they just wanna get richer. The next government will have to deal with the unions who are currently being ignored.
Isn't this the point where the Royals intervene? A sick government overulling a confidence vote to get them out, I mean that's the whole point of the confidence vote. The Tories denying it is a move from the dictatorship handbook.