Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Werthead

UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

278 posts in this topic

 

Quote

 

If the DUP do break with the Tories is there any alternative other than having a new election? I can't imagine a minority government lasting long given how many contentious issues there are at the moment.

 

 
Labour could call a vote of no confidence, but they may judge that if they provoke a fresh election it might backfire a bit. They may wait and see if the LibDems or SNP do it instead (the SNP might be the safest option, but they would be wary of losing more seats in Scotland). But they probably would do it themselves if necessary.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Werthead said:

My opinion is that parliament should be relocated to the middle or north of England, sonewhere deprived that can be revitalised.  MPs can stay in a large apartment complex.

Westminster can then be renovated and turned into a museum.  

Expensive, yes, but money can be raised selling the MPs' London homes.

Seems a good opportunity to drag parliament out of their London bubble and into 21st century Britain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could move it to the centre of the UK, although the methodology for that is complex. Lichfield in Staffordshire seems a good candidate for closest relatively big town to the centre, although Dunsop Bridge in Lancashire also has a claim on the basis of being in the middle of the north-south axis of the island of Britain. It'd probably be better to do it on the basis of the centre of population, but that would probably drag it quite far south again, but then there are a lot more suitable towns and cities that way.

Or they could kick it old school and just drive round the country on a giant Parliamentary megabus, forever circling the country on a progress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

My opinion is that parliament should be relocated to the middle or north of England, sonewhere deprived that can be revitalised.  MPs can stay in a large apartment complex.

Westminster can then be renovated and turned into a museum.  

Expensive, yes, but money can be raised selling the MPs' London homes.

Seems a good opportunity to drag parliament out of their London bubble and into 21st century Britain.

 

They should just do it all via skype if you ask me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

 
Labour could call a vote of no confidence, but they may judge that if they provoke a fresh election it might backfire a bit. They may wait and see if the LibDems or SNP do it instead (the SNP might be the safest option, but they would be wary of losing more seats in Scotland). But they probably would do it themselves if necessary.
 
 

One thing that I've only just begun to appreciate is that Finance Bills are no longer votes of confidence.  The FPTA stipulates that a government only has to resign if it loses a vote of confidence as designated in that Act.

Lining up the votes of every non-Conservative MP in order to pass a motion of no-confidence would probably be quite difficult.  And, if that were achieved, it would be hard for Labour to govern effectively, with 262 MPs, (and O'Mara probably unreliable) especially as the SNP would mostly abstain on English-only matters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SeanF said:

One thing that I've only just begun to appreciate is that Finance Bills are no longer votes of confidence.  The FPTA stipulates that a government only has to resign if it loses a vote of confidence as designated in that Act.

Lining up the votes of every non-Conservative MP in order to pass a motion of no-confidence would probably be quite difficult.  And, if that were achieved, it would be hard for Labour to govern effectively, with 262 MPs, (and O'Mara probably unreliable) especially as the SNP would mostly abstain on English-only matters.

That wouldn't happen. Under the FTPA, if the government loses a vote of no confidence it has 14 days to fix the problem and come back to the house to ask for a second vote (which would then be termed a vote of confidence). If it loses that, of they fail to present an alternative vote in two weeks, it automatically triggers a general election. Labour would not be asked to form a minority government which would be unstable and could be collapsed then by a Conservative vote of no confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Werthead said:

That wouldn't happen. Under the FTPA, if the government loses a vote of no confidence it has 14 days to fix the problem and come back to the house to ask for a second vote (which would then be termed a vote of confidence). If it loses that, of they fail to present an alternative vote in two weeks, it automatically triggers a general election. Labour would not be asked to form a minority government which would be unstable and could be collapsed then by a Conservative vote of no confidence.

My interpretation is that the government must resign upon losing the vote of confidence, and the Opposition then has 14 days to win a vote of confidence, before an election is required to take place.  In theory, if the Conservatives had lost a vote of confidence, then there might be a majority to give a Labour government a vote of confidence.  In practice, I very much doubt whether Labour would wish to attempt to form a government in that situation, so an election would follow.

I expect that both the Conservatives and Labour would in fact vote in favour of an early election, if the government lost a vote of confidence. 

I suppose that the SNP and Lib Dems would have to weigh up whether or not an early election would be in their interests, before deciding whether to back a motion of No Confidence.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Labour could call a vote of no confidence, but they may judge that if they provoke a fresh election it might backfire a bit. They may wait and see if the LibDems or SNP do it instead (the SNP might be the safest option, but they would be wary of losing more seats in Scotland). But they probably would do it themselves if necessary.

You are sure Labour want that poisonous chalice? WIll of the people, and that pie in the sky Brexit versus project reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Notone said:

You are sure Labour want that poisonous chalice? WIll of the people, and that pie in the sky Brexit versus project reality?

Absolutely. They have committed to supporting Brexit so they don't see that as a problem, but they are not in favour of a hard Brexit so they will be pursuing a better deal with the EU. If you believe some of the leaks, Starmer has convinced Corbyn that their position will be to go for a maximum trade deal (possibly up to and including remaining membership of the single market) in return for ensuring they have border controls. The Tories can't do that because of internal reasons, so Labour have figured they can get a better deal from the EU. They also figure that, since they're not the ones who called the referendum, they'd get more favourable terms from the EU. Also, they (presumably) wouldn't have the DUP's sword of Damocles hanging over their necks at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

My interpretation is that the government must resign upon losing the vote of confidence, and the Opposition then has 14 days to win a vote of confidence,

Doesn't necessarily have to be the Opposition. If May loses a confidence vote, the Tories could replace her with Johnson or Davies or whoever and try and make a new deal with the DUP within the 14 day window in order to stay in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a second.

Just now, Werthead said:

If you believe some of the leaks, Starmer has convinced Corbyn that their position will be to go for a maximum trade deal (possibly up to and including remaining membership of the single market) in return for ensuring they have border controls.

Which is again something of the pie in the sky - cherry picking Brexit. The three freedoms are not up for debate. All they can do is actually enforce the rules concerning border controls they already have. And I am not sure, that Labour does not have those internal battles (meet the peoples' exhibit A. Kate Hoey).

 

5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

They also figure that, since they're not the ones who called the referendum, they'd get more favourable terms from the EU.

I think that is a myth. I will paraphrase the former Polish foreign minister. For the EU it doesn't really matter, who central casting sends from Downing Street to do the talks. They will talk to whoever is in charge. And there's only that much the EU can offer.

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

. Also, they (presumably) wouldn't have the DUP's sword of Damocles hanging over their necks at all times.

That would make life somewhat easier with regards to solve the unsolvable question, that is the Irish Border; as Corbyn is probably less likely to give a damn about the DUP and what they want.

On a seperate note.

What is Labour's point on voting on the final divorce bill? I can see why they want parliament to have the final word on such an important issue as a matter of principle, however, they can hardly vote it down and demand a better from the EU (well Hoey probably would do that), and they can even less vote it down to increase the financial settlement to heighten the mood of the EU. Of course it's a nice opportunity to show up the Tories in Westminster (or whereever the traveling circus shows up, to pick up your earlier idea). But practically it will be down eat or die, birdy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Notone said:

 

Which is again something of the pie in the sky - cherry picking Brexit. The three freedoms are not up for debate. All they can do is actually enforce the rules concerning border controls they already have.

 

Well, applying the controls we're allowed to have, but chose not to use.

I'll be honest I think that much of a "crack down" would have been more than enough to have averted this whole débâcle in the first place.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably. But that would've meant dismantling the evil EU scapegoat argument, and as we all know the EU was responsible for all the woes and evil in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't have prevented the Tories internal war; but it think that if it had been offered along with Cameron's "concessions" then Remain would have had a good 60% of the vote, quite possibly more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Notone said:

Which is again something of the pie in the sky - cherry picking Brexit. The three freedoms are not up for debate. All they can do is actually enforce the rules concerning border controls they already have. And I am not sure, that Labour does not have those internal battles (meet the peoples' exhibit A. Kate Hoey).

It depends. Some in the EU do seem willing to consider bending on immigration in return for Britain staying in the EU and more creative solutions. I've noticed this jitterishness on the EU side kicked in when it looked like both Ireland and Germany might have to go back to the polls again. I don't see it myself - it was some German MEPs who I think had special interests in the car industry - but it shows there may be some thinking outside the box going on.

It does make you wonder if a Labour government would be willing to consider some arrangement of just re-clarifying the precise rules under the EU of enforcing immigration and then used that as a basis for going forwards. I know from my last job that there were mechanisms for checking on EU migrant working statuses that the UK basically never bothered to use, which seems strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SeanF said:

One thing that I've only just begun to appreciate is that Finance Bills are no longer votes of confidence. 

A truly hideous oversight. Governments forced to issue IOUs aren't pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Werthead said:

It does make you wonder if a Labour government would be willing to consider some arrangement of just re-clarifying the precise rules under the EU of enforcing immigration and then used that as a basis for going forwards. I know from my last job that there were mechanisms for checking on EU migrant working statuses that the UK basically never bothered to use, which seems strange.

Well, I thought I heard somewhere, that the UK lacked the bureacratic tools to do so effectively (likesay a citizen registry). Which would make it kinda tough to keep track. Since I am not even sure, where I heard this, this could be total nonsense. The more ironic/mindboggling bit however is, that the UK (under Blair) pushed really hard for that eastern expansion, which has led to Peter the Pole (a cousin of Johnny Foreigner) moving to the UK to work there. Of course the UK also kinda needed the influx of labour in certain sectors like agriculture (not to mention the nurses and doctors in the NHS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Werthead said:

I don't see it myself - it was some German MEPs who I think had special interests in the car industry - but it shows there may be some thinking outside the box going on.

That seems unlikely. The car industry in particular has an interest in the integrity of the EU and the single market. Just look at the supply chains. A few thousand more car sales, don't make up for disrupting that supply chain, if some other country in the east decides it wants the same special deal outside the EU Britain has. Remember the car industry is working with the just in time principle. Their worst nightmare are custom checks holding up trucks with the needed supply. If those things don't arrive in time, they have to shut down the production. With that in mind, it will be interesting to see, what happens in Vauxhall.

Now, the talks with regard to the future relations are going to be much more complex than the exit talks. Which makes the idea of, we'll just sort NI out then as we go along so unrealistic from the EU's perspective.

Editorial note: Sorry double posting. I simply forgot to reply to the quote above in my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0