I note the marvellous EU are proposing to spend hundreds of millions to demolish one of their THREE palaces and replace it with something grander, as befits their status. They flit from the other two regularly at vast expense, paying many thousand hangers on vast allowances.
Another factor which counts against it strongly with my generation, is that the man in charge is called Junkers. We have had enough trouble from him and his Prussian and Nazi ancestors not to wish for more.
Call me deluded, when it was first proposed it seemed to be an excellent idea to keep France and Germany from ripping each others throats out, but the monster it has now spawned is totally out of control and is nothing but a glorious gravy train for all the commissioners etc etc.
Man is not lost, only temporarily uncertain of his position
Well, Ms. May is spending the day and evening in Paris. That should put a smile on her face.
do you still have a working guillotine?....just sayin'
I think the feeling in the conservative party is that if they just pretend nothing has changed and carry on the British public will just lie down and take it. There is so much discontent and bad feeling I think that we'll be back at the ballot boxes before long. Now that IDIOT Boris is considering challenging Theresa May to a leadership battle all hell will be let loose...the electorate would have no faith in him either...
Post by cheerypeabrain on Jun 14, 2017 19:18:09 GMT
Yes, especially as the government reportedly cancelled the scheduled review on fire safety in tower blocks recently. A scapegoat will be found but nothing will bring back those poor souls killed in the horrific fire. The surviving tenants said that by every lift were notices to say that if a fire was on another floor they should stay put in their apartments.
In case of a small, contained fire that might be ok (I would still want to get out of the building) but this fire spread through the whole building very rapidly, and as it started around 1 am most people would be in bed asleep. Absolutely awful.
"Frontbenchers" are (if a party is in government) the ministers, who sit on the front bench in the House of Commons, immediately below the Speaker and with the clerks' table and the mace between them and the opposition frontbenchers (i.e., the official spokespersons appointed by their party leader to "shadow" the work of the government ministers on different topics). They aren't sacked as MPs or members of the party (that would be a much more serious business involving all sorts of formal procedures within the party), simply as the lead spokesperson for their party on that issue. "The reshuffle" of government ministers or opposition shadow teams is always a potential topic of lively discussion and gossip - who's up, down or sideways, and what that all means for the leader's status and support within the party and among the wider public.
"Backbenchers" are all the other MPs, who may be hoping to ingratiate themselves enough with the leadership to be in the running for a front-bench job, or may have settled for being day-to-day representatives of their constituency or specialising in particular topics instead (my own MP has been a minister in a number of departments, and in opposition speaks on assorted health and animal welfare issues, British/Bangladesh relations - this is a constituency with a large community of Bangladeshi heritage, and on emergency services - he used to be a fireman).
The broader background to this is that it is generally expected that whether in government or in opposition, parties (and certainly their leadership teams) have to be seen to be sticking to a consistent and agreed policy and line, and that signs of disunity, inconsistency and uncertainty are going to undermine confidence and support. You can't normally be in the leadership team on either side if you're going to agitate and vote publicly against the agreed policy. Backbenchers have a bit more liberty and power in that respect, especially those on the government side when there's only a small majority or, as now, a minority government: they can expect to be listened to a bit more closely on new issues and those important to them, but they are expected to support the party's agreed line and legislative proposals in principle.
A government with a secure majority might have taken the view that the general opposition in both communities in Northern Ireland to relaxing their own laws meant that London shouldn't seek to make it easier for NI women to come to Britain for an abortion; or they might have said it would impose undue extra costs on the NHS in England which couldn't/wouldn't be reclaimed from the NI government; or they might have left it to a free "conscience" vote, as is usually done on issues like abortion. But instead they have simply given in. And it has the political bonus for them that it appears like a warning to the DUP that they aren't the only ones who can make or break this government, without actually treading on the DUP's toes, since (to be fair) the DUP made it clear all along they weren't intending to use their position to force their views on this on the rest of the UK, and that whether or not the NHS in England charged for this was not a matter for them.
And if there is any way to shove her off her shaky perch, why hasn't it been done yet?
Because the only way to do it is for her own party to come up with a credible successor; and though a number of senior figures are, as they say, "on manoeuvres", no-one's showing real signs of wanting the job enough, or not just yet, to set in motion the formal internal party procedures to defenestrate her. Nor are the opposition parties in any sort of position to construct a credible and effective alternative - the parliamentary arithmetic isn't there.
Thank you, Patrick. Not only did your reply & link make things clearer for me, the very cockles of my heart are warmed by the image of various factions baying and snapping at her as she squirms helplessly in their midst.
I've always been impressed/intrigued by the concept of a shadow cabinet, because French politics have always been so volatile that the actual "cabinet" is always a total surprise when the government changes. We usually know who the leader of the opposition is (not so obvious since about a month ago), but there is never any idea of who would be named as a government minister if power were to change hands in any election.
Patrick, has your MP had anything to say about the Grenfell fire?
No doubt because of his status not just as a fireman but also as a former minister for matters relating to London, he got an Adjournment Debate on the subject (it's not easy for any individual backbencher, as he now is, to get some time to set an agenda).
Thanks so much for that. I'm glad Mr Fitzpatrick had the opportunity to present such a detailed report, though there are not many members present at those debates. At least now with the video a wide audience has access to it.
Mr Fitzpatrick doesn't have what one thinks of as a typical London East-Ender accent!
The MP who spoke just after Fitzpatrick was from Northern Ireland, if I recall.
Yes, I thought he was a Lowland Scot. Highlanders have quite a different accent; a linguist or a Scot would say quite different accents.
Once when I was interpreting at the European Social Forum, the Polish interpreter started speaking to me in English during the break, and he had a heavy Glaswegian accent! Many Poles have settled throughout the UK, and also in Ireland.
It all begins with signals from some lawmakers that when Parliament reconvenes in September, it will pass a vote of no confidence in Mr. Johnson’s government, based on his intention to pull Britain out of the European Union by Oct. 31, “do or die,” deal or no deal. Traditionally, that would stop a government in its tracks. These days, lawmakers have 14 days after such a vote to try to put together a new government. If they cannot, the prime minister is then supposed to call a general election. ... even if a rival were to attract enough support to form a government, the prime minister could legally call for a general election and refuse to vacate Downing Street. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011, which guides the procedures for a no-confidence vote, does not specifically require prime ministers to step aside at that point ...
So, who wants to explain exactly what is happening, and what is likely to happen. Please.
I'm flattered (or am I?!) that you should think so! I'm out of the country at the moment, so not following this in any detail, but AIUI the quiet backstairs discussion of a possible short-term single-issue government to set up a second referendum and/or new election is now out in the open. But I doubt if the parliamentary arithmetic is there, or whether there's time unless the EU agrees to stop the clock again (this sort of decision was what the original extensions were for).
Both major parties are splitting three ways on this, in different proportions and along slightly different faultlines, which makes problems for all points of view.
The Tories split between the loyalists who accepted the deal (the biggest group in Parliament), the "nothing is good enough" Brexiteers (smaller in Parliament but noisy enough and well-enough supported among party members to get Johnson in) and those (probably fewest, but in the current Parliamentary arithmetic, enoough to put plenty of spanners in the works) who would rather stick as close to the EU as possible if they can't get Article 50 revoked.
Labour on the other hand is just about holding together a fudgy compromise position between those who would really rather revoke Article 50 (probably the majority of party members), those who fear the political consequences of not coming up with some sort of exit deal as long as it preserves at least something like the customs union (a fair number of their MPs, even if in their heart of hearts they'd rather revoke, or at least put it back to the people), and their own small minority who are fundamentally Brexiteers from a left perspective (many of whom are in Corbyn's inner circle).
Which leaves both Brexit and anti-Brexit voters equally at sea as between the major parties; remainers have the choice of voting LibDem or Green (or for the SNP or PC in Scotland/Wales), so their votes could well split that side of the argument.
It's like trying to decide what colour to paint the living-room by using a kaleidoscope. So it's by no means certain that a new general election would produce any clearer result, nor that a new referendum won't tip us over the "no deal" edge (you can see how the Cummingses and Farages of this world would frame the argument as EU manipulation/conspiracy and all the rest of it): or, indeed, that holding both at the same time won't produce a contradictory set of results - a "no deal" majority and a minority Labour government, or a "remain" majority and a Tory-Brexit-DUP government? I think it's reasonably safe to say the margins would be narrow either way.