| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) 17:39 - Jan 26 with 919 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Rees-Mogg on BBC News Channel repeating "my view" that "because the Constitution isn't codified" if the Prime Minister resigns then "there should be a General Election".
Which could be viewed as a threat to Tory backbenchers not to trigger a Leadership election, because it could lead to a General Election and put their seats and jobs at risk. |  | | |  |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:06 - Jan 26 with 814 views | lowhouseblue |
although he is quoted as expressing the same thing in 2010, so while they might be wheeling him out now because his line is currently convenient, it does seem to be what he really thinks. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:07 - Jan 26 with 811 views | ZXBlue |
I think he is right. But it is certainly not constitutionally correct at this time. | | | |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:25 - Jan 26 with 760 views | Guthrum |
It's a steaming load of manure and he ought to know better. There has never been any requirement to have a General Election in the aftermath of a change of Prime Minister.
Was Rees-Mogg advocating such in 2016? Or an immediate one in the summer of 2019? |  |
| |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:28 - Jan 26 with 740 views | ZXBlue |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:25 - Jan 26 by Guthrum |
It's a steaming load of manure and he ought to know better. There has never been any requirement to have a General Election in the aftermath of a change of Prime Minister.
Was Rees-Mogg advocating such in 2016? Or an immediate one in the summer of 2019? |
I am not sure you have heard what he said?
He doesnt say that it is the law or constituion. He is making the argument that a non condified constituion evolves, and we ought now to be looking at this issue differently. I agree. As much as we supposedly vote for a local mp, in reality many vote presidentially, and many vote for an mp based at least in part on who the leadership of the paerty is and what direction they are heading in. | | | |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:32 - Jan 26 with 729 views | factual_blue |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:25 - Jan 26 by Guthrum |
It's a steaming load of manure and he ought to know better. There has never been any requirement to have a General Election in the aftermath of a change of Prime Minister.
Was Rees-Mogg advocating such in 2016? Or an immediate one in the summer of 2019? |
And Eden replaced Churchill, Macmillan replaced Eden, and Douglas-Home replaced Macmillan, and none of those tory replacements of the sitting PM led to a general election |  |
| |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:43 - Jan 26 with 699 views | eireblue |
Shame he isn’t in Government and could have been in a position to propose such legislation in recent years |  | | |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:52 - Jan 26 with 651 views | Guthrum |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:28 - Jan 26 by ZXBlue |
I am not sure you have heard what he said?
He doesnt say that it is the law or constituion. He is making the argument that a non condified constituion evolves, and we ought now to be looking at this issue differently. I agree. As much as we supposedly vote for a local mp, in reality many vote presidentially, and many vote for an mp based at least in part on who the leadership of the paerty is and what direction they are heading in. |
We have voted for governments on the basis of who was leader of the party before - Churchill's second stint in No. 10, for a start.
But it is neither how it is supposed to operate, nor how it does most of the time. How many people voted for Theresa May in 2017, rather than for the Conservatives? I'm very suspicious of media and politicians pushing such a personality-cult approach. The PM is not a stand-alone executive, separate from Parliament. That's not how their powers work. | |
| |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:55 - Jan 26 with 640 views | ZXBlue |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:52 - Jan 26 by Guthrum |
We have voted for governments on the basis of who was leader of the party before - Churchill's second stint in No. 10, for a start.
But it is neither how it is supposed to operate, nor how it does most of the time. How many people voted for Theresa May in 2017, rather than for the Conservatives? I'm very suspicious of media and politicians pushing such a personality-cult approach. The PM is not a stand-alone executive, separate from Parliament. That's not how their powers work. |
I agree. But the reality of how most people vote is very different isnt it? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 19:00 - Jan 26 with 633 views | footers |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:55 - Jan 26 by ZXBlue |
I agree. But the reality of how most people vote is very different isnt it? |
Thinking this is somehow JRM wanting to modernise politics in line with the electorate's behaviour and expectations doesn't really tally with him being an arch-traditionalist and Erskine May fanatic, does it?
He's just being a shallow brown-nosing turd. Surprise, surprise.
And besides, it was his party that tabled the FTPA. Although I think it's a stupid piece of legislation, to now see many who voted for it seeming to be against it just seems a bit of a daft position to take now that it's suddenly convenient. |  |
| |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 19:15 - Jan 26 with 567 views | Guthrum |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 18:55 - Jan 26 by ZXBlue |
I agree. But the reality of how most people vote is very different isnt it? |
Too much a codification of failure for me. A better response would be to guide voter decisionmaking back towards policies, rather than mere personality. | |
| |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 19:17 - Jan 26 with 559 views | HARRY10 |
| Read between the lines (Part 7,362) on 19:00 - Jan 26 by footers |
Thinking this is somehow JRM wanting to modernise politics in line with the electorate's behaviour and expectations doesn't really tally with him being an arch-traditionalist and Erskine May fanatic, does it?
He's just being a shallow brown-nosing turd. Surprise, surprise.
And besides, it was his party that tabled the FTPA. Although I think it's a stupid piece of legislation, to now see many who voted for it seeming to be against it just seems a bit of a daft position to take now that it's suddenly convenient. |
Yes. This absurd stick insect might project himself as some Erskine May know all but as with the Paterson stuff he is not the brightest. Any wonder that until the porcine PM came along, he had not held any ministerial post - not even an assistant to a junior tea boy minister.
He is regarded as a joke figure. Someone who covers up his thickness with a carefully contrived character. A butler in some third rate 1930's am dram, in his case.
The idea that swapping leaders requires a GE is nothing more than am easily seen through attempt to scare the not too bright. Appointed along with other dimwits such as Dorries, Hancock and Williamson our elongated eejit will soon be back from whence he came, once the garrulous gutbucket is given the boot | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
