Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    10 Jun '17 17:22
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Here's what the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party thinks of Corbyn: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/09/jeremy-corbyn-west-nato-russia-215242
    It's mutual.
  2. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    13 Jun '17 00:10
    https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

    People keep forgetting that Jeremy has been in politics for decades and knows his onions. There is a reason for his cheery smile and dancing steps.

    This blog [which is fallible of course] sets out the constitutional procedure by which Jeremy could very well take the keys ot Number Ten out of Treeza Mayhem's trembling hands.

    Opens with the amusing reflection that the DUP may find Treeza too toxic for even them to risk their reputation by protecting her.

    "In the run-up to the 2015 election, which all the pollsters and pundits incorrectly expected to result in a ‘hung Parliament’, an expert in constitutional law looked at the legal precedent and convention surrounding the possibility that then-incumbent PM David Cameron would fail to get his Queen’s Speech through a Commons vote.

    And he not only concluded that the leader of the next-largest party would automatically become Prime Minister, but pointed out no fewer than four occasions within the last century when exactly that happened.

    In a 2015 article on the law site Head of Legal, Carl Gardiner looked in detail at constitutional law, how it applied in those four examples and how it would apply to a hung Parliament in 2015. For the detailed legal analysis, read the full article – but his examples and key conclusions are:

    1924: then-leader Ramsay MacDonald was immediately invited by the king to form a minority Labour government when the Tories – the largest single party – could not pass its King’s Speech. MacDonald did not have to seek a coalition or demonstrate a functional majority

    1929: MacDonald was again invited to be PM, even though Labour had won only 287 of the then-615 parliamentary seats, after Tory PM Baldwin resigned upon being unable to command a Commons majority. Again, MacDonald did not have to demonstrate a functioning majority

    1974: Harold Wilson was invited by the queen to form a government after Edward Heath’s attempts to agree a coalition with the Liberals failed. He immediately formed a minority government in spite of stating firmly that he would not seek nor enter any coalition

    2010: Then-PM Gordon Brown resigned immediately it became clear that he could not command a Commons majority, even though David Cameron had not yet agreed a coalition with the LibDems’ Nick Clegg. The coalition gave Cameron a functioning majority – but before the deal with the LibDems was finalised, he was summoned to the Palace ‘as a matter of course’.

    He ... then goes on to make clear that the crucial test for whether there is a ‘hung Parliament with no party in overall control is the ability to pass a Queen’s Speech:

    No wonder that Theresa May has postponed the Queen’s Speech and is desperately trying – in spite of the clear risk to the safety of the people of Northern Ireland – to secure the backing of a demanding DUP that sees no need to compromise on its demands.

    If she cannot get her Queen’s Speech through Parliament at the first attempt – constitutional law makes Jeremy Corbyn the Prime Minister by default, without the need for him to do the same."


    Think of a Kramnik game - it seems to be a dead draw but Kramnik plays his endgames superbly well, and identifies a key weakness that he can exploit to pull victory from apparent chaos. In retrospect it all seems simple but only he can see the clear straight path to his goal.
Back to Top