Westministenders: A New Approach? No chance.

[RedToothBrush]

Next week we will have a new PM. He will be called Boris Johnson unless something very odd has happened.

His first 72 hours will be 'interesting' especially if today's events are anything to go by.

His Cabinet is sure to be a horror show. It was noticable who abstained today - they don't think they will be in a Johnson Cabinet and clearly don't want to be.

To move forward Johnson must be able to survive a rebellion and a Queen's speech before now and 31st October.

And be able to unit his party in order to find a way forward.

And whilst parliament has voted to block proroguing parliament, it could still be dissolved if there is a vote of no confidence.

And what happens if Johnson loses a vote? Will he manage to become PM? Will there be a GE.

All the signs are that next week is going to be a hell of a ride.

Enjoy your weekend.

DGR it’s even better than that - Raab was echoing Johnson’s piece in today’s Torygraph:

”If they could use hand-knitted computer code to make a frictionless re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere in 1969, we can solve the problem of frictionless trade at the Northern Irish border”

Because we all know how well Government IT projects go...

BTW, Elphicke is due to appear in court on 6th September. That's could be interesting timing...

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, ON BRITISH TANKER INCIDENT IN IRAN, SAYS IT FALLS TO THE UNITED KINGDOM TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR SHIPS -FOX NEWS #OOTT

Oh dear. Yesterday's Observer had an article saying how we blundered into seizing the Iranian ship, being set up to do so by the US, and now they are disowning us.

Accidentally turned on BBC Parliament channel to see Chris Grayling being questioned.

See Theresa is going to make a speech on Wednesday to officially resign. 🤞 she slips in the name of her new appointee of US ambassador.

I really should be paid for my insights having predicted "Suez 2" a few days ago.

I wonder if we are going to see a parade of Brexiteers telling us how much we can rely on the US now ?

(For what it's worth, I can't see anything wrong in the US stance - it's a refreshing change in a way ...)

There are rumours about D Phillip Lee defecting.

His local party are trying to get him removed and he lost a vote against him 32 - 2 meaning deselection is now on the cards.

He represents Bracknell which was 53% Leave at the referendum.

It does however appear to be an area which has changed its mind however it is a solid safe Tory ground. And this doesn't appear to have changed based on the local election results.

www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/bracknell-has-changed-its-mind-on-brexit-says-new-poll/

This is why Lee defended his EU stance.

But yes, could throw another spanner in the works.

I see UK news sources are a little shy about Pompeos remarks

George Canning.

It would be richly ironic if Boris time as PM managed to be less than the 4 weeks it took to get him there.

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/22/about-750-people-denied-vote-id-trial-local-elections?CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true
About 750 people denied vote in ID trial at local elections
Official study says pilot went smoothly overall but Labour calls for scheme to be dropped

About 750 people were denied a vote at May’s local elections because of a controversial trial scheme to oblige people in some areas to show ID before casting a ballot, an official study has shown.

While the Electoral Commission, which carried out the research, said the trial in 10 local authority areas in England seemed to have gone smoothly overall, Labour said the scale of the issue meant the government must abandon the scheme.

Overall the study found up to 2,083 people were initially turned away for not having the necessary ID with them, and as many as 758 never returned. As a proportion of all votes cast this ranged from 0.7% in two areas, Craven and Pendle, to 0.03% in Mid Sussex.

And

The commission said that in Derby, one of the trial areas, there was a strong correlation between the numbers of people denied a vote in particular wards and the proportion of that ward’s population who were from an Asian background. However, in Pendle this correlation was much weaker, it said

And

The study also said opinion polls among people who did not vote showed 1% of them said it was because they did not have the right ID.

So 1% didn't vote because of voter ID rules AND an additional 750 were disenfranchised who DID try and vote.

The Guardian headline rather understate this story.

For 'richly ironic' read 'fucking hilarious'!

I'm really not sure Johnson could truthfully answer yes to HMTQ when asked if he can command a majority. Though his relationship with the truth is fleeting at best.

I'm really not sure Johnson could truthfully answer yes to HMTQ when asked if he can command a majority

this is probably the most opaque part of the process (or am I just being super-dim today ?).

Am I expected to believe that the palace is happy to take it "on trust" that when Boris rocks up and says "Hulllloooooo, I'm the new PM !" he does have the confidence of the house (not just his own party - and that's a stretch) ?

What are the constitutional implications of the palace (either off their own bat, or with prompting from Labour) asking Boris to go away and come back with a VoC ?

Far be it for me to advise the Iranians, but it would make things even more interesting if they were to release the crew of the tanker - maybe on Wednesday afternoon - but retain the tanker itself ...

How long does it take to make 23 suits ?

What are the constitutional implications of the palace (either off their own bat, or with prompting from Labour) asking Boris to go away and come back with a VoC?

I was pondering this as I typed my bit, you know.

Given how well-informed our Liz is, she will know of Johnson's very slim majority WITHOUT defections / votes against, I don't know whether she would be very, 'Are you sure?!' if he says yes. Would he lie to the Queen? 😱😱 I bloody wouldn't!

So, all it will take to topple the Government is another scandal, three defections or resignations or a bout of illness.
I don't care if the incoming leader has a tongue of silver and the wisdom of Solomon. He can't fight the numbers.

If he gives his word to the Queen that he can form a government (ie that he can command a majority in Parliament) then she will accept his word.
If he loses a vote of no confidence that is tabled in Parliament then there has to be a GE. And he is PM until such time as there is a new Parliament and he can longer command a majority. Unless he can after the GE.
Her Maj will do everything to stay out of it.

I'm really not sure Johnson could truthfully answer

I think this is as far as I've got in my thinking today.

If he gives his word to the Queen that he can form a government (ie that he can command a majority in Parliament) then she will accept his word.

I think the Queen is still sharp enough to remember previous Prime Ministers who said that, and then had to spent weeks stitching up deals before it was true.

Fool me once, etc ....

Her Maj will do everything to stay out of it.

So, rather like our nuclear deterrent, what's the point of her ? When (if ever) do we get to see this mythical mystical beast of "the unwritten constitution" and "constitutional monarchy" actually start to earn it's fucking keep ?

I think Johnson would lie to the queen. Johnson lies are as automatic as breathing.

Everytime I read the thread or the news DEFECT...DEFECT....DEFECT goes around in my head like a football match chant.

It's ok I know I've gone insane

But I think, or I worry, it's all hot air, the no confidence votes, resignations, defects, etc. Small pockets of positivity but I'm not 100% optimistic that it'll amount to a functional, practical, united move to stop either Johnson or no deal.

The truth is surely: I don't know. Neither yes or no is actually certain, is it?

I'll caveat my ire by restating the "opaque" description about the process.

None of us has any idea what is said in private between Queen and PM - nor what advice the Queen gets from her own circle.

And to fair, when Boris meets Lizzie, there will only ever be one master. And it ain't ever gonna be blusterboyboris (as he once called himself on Tinder).

It's not her job to override the will of Parliament. Even if it's a shit Parliament crumbling in on itself. She's old enough and wise enough to let them sort this shit out themselves.
It is for the person who thinks they can command a majority in Parliament to present themselves to her as PM.
Technically, I think she can ask another person if they can command a majority if she doesn't believe the knobhead who rocks up to the Palace claiming they can command a majority.
I imagine that if it is Johnson she will make him look her in the eye and swear he's able to command a majority. And put it on him to lie.

It's not her job to override the will of Parliament.

So what is "the will of Parliament" ?

@NoWordForFluffy - I bloody wouldn't!

They're not allowed throw you in the tower anymore, you know....

Did no one read my link to the Sky News Sam Coates piece I linked at 4.24 when I had a bout of insomnia? Re Johnson getting the job Wednesday?