Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110580)

I've said many times polls can be wrong and have been wrong in the past - sure GB News poll is off from normal polling but you are conveniently missing the point that Labour are unelectable to many many people, despite the issues with the Tory party, millions will never vote for them and I am in that camp. Keir Starmer has zero charisma and plus of the issues of propping up a leader with Anti-Semitic rhetoric that was rife when Corbyn was leader.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36110579)

Completely irrelevant, it makes no difference who made the rules.

Unless of course you are now saying its fine to break any law or rule, as long as you are not the person who made that law/rule. :erm:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36110584)

Wishful thinking, Andrew, do you really think anyone will give a toss two years and three months down the line?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110557)

Again, just because you can arrange words in a sentence doesn’t mean you’re making any sense.

Precedent and convention are two cheeks of the same arse. There is a reason why the last member of the Lords to become PM sought election to the Commons at the earliest opportunity. By 1963 our parliamentary democracy had matured to the point where it was no longer acceptable for the Prime Minister not to be directly accountable to the elected house. In effect, the precedent of Alex Douglas Home resigning his peerage so he could get elected created the convention that the PM must be a sitting MP.

Neither precedent nor convention simply arise out of nowhere. There is always some pressing reason, whether it be a national emergency or a sea-change in attitudes around what’s deemed acceptable. It is highly unlikely that any national emergency is about to arise that would justify creating an unelected prime minister, even temporarily, and your attempt to raise precedent as a possible reason why it might happen is as daft as Seph’s.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------



Politically, no, it’s not possible, and that’s all that actually matters. We have almost arrived at the point where the changing of a prime minister mid-term makes demands for a snap general election irresistible. To think any party would get away with arranging a safe by election seat for an ex-member of the House of Lords is pure fantasy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110594)

I think you are a bit of a purist, Chris! I'm sure that Bercow would have made maximum use of precedents to do something dubious! :D

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110587)

Private Eye has reported that The Government offered a change in the law for the Queen so that - for one day - the restrictions would be lifted in order that she didn't attend Prince Philip's funeral alone. She declined because she didn't think it was fair when others in the country had to grieve in the same way. "She wanted to set an example rather than be an exception to the rules". That's what a leader should do. The contrast with Johnson is huge.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110595)

Please provide an example to back up your assertion… :)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110602)

Here’s one - you’ll probably remember it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-break-brexit/

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110606)

Dubious ≠ "something you disagreed with"… ;)

He used something from Erskine May, which is the Parliamentary rule book - how is this "dubious"?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110608)

Nobody expected Bercow to use this ancient precedent. If could go back to the year dot for a precedent, he would. If he couldn’t find one, he’d make one of his own.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110610)

Now you’re just projecting…

You can’t find an example where he used precedent to do something actually dubious, so now you’re reduced to stating that he would have if he had to… :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110601)

The monarch isn’t above the law - we had a civil war over that question. Ours is a constitutional monarchy, which in practice is a delicate and arcane interweaving of parliament and crown. MPs swear allegiance to the Queen, but when she comes to formally open each parliamentary session, her representative (Black Rod) has the door slammed in his face.

It is of course absolutely inconceivable that she would do anything that would risk her ending up in court.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110613)

Yeah, yeah. I hope you are satisfied with that response.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110616)

Yes she is above the law, for the simple reason, she is immune to prosecution, she cannot be tried in any courts because they’re her courts, for all Judicial appointments require swearing an oath to the crown.



http://www.britishheritage.com/royal...izabeth-murder

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110587)

It does make a difference.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110587)

We expect politicians to abide by the laws they make.