|
I'm pretty sure that bit about the government not having money after the 1st April is wrong, my understanding is that they'd just work off of the previous years budget until a new one was found. If not I imagine that an emergency budget would be passed before then if they can't get this one through the Commons
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Emergency Budget 2016 for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: - more money for us - gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I see, cheers. So essentially none of this is happening unless there are actually enough conservative MPs who want to end their own government and have a re-election? Withdrawing the whip just means that they no longer get central office funding. Going into a General Election without that would be political suicide for all but a few with sufficiently rich, powerful and loyal local party apparatchiks that they could successfully mount an independent bid, and after the 1997 reforms they pretty much don't exist any more. kustomkarkommando posted:It would still be loving disastrous for the Tories but they could probably limp on No, they literally couldn't. This isn't a nicety, this is literally how the Westminster System works. There's no backup plan, if a supply bill goes the Parliament goes. Now one possibility that has been mentioned is at least politically possible if not particularly probable - an amendment in the actual Finance Bill debates that will happen in the summer (actually pretty close to the EU referendum for extra spice). For example, an amendment to reverse the changes to the disability payments. Any Tory voting for this amendment would be delivering a pretty big gently caress off to Gideon and if it passed would make his position completely untenable, but wouldn't invoke the nuclear option of dissolving the parliament (which, for reasons explained above, the rebels would never do because they'd have to fight a snap election on purely their own money).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:No taxes could be collected, no wages could be paid, no debt could be paid or accrued. Tories living the dream
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
If we're talking reserve powers, I remind everyone that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act did not mention anything about the Crown's prerogrative powers to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minister...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Another thing worth noting is that lots of the minor parties don't want a General Election; they probably don't have the money for another election campaign. The Tories will be perfectly fine, the SNP don't really need to spend much really, Labour might struggle depending on whether lots of the rich people that used to donate to them aren't anymore, I don't know what their finances are. Everyone else would probably struggle to fund a campaign. That's why I think a Finance Act amendment plan might be more likely than defeating the thing outright, although it is a risky plan since some potential Tory rebels might switch if media attention shifts away...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:I'm pretty sure that bit about the government not having money after the 1st April is wrong, my understanding is that they'd just work off of the previous years budget until a new one was found. If not I imagine that an emergency budget would be passed before then if they can't get this one through the Commons Okay, so here's how this works. All Government expenditure and revenue is authorised by the Finance Act 2015. This Act covers FY15/16 and expires with that financial year. In the next few days, following the Chancellor's Statement To The House, there is a Vote On Account - this is basically an enabling act that says "HMG is allowed to carry on business between April 1 and the passage of the Finance Bill 2016 or the end of the current Parliament". In late spring or early summer (it's normally one of the last pieces of legislation passed before the summer recess) there will be debates and a vote on the Finance Bill 2016, which is basically everything Gideon said apart from the bits already enacted under existing legislation (e.g. changes to duties, like the increase in cigarette duty). If Parliament is dissolved while the Finance Bill expires without a Vote on Account, the Royal Prerogative is used in place of a Vote On Account to keep everything legal until a new Bill can be passed. If the Government is defeated, either on the Vote on Account or the Finance Bill, it cannot then legally collect taxes or make payments until a new Finance Bill is passed, because the Finance Bill is what says it can. Of course theoretically they *could* keep putting the Finance Bil back up for vote until it passes but that would be a colossal breach of the convention and just isn't going to happen. A Government that can't get a Finance Bill passed is the definition of a Government with no legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:No, they literally couldn't. This isn't a nicety, this is literally how the Westminster System works. There's no backup plan, if a supply bill goes the Parliament goes. The FTPA explicitly does not allow for a dissolution if a supply vote fails and only an explicit no confidence motion has the power to dissolve parliament - a defeat is not a no confidence motion and the prime minister no longer has the power to exercise his conventional obligation to dissolve parliament upon loss of supply. We'd be looking at something like the US's shutdown probably if it goes tits up for the Tories
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:The FTPA explicitly does not allow for a dissolution if a supply vote fails and only an explicit no confidence motion has the power to dissolve parliament - a defeat is not a no confidence motion and the prime minister no longer has the power to exercise his conventional obligation to dissolve parliament upon loss of supply. That's why the FTPA is a lovely useless piece of legislation that should never have been passed, because like I say, without a Vote on Account or Finance Bill all Government activity ceases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Aside from the "credible and true" statement can someone fill me in on what the actual supposed problem here is? It's not like powerful people being nonces is some kind of impossibility in this country, so they launched an investigation, decided there wasn't enough evidence to bring a prosecution, and have ended the investigation. Isn't that, like, the textbook definition of what is meant to happen when the cops hear allegations of criminal activity? I guess the credibility and truth of the accusations. It sounds like one guy made the accusations about a whole bunch of famous people, an MP bigged them up hugely and there was a massive media circus and there ended up being no corroboration whatsoever. Like, I don't think it shouldn't have been investigated, but it should have been investigated a lot more quietly. Not to mention if there had been anything to it all the publicity would have been a huge warning to those involved to flee/destroy any evidence they could.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:That's why the FTPA is a lovely useless piece of legislation that should never have been passed, because like I say, without a Vote on Account or Finance Bill all Government activity ceases. VAT, Excise and most indirect taxes could still be collected as they don't expire annually and would continue as is - Income and corporation are the two big ones that require annual renewal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:VAT, Excise and most indirect taxes could still be collected as they don't expire annually and would continue as is - Income and corporation are the two big ones that require annual renewal. Maybe the government could go back to ship money! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:If we're talking reserve powers, I remind everyone that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act did not mention anything about the Crown's prerogrative powers to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minister... ACTIVATE THE QUEEN *pulls lever, runs for cover*
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Thing is, you can change and improve things over time. As long as it provides a mechanism for doing so better than "50% + 1 of these guys think it's a great idea" then it provides a start for a living and self-improving document, but one that is codified. It's not like I don't think Britain couldn't function with one, it's just that I get quite iffy about it when I see poo poo like the 2nd Amendment fetishisation in America. I'd like any constitution we implemented to be more flexible than that system at which point why not just continue with an unwritten one? Not to mention I wouldn't trust a constitution written by the current government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Thing is, you can change and improve things over time. Sure. I'm contending that with the current shower of shits we're suffering, the starting document would be bloody awful, and either take a very long time to fix or be entirely broken and practically unfixable. That said, writing anything at all would at least set a precedent for trying to have a written constitution, which would make writing an all new one easier in future. So I guess it wouldn't be all bad in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
I think America is the only country that treats its constitution like the bible. Most other countries just update theirs from time to time but it serves to give the government of the day more inertia, because you can't just overturn it at the drop of a hat, unlike ours which can do anything it wants to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:VAT, Excise and most indirect taxes could still be collected as they don't expire annually and would continue as is - Income and corporation are the two big ones that require annual renewal. Yeah but it can't spend any money, which is a rather more urgent and pressing problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
its amazing that less than a year after they got a majority osborne has become so mad with power he's hosed up it so spectacularly and that its his own fault from previous budgets. I guess seeing labour a mess and having total support of the press essentially he thought he could get away with anything. Not that it will happen but the fact that there are even rumours that the budget won't pass is incredible
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Jose posted:its amazing that less than a year after they got a majority osborne has become so mad with power he's hosed up it so spectacularly and that its his own fault from previous budgets. I guess seeing labour a mess and having total support of the press essentially he thought he could get away with anything. It's not so incredible: a Tory government with a majority of 12 and a commitment to hold a referendum on membership of the EU was obviously going to go to poo poo pretty quickly and spectacularly. It's just that the triumphalism of the Conservative press in the aftermath of the 2015 election was so extreme that it was easy for people to lose sight of the underlying realities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
I'm just surprised at it happening in less than a year. In other news Nicky Morgan did something ill advised and posted on mumsnet defending privatising all schools. http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/2595153-Guest-post-Nicky-Morgan-Why-academisation-is-best-for-our-schools
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm just surprised at it happening in less than a year. In other news Nicky Morgan did something ill advised and posted on mumsnet defending privatising all schools. That is spectacularly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
So the coverage of Corbyn from today seems to be general disbelief that he didn't mention IDS at all. Do we think there's a good reason for that, because it seems like a pretty terrible move.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Going back a way,Regarde Aduck posted:What kind of mental gymnastics are required to think austerity promotes growth? "Being (deliberately) bad at Excel". Reinhard-Roghoff is the recent source of these claims in a non-just so story way, they suggested that there's a deficit level beyond which growth plummets. You only get that result if you exclude the high-deficit high-growth countries, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm just surprised at it happening in less than a year. In other news Nicky Morgan did something ill advised and posted on mumsnet defending privatising all schools. It's apt if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
jabby posted:So the coverage of Corbyn from today seems to be general disbelief that he didn't mention IDS at all. Do we think there's a good reason for that, because it seems like a pretty terrible move. I've only seen one clip where he was ripping the piss about Osborne not being there and that seemed to be pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Isn't PMQs usually on a Wednesday? What particular flavour of slagging match was it today?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
jabby posted:So the coverage of Corbyn from today seems to be general disbelief that he didn't mention IDS at all. Do we think there's a good reason for that, because it seems like a pretty terrible move. Today was a very good showcase of jorno's lining up to say one of leadership losers would be better. Despite the fact they would have agreed with these cuts as IDS resigned, ending up like a scene in the thick of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:Isn't PMQs usually on a Wednesday? What particular flavour of slagging match was it today? An urgent question was granted to John McDonnell by the speaker, and two ministerial statements by David Cameron and David Gauke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
jabby posted:So the coverage of Corbyn from today seems to be general disbelief that he didn't mention IDS at all. Do we think there's a good reason for that, because it seems like a pretty terrible move. because there's enough to attack over without giving any credit to IDS and everybody already knows what happened there. Plus inserting himself into a Tory spat could push the tories to calm down a little so they don't feel like they're helping labour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
The tories seem to be having fun fighting among themselves so I don't think it's strictly necessary to wade into the middle of them. Just keep on the side and throw the occasional weapon into the ring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
focus attacks on osborne imo, and that's what he did in that speech
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
jabby posted:So the coverage of Corbyn from today seems to be general disbelief that he didn't mention IDS at all. Do we think there's a good reason for that, because it seems like a pretty terrible move. Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
jabby posted:So the coverage of Corbyn from today seems to be general disbelief that he didn't mention IDS at all. Do we think there's a good reason for that, because it seems like a pretty terrible move. I don't think Corbyn wants a "Corbyn sides with IDS" headline. He's quite capable of pointing out it's poo poo without IDS' help
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Yeah IDS has made a tactical withdrawal from the government and opened up a line of attack at the heart of government but using language that Corbyn can follow up from without having to adjust his pitch at all. Utopian scenario here is that the Tories gently caress themselves in knots over this, Corbyn makes a killing in speeches and Labour make advances in May based on it. Tories are so pissed at IDS that he's forced into exile from loving everything up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
jabby posted:So the coverage of Corbyn from today seems to be general disbelief that he didn't mention IDS at all. Do we think there's a good reason for that, because it seems like a pretty terrible move. Why attack IDS when he's no longer in charge of benefit decisions and is not a key player until he emerges along side Boris? Corbyn's already said " He's suddenly found a conscience now. I wonder where his conscience has been hiding for the last six years"?" of IDS. That's it done. A man who is no longer in a top position in the Tory party isn't a worthy target and attacking him would only take time away from attacking Osborne. If he had attacked IDS they'd be asking why he focused on a man who already quit instead of going after Osborne who's still in power? JoylessJester posted:Today was a very good showcase of jorno's lining up to say one of leadership losers would be better. Despite the fact they would have agreed with these cuts as IDS resigned, ending up like a scene in the thick of it. Yeah I don't get that. Nobody's stopping Yvette Cooper or Dan Jarvis from going after the Tories. The idea that we'd suddenly see how amazing they were if they were in charge is ridiculous. Proper, "You don't want CM Punk, you want Sheamus!" stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:
They'd both have bravely and realistically agreed that the cuts to disability spending were Tough and Unavoidable, only to be left looking like idiots when the Tories u-turned on them shortly afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:They'd both have bravely and realistically agreed that the cuts to disability spending were Tough and Unavoidable, only to be left looking like idiots when the Tories u-turned on them shortly afterwards. Aye, pretty much. The inability of these political journalists to barely see beyond catty comments made that day is staggering. The fact that being against austerity is starting to take root and these fuckers spent the better part of the last six years desperately trying to prove that they'd be just as much of a set of bastards as the Tories doesn't seem to register with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
IDS is a pretty thorny guy to bring up, because we don't have hard evidence of why he left, just a bunch of plausible theories, and saying 'see, the budget was so awful a cabinet minister resigned over it' endorses Smith's awful, cynical self-advertisement as a martyr to big bad Osborne.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
The press just wants more IDS drama. It's not a mystery. It's like when they complain he doesn't make jokes or give out soundbites during PMQ's and that makes him weak. Corbyn's got a good line on Osborne right now and that's who he should take down. Bringing down the Conservative's economic credentials is a real possibility right now, eyes on the prize. I mean here he is slaying it on Sky News of all places calling IDS a dick and getting some nice hits in anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcEVWHGQGfA Fans fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
So what do we know about Gove's planned prison reforms? I just know that they're big, and that they're probably happening provided the Conservative Party doesn't explode in the next few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:30
|
|