Jeremy Corbyn could automatically become PM

[Ted]

All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

[saracene]

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

The snippa who wrote that obviously wants a labout government. That would be a disaster.

[newsreader crashed again]

Post by saracene

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

The snippa who wrote that obviously wants a labout government. That would be a disaster.

It would not be a disaster in theory, but in practice as soon as Corbyn was like to become PM, all investors would be instructed to remove as much cash from the UK as possible and put it anywhere in the world but Britain.

This they would do, like the brain dead sheep they are.

The pound would then collapse on the foreign exchanges, the FTSE indexes would also collapse by about 500%.

Next, all companies would be instructed to raise prices by 100% in order to stoke inflation, in the hope that there would be rioting and violence in the street.

Hi-tech bugging equipment already secretly installed in all Labour MPs homes, vehicles , gardens etc., would be switched on automatically, and every controversial sentence they uttered would immediately be leaked to the Murdoch/Barclay newspapers as an "exclusive piece of investigative journalism"; followed by a deafening chorus of right wing parrots on social media with their yah-boo puerile politics.

And this would before Corbyn had even had a chance to implement a single policy.

If the establishment do not want us to have a socialist government, then we will not get one.

It is called British democracy.

[saracene]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Big Jumper]

Post by saracene

Post by newsreader crashed again

Post by saracene

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

The snippa who wrote that obviously wants a labout government. That would be a disaster.

It would not be a disaster in theory, but in practice as soon as Corbyn was like to become PM, all investors would be instructed to remove as much cash from the UK as possible and put it anywhere in the world but Britain.
This they would do, like the brain dead sheep they are.
The pound would then collapse on the foreign exchanges, the FTSE indexes would also collapse by about 500%.
Next, all companies would be instructed to raise prices by 100% in order to stoke inflation, in the hope that there would be rioting and violence in the street.
Hi-tech bugging equipment already secretly installed in all Labour MPs homes, vehicles , gardens etc., would be switched on automatically, and every controversial sentence they uttered would immediately be leaked to the Murdoch/Barclay newspapers as an "exclusive piece of investigative journalism"; followed by a deafening chorus of right wing parrots on social media with their yah-boo puerile politics.
And this would before Corbyn had even had a chance to implement a single policy.
If the establishment do not want us to have a socialist government, then we will not get one.
It is called British democracy.

I wouldn't like a socialist government even if it worked. It would mean thought control, more coloured immigration and the triumph of the most revolting people, fanatical feminists ardent Marxists and all sorts of censoring prigs.

+1

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ted]

Post by saracene
even if it worked. It would mean thought control, more coloured immigration and the triumph of the most revolting people, fanatical feminists ardent Marxists and all sorts of censoring prigs.

You mean that nothing would change?

[saracene]

Post by Ted

Post by saracene
even if it worked. It would mean thought control, more coloured immigration and the triumph of the most revolting people, fanatical feminists ardent Marxists and all sorts of censoring prigs.

You mean that nothing would change?

I mean it would get worse.

[MM]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

The snippa who wrote that obviously wants a labout government. That would be a disaster.

Like, we don't already have a disaster under the Tories?

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[saracene]

Post by MM
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), saracene

Post by saracene

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

The snippa who wrote that obviously wants a labout government. That would be a disaster.

Like, we don't already have a disaster under the Tories?

Nothing like the horrible state that would ensue if people like you got what they wanted.

[Yellow]

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.

Is that true?

[Ted]

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't know but am sure that Jeremy could do the job properly much
better than May.

[Jahbulon]

Post by Yellow
This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's
Speech through but if they fail in that, Labour would
automatically become the government but they would would
not then need to get a Queen's Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

Yes.

Failure to secure the Queen's Speech is considered a confidence issue,
meaning by convention that a new government must be formed (usually via a
general election).

Jeremy Corbyn is at liberty to try to form a government without another
general election if he wants, but as doing so would require the support
of either the DUP or the Conservative Party, I don't rate his chances.

In 1940 the UK Consrvative government fell and was replaced, without a
general election, by a Conservative-Labour coaltion, with Winston
Churchill as Prime Minister and Labour's Clement Atlee his deputy.

[Yellow]

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's
Speech through but if they fail in that, Labour would
automatically become the government but they would would
not then need to get a Queen's Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

Yes.
Failure to secure the Queen's Speech is considered a confidence issue,
meaning by convention that a new government must be formed (usually via a
general election).

I understand that, but the article says Labour would then not need their
own Queen's Speech - is that true?

And if it is, why are the Tories having one?

Post by Jahbulon
Jeremy Corbyn is at liberty to try to form a government without another
general election if he wants, but as doing so would require the support
of either the DUP or the Conservative Party, I don't rate his chances.
In 1940 the UK Consrvative government fell and was replaced, without a
general election, by a Conservative-Labour coaltion, with Winston
Churchill as Prime Minister and Labour's Clement Atlee his deputy.

[Ophelia]

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's
Speech through but if they fail in that, Labour would
automatically become the government but they would would
not then need to get a Queen's Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

Yes.
Failure to secure the Queen's Speech is considered a confidence issue,
meaning by convention that a new government must be formed (usually via a
general election).

I understand that, but the article says Labour would then not need their
own Queen's Speech - is that true?

And if it is, why are the Tories having one?

==

I don't know, because they have announced that they are not having one next
year!

[Yellow]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gmail.com
says...

Post by Yellow

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's
Speech through but if they fail in that, Labour would
automatically become the government but they would would
not then need to get a Queen's Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

Yes.
Failure to secure the Queen's Speech is considered a confidence issue,
meaning by convention that a new government must be formed (usually via a
general election).

I understand that, but the article says Labour would then not need their
own Queen's Speech - is that true?
And if it is, why are the Tories having one?
==
I don't know, because they have announced that they are not having one next
year!

Maybe someone could enlighten us? Please.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's
Speech through but if they fail in that, Labour would
automatically become the government but they would would
not then need to get a Queen's Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

Yes.
Failure to secure the Queen's Speech is considered a confidence issue,
meaning by convention that a new government must be formed (usually via a
general election).

I understand that, but the article says Labour would then not need their
own Queen's Speech - is that true?
And if it is, why are the Tories having one?
==
I don't know, because they have announced that they are not having one next
year!

Maybe someone could enlighten us? Please.

The government has one in order to introduce its legislative programme
for the new parliament. It reckons, though, what with Brexit and all,
their programme will last two years not one. So, a Queen's Speech next
year would more than likely just be repeating this year's and is
unnecessary.

[Yellow]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by Yellow

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's
Speech through but if they fail in that, Labour would
automatically become the government but they would would
not then need to get a Queen's Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

Yes.
Failure to secure the Queen's Speech is considered a confidence issue,
meaning by convention that a new government must be formed (usually via a
general election).

I understand that, but the article says Labour would then not need their
own Queen's Speech - is that true?
And if it is, why are the Tories having one?
==
I don't know, because they have announced that they are not having one next
year!

Maybe someone could enlighten us? Please.

The government has one in order to introduce its legislative programme
for the new parliament. It reckons, though, what with Brexit and all,
their programme will last two years not one. So, a Queen's Speech next
year would more than likely just be repeating this year's and is
unnecessary.

Thanks Norman. So it is not law that we have one, just tradition?

[abelard]

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
The government has one in order to introduce its legislative programme
for the new parliament. It reckons, though, what with Brexit and all,
their programme will last two years not one. So, a Queen's Speech next
year would more than likely just be repeating this year's and is
unnecessary.

Thanks Norman. So it is not law that we have one, just tradition?

very much my impression...

i doubt there is any *requirement* for a kween's speech

[The Todal]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
The government has one in order to introduce its legislative programme
for the new parliament. It reckons, though, what with Brexit and all,
their programme will last two years not one. So, a Queen's Speech next
year would more than likely just be repeating this year's and is
unnecessary.

Thanks Norman. So it is not law that we have one, just tradition?

very much my impression...
i doubt there is any *requirement* for a kween's speech

Thanks for that advice, Lord Chancellor.

Apart from writing an unnecessary Queen's Speech, what on earth is the
Maybot expected to do within the next 10 days (the ultimatum given to
her by her colleagues) to restore confidence in the government?

Maybe Theresa could make a really impressive speech which is quoted with
great admiration by the Times, Telegraph and Mail. But who could write
it for her?

[abelard]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
The government has one in order to introduce its legislative programme
for the new parliament. It reckons, though, what with Brexit and all,
their programme will last two years not one. So, a Queen's Speech next
year would more than likely just be repeating this year's and is
unnecessary.

Thanks Norman. So it is not law that we have one, just tradition?

very much my impression...
i doubt there is any *requirement* for a kween's speech

Thanks for that advice, Lord Chancellor.

no problem at all

Post by The Todal
Apart from writing an unnecessary Queen's Speech, what on earth is the
Maybot expected to do within the next 10 days (the ultimatum given to
her by her colleagues) to restore confidence in the government?

not 'colleagues'...ambitious rivals

Post by The Todal
Maybe Theresa could make a really impressive speech which is quoted with
great admiration by the Times, Telegraph and Mail. But who could write
it for her?

her speeches seem fine...it's her weakness in the meaningless
sound bites skills and emoting department that is so disgraceful

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
The government has one in order to introduce its legislative programme
for the new parliament. It reckons, though, what with Brexit and all,
their programme will last two years not one. So, a Queen's Speech next
year would more than likely just be repeating this year's and is
unnecessary.

Thanks Norman. So it is not law that we have one, just tradition?

very much my impression...
i doubt there is any *requirement* for a kween's speech

Thanks for that advice, Lord Chancellor.
Apart from writing an unnecessary Queen's Speech, what on earth is the
Maybot expected to do within the next 10 days (the ultimatum given to
her by her colleagues) to restore confidence in the government?

She doesn't actually have to do anything. There is no heir apparent,
unless you count Boris, who does not meet with universal approval
either, and if she goes the Tories will be plunged into a rather
unseemly leadership contest from which they will not emerge either
united or smelling of roses.

Then there are the little matters of making an agreement with the DUP,
forming a government, getting the Queen's Speech through Parliament, and
negotiating Brexit.

She's not dead yet, and the 'deadline of 10 days' is about as real and
significant as any manufactured programme on the TV where someone has to
do something or other within a set time frame. If you stop to ask why,
there is no answer.

Post by The Todal
Maybe Theresa could make a really impressive speech which is quoted with
great admiration by the Times, Telegraph and Mail. But who could write
it for her?

It doesn't matter what she does. The Tories can't afford to ditch her yet.

[The Todal]

Post by Norman Wells
She's not dead yet, and the 'deadline of 10 days' is about as real and
significant as any manufactured programme on the TV where someone has to
do something or other within a set time frame. If you stop to ask why,
there is no answer.

It's all very much like the Corbyn Crisis a year or so ago. Each
newspaper pundit, relying on leaks and gossip from MPs, was trying to
predict how Corbyn would lose his job or the party would split.

This weekend we had The Times assuring us that Theresa had been given a
deadline of 10 days to shape up or ship out. A day or so later we had
the Guardian telling us that Theresa May is safe for now but her long
term future is in doubt.

I suppose it's the MPs posing and positioning themselves for a future
leadership bid, sending coded signals to each other. Don't strike yet,
wait a bit longer, meanwhile we must scupper his chances, anyone but
Boris or Andrea.

[Jahbulon]

Post by Yellow
Thanks Norman. So it is not law that we have one, just tradition?

Yes, but it is very important tradition as the Monarch alone selects her
Prime Minister, and the House of Commons vote on the Queen's Speech is
the first opportunity for our elected representatives to question that
choice and, if need arises, remove him or her from power.

[Jahbulon]

Post by Yellow
I understand that, but the article says Labour would then
not need their own Queen's Speech - is that true?

No it is not true.

Post by Yellow
And if it is, why are the Tories having one?

Exactly.

[MM]

Post by Yellow

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's
Speech through but if they fail in that, Labour would
automatically become the government but they would would
not then need to get a Queen's Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

Yes.
Failure to secure the Queen's Speech is considered a confidence issue,
meaning by convention that a new government must be formed (usually via a
general election).

I understand that, but the article says Labour would then not need their
own Queen's Speech - is that true?
And if it is, why are the Tories having one?

The Tories have just cancelled the one due in 2018, so the QS is not
sacrosanct.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Vidcapper]

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

No - he would have to get the HoC to vote to support it, just as May
needs to.

[Yellow]

In article <C%o1B.279119$***@fx20.am4>, ***@yahoo.co.uk
says...

Post by Vidcapper

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

No - he would have to get the HoC to vote to support it, just as May
needs to.

That would certainly make more sense.

[Jeff]

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

No, not automatically. It may be what would happen, and has happened in
the past, but it is not 'automatic'. There may exist circumstances where
some other 'solution would be pragmatic.

Jeff

[The Todal]

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he failed,
he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until that
election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump.

[Yellow]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he failed,
he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until that
election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump.

Impressive how?

[The Todal]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he failed,
he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until that
election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump.

Impressive how?

Becoming PM is always impressive, surely. And to thwart the ignorant
predictions of the pundits and of his opponents would surely be the
cherry on top.

[Yellow]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he failed,
he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until that
election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump.

Impressive how?

Becoming PM is always impressive, surely. And to thwart the ignorant
predictions of the pundits and of his opponents would surely be the
cherry on top.

Myself - I am impressed that he became leader of the Labour Party and
with the support he has from its membership.

But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would be a bit of a Gordon
Brown moment I think.

But if he actually manages to wins a general election, then it will be a
whole different story.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he failed,
he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until that
election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump.

Impressive how?

Becoming PM is always impressive, surely. And to thwart the ignorant
predictions of the pundits and of his opponents would surely be the
cherry on top.

Myself - I am impressed that he became leader of the Labour Party and
with the support he has from its membership.

the fascist 'new' labour party has been at war for most of 100 years..
the more practical union bosses have continually tried to keep
power out of the constituecy loons/enthusiasts....
they've changed the rule recently whereby the loons have control

the cult tends to call the union bosses 'right wing' and the loons
'left wing'...

both lots believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat..ie
dictatorship

the other main split has been that the loons believe all that
is needed is to tell the public 'the truth'...and support will
flood to the cult...
the other lot are more realistic and believe in a maximum of
dishonesty and sneakiness....this sect are mostly associated
with the fabians...almost all the leaders are and have been
fabian members

it's a religion...not a political party...much more akin to the
islamists than real political parties

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would be a bit of a Gordon
Brown moment I think.
But if he actually manages to wins a general election, then it will be a
whole different story.

[Jahbulon]

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would
be a bit of a Gordon Brown moment I think.

Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general election: the
Conservative Party and DUP would surely bring him down (not to mention
the SNP)?

[The Todal]

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would
be a bit of a Gordon Brown moment I think.

Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general election: the
Conservative Party and DUP would surely bring him down (not to mention
the SNP)?

But would they do that if they were convinced that Labour would win an
even bigger majority? Might they perhaps wait a few more months until
Labour's poll ratings had fallen significantly?

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would
be a bit of a Gordon Brown moment I think.

Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general election: the
Conservative Party and DUP would surely bring him down (not to mention
the SNP)?

But would they do that if they were convinced that Labour would win an
even bigger majority? Might they perhaps wait a few more months until
Labour's poll ratings had fallen significantly?

Have you done the math yet about how he can defeat the Queen's Speech?

Do let us know.

[The Todal]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would
be a bit of a Gordon Brown moment I think.

Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general election: the
Conservative Party and DUP would surely bring him down (not to mention
the SNP)?

But would they do that if they were convinced that Labour would win an
even bigger majority? Might they perhaps wait a few more months until
Labour's poll ratings had fallen significantly?

Have you done the math yet about how he can defeat the Queen's Speech?
Do let us know.

A Queen's Speech that is in favour of a hard Brexit would be voted down
by principled Tory MPs led by Anna Soubry. And a Queen's Speech that is
in favour of a soft Brexit would be voted down by an even larger number
of loony Tory MPs.

Hope that clears it up for you, Norman. I know you believe that they'll
put their jobs first and troop obediently into the lobbies, but many of
them might not.

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would
be a bit of a Gordon Brown moment I think.

Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general election: the
Conservative Party and DUP would surely bring him down (not to mention
the SNP)?

But would they do that if they were convinced that Labour would win
an even bigger majority? Might they perhaps wait a few more months
until Labour's poll ratings had fallen significantly?

Have you done the math yet about how he can defeat the Queen's Speech?
Do let us know.

A Queen's Speech that is in favour of a hard Brexit would be voted down
by principled Tory MPs led by Anna Soubry. And a Queen's Speech that is
in favour of a soft Brexit would be voted down by an even larger number
of loony Tory MPs.
Hope that clears it up for you, Norman. I know you believe that they'll
put their jobs first and troop obediently into the lobbies, but many of
them might not.

You obviously don't know very much about Queen's Speeches. They don't
go into any details like that, and certainly don't argue any position.

The most that will be said will be along the lines of:

"My government will continue to negotiate Britain's exit from the
European Union in accordance with the referendum decision last year"

If you want to read the last one, it's here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2016

Move along please, there's nothing to see here. And certainly nothing
any Tory MP will vote against.

Now will you stop avoiding doing the math, and tell us how it will pan out?

[abelard]

Post by The Todal

Post by Norman Wells

Post by The Todal

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would
be a bit of a Gordon Brown moment I think.

Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general election: the
Conservative Party and DUP would surely bring him down (not to mention
the SNP)?

But would they do that if they were convinced that Labour would win an
even bigger majority? Might they perhaps wait a few more months until
Labour's poll ratings had fallen significantly?

Have you done the math yet about how he can defeat the Queen's Speech?
Do let us know.

A Queen's Speech that is in favour of a hard Brexit would be voted down
by principled Tory MPs led by Anna Soubry.

and how many do you suppose are daft enough to follow her?

Post by The Todal
And a Queen's Speech that is
in favour of a soft Brexit would be voted down by an even larger number
of loony Tory MPs.

you have no evidence of that

Post by The Todal
Hope that clears it up for you, Norman. I know you believe that they'll
put their jobs first and troop obediently into the lobbies, but many of
them might not.

[Vidcapper]

Post by The Todal
A Queen's Speech that is in favour of a hard Brexit would be voted down
by principled Tory MPs led by Anna Soubry. And a Queen's Speech that is
in favour of a soft Brexit would be voted down by an even larger number
of loony Tory MPs.
Hope that clears it up for you, Norman. I know you believe that they'll
put their jobs first and troop obediently into the lobbies, but many of
them might not.

Except that that scenario is easily avoided by not committing themselves
to either position in advance - which would be a sensible position
regardless.

[Jahbulon]

Post by The Todal

Post by Jahbulon
Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general
election: the Conservative Party and DUP would
surely bring him down (not to mention the SNP)?

But would they do that if they were convinced that Labour would
win an even bigger majority? Might they perhaps wait a few more
months until Labour's poll ratings had fallen significantly?

Why not? Many House of Commons turkeys voted for an early Christmas on 28
March 1979.

House of Commons SNP turkeys voted for an early Christmas - again - on 28
March 1979, not to mention the Labour MPs who thought they were voting
themselves out of a job.

[Yellow]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...

Post by The Todal

Post by Jahbulon

Post by Yellow
But becoming PM by default? No so much. It would
be a bit of a Gordon Brown moment I think.

Corbyn cannot be PM (for long) without a general election: the
Conservative Party and DUP would surely bring him down (not to mention
the SNP)?

But would they do that if they were convinced that Labour would win an
even bigger majority? Might they perhaps wait a few more months until
Labour's poll ratings had fallen significantly?

Almost everyone, except the current Labour machine, has under estimated
the current Labour machine - me included of course.

But as we saw with this election, they are funny things and tend to have
a bit of a life of their own so it will depend on when the election
happens, what happens between now and then with Brexit and terrorism,
and what emerges to be the killer topic for the public.

Will the Tories have learned their lesson?

Will Farage be back, if Brexit is fudged?

Will the Lib Dems rise from the ashes?

Will the Labour Party activists go too far and alienate their new middle
class and middle aged supporters?

As I often say, only time will tell.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Yellow
But as we saw with this election, they are funny things and tend to have
a bit of a life of their own so it will depend on when the election
happens, what happens between now and then with Brexit and terrorism,
and what emerges to be the killer topic for the public.
Will the Tories have learned their lesson?
Will Farage be back, if Brexit is fudged?
Will the Lib Dems rise from the ashes?
Will the Labour Party activists go too far and alienate their new middle
class and middle aged supporters?

The answer to questions like these when they are posed in newspapers
like the Mail is invariably 'no'.

I see no reason to depart from that general rule here.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he failed,
he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until that
election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump.

You talk as though he had done it.

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he
failed, he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until
that election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old
mugwump.

You talk as though he had done it.

He has in Todal Fantasy Land.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he
failed, he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until
that election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old
mugwump.

You talk as though he had done it.

Really? Is English not your first language, then?

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech
through but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become
the government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's
Speech through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he
failed, he would presumably call an election and would remain PM
until that election day. An impressive achievement for a
mutton-headed old mugwump.

You talk as though he had done it.

Really? Is English not your first language, then?

"An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump"?

But he hasn't achieved it and neither will he, as has been explained by
others.

[Norman Wells]

Post by The Todal

Post by Yellow

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

This article argues that the Tories have to get a Queen's Speech through
but if they fail in that, Labour would automatically become the
government but they would would not then need to get a Queen's Speech
through themselves.
Is that true?

I don't believe it's true, and the article is rather sloppily put
together. Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government

No he wouldn't.

If for the sake of argument you accept the false premise that he would
be asked, what he would be asked is whether he can command a majority in
the House of Commons. And if he's honest, he would have to answer no.
Whatever happens, he will have the Tories against him and the DUP. Even
if the latter haven't made a formal confidence and supply agreement with
the Tories and don't back their Queen's Speech, they certainly won't
back Labour or theirs either.

Moreover, Labour will have no formal pacts or alliances in existence
with any of the six or seven other parties, and even with them would
command even fewer votes in the Commons than the Tories alone. That
means, if we are talking about a minority government either way, the
Tories are the best placed to form a workable one, even if it doesn't
last very long. Labour do not get to be the government.

Do the math as they say.

Post by The Todal
and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons. If he failed,
he would presumably call an election and would remain PM until that
election day. An impressive achievement for a mutton-headed old mugwump.

There will be a general election only if the Tories lose a motion of no
confidence following a defeat over the Queen's Speech and then, within
14 days, lose a motion of confidence as well.

Do tell where Labour's votes would come from in either of those two
votes, and how many they amount to.

[Jahbulon]

Post by The Todal
I don't believe it's true, and the article
is rather sloppily put together.

That's true.

Post by The Todal
Jeremy Corbyn would have to be given a chance to form a
government and to get a Queens Speech through the Commons.
If he failed, he would presumably call an election and
would remain PM until that election day.

Woops!

The fixed term parliaments act remains extant: mugwump would have to
persuade the House of Commons to vote for an election (in one way or
another), which is not difficult and amounts to the same thing, but
pedantry is allowed on Usenet.

[jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)]

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

Teresa May doesn't make the Queen's speech...the Queen does.

HTH

HAND

[The Peeler]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson"/etc)]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"

Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Teresa May doesn't make the Queen's speech...the Queen does.

Brilliant, old pedo. Simply brilliant.

[BurfordTJustice]

When did May become Queen?

I bet Kooky Charlie is fit to be tied..

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

[RH156RH]

Post by Ted
All May has to do is fail to make her Queens speech.
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/12/in-law-if-may-cant-pass-queensspeech-corbyn-automatically-becomes-pm/

Doesn't follow. Corbyn would have to persuade the Queen he could better command a majority in the Commons than, for example, another Tory PM. Moreover, even if he became PM he would probably not be able to get a Queen's Speech through either. RH .