Straight Dope Message Board

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by glee

Boris doesn't do detail, so he's just claiming that in the next few months:

- he can renegotiate a new deal with the EU (no chance)
- he can solve the Irish border question (perhaps he'll build a bridge somewhere )
- the UK will have a stronger union (particularly crass - far more likely that Scotland leave)

If Boris is the answer, then the question is about 'style over substance'.

-I think the end result will be a non deal Brexit, with Boris either ignoring the utter chaos that follows by claiming that everything is peachy, or if that becomes untennable claiming that its just temporary growing pains and prosperity is just around the corner.

-I think the Irish border will just be sort of ignored. Officially there may be laws regarding tariffs being required, and the occasional shipment seized, but by and large anyone with the will to break an unenforced law will be able to pass goods/people back and forth across the border without any real hindrance. It might actually create a boom in the Irish economy as a transport hub.

-I think that Boris will do everything he can short of reenacting the battle of Pinkie to prevent another Scottish referendum. 51

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by AK84

Maybe Ruth Davidson?

She's not an MP though. I think there was some hope that the slightly unexpected Scottish Tory MP cohort returned in 2017 would be a mini-bloc in Westminster - reflecting the wishes of their constituents a bit, maybe - but they turned out to be typical newbie lobby-fodder. That's a pity imo, and Johnson being PM pretty much guarantees they'll lose their seats if there's a GE with him in charge, and when that happens then Ruth has no influence at all. 52

[Rick Kitchen]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I had only a vague idea of who Boris Johnson really was. I mean, I know who he is, but not what kind of person. I keep hearing that he's another Trump - a low intelligence populist rabble rouser. So I did a little research on him, and I'm not seeing it.

Apparently he went to Eton, where he was considered a bit of a prodigy. Then Oxford, where he graduated with second class honors. He speaks Greek and Latin fluently. His politics are said to be more David Cameron style center-right orthodoxy, other than Brexit.

So what am I missing? Sure, he has goofy hair and a penchant for theatrics, but I'm not seeing the dumb drooling Trump clone.

Other than the calling black children piccaninnies and talking about black people eating watermelon? Saying that Africa's only problem is that white people aren't in charge? Talking about Africans being AIDS-ridden? Saying "part Kenyan" Obama had an ancestral dislike of the UK? 53

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

My opinion is that he's a lying, corrupt hypocrite who will happily destroy the country (possibly literally) for his own profit and aggrandisement, and who - based on his career so far - will likely manage to escape being held accountable for his actions because he has funny hair and bumbles about a bit.

Thank you British SDMBers for electing him. Now you Brits can't complain about trump anymore.

See, loud mouthed racist bigots are everywhere. 54

[Go_Arachnid_Laser]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Thank you British SDMBers for electing him. Now you Brits can't complain about trump anymore.

See, loud mouthed racist bigots are everywhere.

I mean, technically speaking he hasn't been elected by the Brits. He's been elected by members of the Conservative party. 55

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser

I mean, technically speaking he hasn't been elected by the Brits. He's been elected by members of the Conservative party.

Who are...not British? And who voted them in? The French?

Technically then trump wasnt voted in by Americans, it was the Electoral College, those scalawags. 56

[Go_Arachnid_Laser]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Who are...not British? And who voted them in? The French?

Technically then trump wasnt voted in by Americans, it was the Electoral College, those scalawags.

Well, no. "Some" Brits elected him. As in he wasn't elected in a general election where all the electorate, the "Brits", got to vote. 57

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Go_Arachnid_Laser

Well, no. "Some" Brits elected him. As in he wasn't elected in a general election where all the electorate, the "Brits", got to vote.

"Some" Americans elected trump, too.

The British voter voted for Brexit and voted in the CP, so yes, it's their fault. 58

[UDS]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

"Some" Americans elected trump, too.

The British voter voted for Brexit and voted in the CP, so yes, it's their fault.

The didn't vote in the CP; three in five voters rejected the CP at the last election.

You're labouring under the misapprension that the UK is some kind of functioning democracy. The reality for the British is that a government they voted against led by a leader they didn't elect is working to introduce a Brexit which is not the Brexit they voted for, and it's seeking to do this without obtaining a mandate from either the people or the parliament for fear that, if allowed to vote on the matter, they would vote against it. 59

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by casdave

You can argue the merits or otherwise of Brexit all you want - but this has been done to death in other threads already - the OP isn't asking about the ins and outs of Brexit as such, more they are interested in Boris and his approach to the issue and an evaluation of how it is perceived to be going.

Correct.

Originally Posted by AK84

...Actually, the UK did very well when Churhcill stuck to speeches and let the professionals run the country. Attlee and Bevan for domestic matters, Attlee for colonial affairs and Alan Brooke and the rest ran the war....

This is a gross oversimplification, if not misreading, of history. Churchill was as hands-on a PM as he could possibly be. Attlee had no particular colonial affairs responsibilities during WWII, and [Aneurin] Bevan was not in the Cabinet then - did you mean [Ernest] Bevin? 60

[Alessan]

Isn't appointing talented underlings, and listening to what they say, one of the most important leadership skills? 61

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Isn't appointing talented underlings, and listening to what they say, one of the most important leadership skills?

Two of the most important leadership skills, I think you mean. Boris lacks both. 62

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Thank you British SDMBers for electing him. Now you Brits can't complain about trump anymore.

See, loud mouthed racist bigots are everywhere.

Speaking for myself, I feel quite capable of complaining about both Trump and Johnson. And Modi. And Erdogan. And Orban. And Kaczynski. And any and all national leaders who I think are populist race-baiting shitheads.

It'd be really fucking weird if, just because my country's leader falls into the set of "populist race-baiting shitheads", I had to start keeping schtumm about the fact that populist race-baiting shitheads are bad. That seems to me to be a very limiting approach. Equally, I wouldn't expect Americans not to point out Johnson's many flaws just because of who their president is. Why should they? 63

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Isn't appointing talented underlings, and listening to what they say, one of the most important leadership skills?

Eh, I think being able to publicly choke underlings with the power of the Force pour encourager les autres is much more important, but to each their upper management strat. 64

[Peter Morris]

BJ was not selected as leader by the electorate. 65

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

BJ was not selected as leader by the electorate.

Neither party leaders nor Prime Ministers are ever selected by the electorate in the UK. 66

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Isn't appointing talented underlings, and listening to what they say, one of the most important leadership skills?

Overall, I think Boris's cabinet choices are good. For the major positions, Javid, Raab, and Wallace are all qualified. I don't think Patel has the experience for Home Secretary, but I think her appointment was a combination of patronage, demographics, and wanting a yes-woman in the job. All the rest, to the extent that I recognise their names, seem decent choices. 67

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

Overall, I think Boris's cabinet choices are good. For the major positions, Javid, Raab, and Wallace are all qualified. I don't think Patel has the experience for Home Secretary, but I think her appointment was a combination of patronage, demographics, and wanting a yes-woman in the job. All the rest, to the extent that I recognise their names, seem decent choices.

They're not the worst choices he could have come up with. Javid is unduly business-friendly but then most Chancellors of late have been (including Gordon Brown). Everyone's already noted the irony of making Dominic "Calais? Never heard of it" Raab Foreign Secretary but that's just sniping. And at least Hunt has been exiled to the outer darkness for the time being. A pity Michael Gove wasn't likewise shunned.

Patel, however, is a nasty piece of work. 68

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

Overall, I think Boris's cabinet choices are good. For the major positions, Javid, Raab, and Wallace are all qualified. I don't think Patel has the experience for Home Secretary, but I think her appointment was a combination of patronage, demographics, and wanting a yes-woman in the job. All the rest, to the extent that I recognise their names, seem decent choices.

What are Raab's qualifications? He was Brexit Secretary for all of 5 months, after which he resigned because he didn't like his government's Brexit policy. Specifically, he didn't like the Withdrawal Agreement which had been in place since he took the job and which he must have known it was his role as Cabinet Member and Brexit Secretary to support. As Brexit Secretary, he did take part in negotiations with the EU. This apparently led to him being nicknamed "the turnip" by EU negotiators and despite a certain amount of bluster from "friends of Dominic Raab" that he was the negotiator the EU feared most, didn't lead to anything else. To be fair, this is because he was utterly sidelined by May, but "held the job title but not the responsibility" isn't a qualification.

Other than that... I genuinely don't know what he's done that would even count as a potential qualification for Foreign Sec. 69

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Patel, however, is a nasty piece of work.

As DfID minister, Patel took a personal trip to Israel to negotiate her own foreign policy behind the back of the government, meeting senior Israeli politicians - including Netanyahu - without any diplomats present and breaking all protocols for ministerial meetings with representatives of foreign governments. When caught, she apologised but failed to disclose the full extent of these meetings, for which second transgression she was sacked. To do this with any country - say, Australia - would have been bad enough. To do it with Israel, a major player in an unstable region whose role in international affairs is, shall we say, somewhat sensitive, is egregious. It betrays a lack of both judgement and integrity on a massive scale.

In any other time, her readmission to Cabinet would be a scandal. Now it's just business as usual. 70

[GreenWyvern]

It's interesting that Dominic Cummings said in 2017:

People think, and by the way I think most people are right: ‘The Tory party is run by people who basically don’t care about people like me.’ That is what most people in the country have thought about the Tory party for decades. I know a lot of Tory MPs and I am sad to say the public is basically correct. Tory MPs largely do not care about these poorer people. They don’t care about the NHS. And the public has kind of cottoned on to that.

Now this is news to nobody who has half a brain, and Johnson's government cares far less than average Tories.

But what I think Cummings is taking away from this is that their message must be that they care. This is the message that Johnson has in fact been plugging.

They hope to fool enough of the people for long enough to force through a no-deal Brexit. 71

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by Stanislaus

What are Raab's qualifications? He was Brexit Secretary for all of 5 months, after which he resigned because he didn't like his government's Brexit policy. Specifically, he didn't like the Withdrawal Agreement which had been in place since he took the job and which he must have known it was his role as Cabinet Member and Brexit Secretary to support. As Brexit Secretary, he did take part in negotiations with the EU. This apparently led to him being nicknamed "the turnip" by EU negotiators and despite a certain amount of bluster from "friends of Dominic Raab" that he was the negotiator the EU feared most, didn't lead to anything else. To be fair, this is because he was utterly sidelined by May, but "held the job title but not the responsibility" isn't a qualification.

Other than that... I genuinely don't know what he's done that would even count as a potential qualification for Foreign Sec.

From gov.uk:
"Career before politics

Dominic started his career as a business lawyer at City law firm Linklaters, working on project finance, international litigation and competition law. He also spent time on secondments at Liberty (the human rights NGO) and in Brussels advising on EU and WTO law.

Dominic later worked at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office between 2000 and 2006 on a range of issues from investor protection to war crimes policy."

He doesn't have a huge amount of experience in government, but as you've noted he was the Brexit Secretary for several months which is certainly relevant experience.

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/dominic-raab 72

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

From gov.uk:
"Career before politics

Dominic started his career as a business lawyer at City law firm Linklaters, working on project finance, international litigation and competition law. He also spent time on secondments at Liberty (the human rights NGO) and in Brussels advising on EU and WTO law.

I have friends who were trainee solicitors in Big 6 London law firms at around this time. They too did 6-month rotations in different departments and could claim experience in international litigation and competition law. The experience they got consisted largely of photocopying, and putting tags on 100-page documents. It's...something, but a lot more relevant to a law career than running the UK's foreign policy.

Dominic later worked at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office between 2000 and 2006 on a range of issues from investor protection to war crimes policy."

This is relevant, but it's also pretty low-level stuff. He qualified as a solicitor in 2000, per wiki, so he would have been mid-20s to early 30s - pretty junior stuff.

He doesn't have a huge amount of experience in government, but as you've noted he was the Brexit Secretary for several months which is certainly relevant experience.

A job he either did badly or didn't do at all, depending who you ask. As qualifications go, it's not strong. 73

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Eh, I think being able to publicly choke underlings with the power of the Force pour encourager les autres is much more important, but to each their upper management strat.

Admittedly, a vigorous "up or out" policy is generally beneficial to large organizations. 74

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Eh, I think being able to publicly choke underlings with the power of the Force pour encourager les autres is much more important, but to each their upper management strat.

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

BJ was not selected as leader by the electorate.

Neither was Emperor Palpatine, but he did OK. For awhile, anyway. 75

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

BJ was not selected as leader by the electorate.

Nor is any PM. But voters for a party do know what the party stands for, and what sort of policies will be advanced by its leaders. 76

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Neither party leaders nor Prime Ministers are ever selected by the electorate in the UK.

Nor is the President, if that's the way you are gonna call it.

Look, the people vote for their party. The winning party (or colatilion) chooses the Pm. Of the candidates who won in the election- BJ was voted in by his district.

He was the choice of the people, and picking nits wont help. The british voters made the choice for brexit based mostly on racist xenophobia. 77

[slash2k]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

"Some" Americans elected trump, too.

Every American of legal age and not otherwise disqualified had the opportunity to vote in the election in which Donald Trump was on the ballot.

Boris Johnson wasn't even the party leader when Britain last had a general election in which Britons of legal age and not otherwise disqualified had the opportunity to vote. Theresa May was the party leader at the time, and her approach to Brexit was quite a bit different, for example in their willingness to face a crash-out no-deal Brexit.

The equivalent, in the US, would be for Americans to vote specifically for Donald Trump and then watch Mike Pompeo or Mitch McConnell be inaugurated. 78

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Nor is any PM. But voters for a party do know what the party stands for, and what sort of policies will be advanced by its leaders.

The point is that voters who voted Conservative in the last election were voting for Theresa May as PM and for a platform that was essentially moderate. Even the she only got enough votes, or seats if you prefer, to form a Minority government. Johnson is wildly different from Theresa May, is calling for a completely different form of Brexit than the soft Brexit that Theresa May planned, and his Brexit plans probably won't face any votes in Parliament beyond toothless motions. 79

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

The british voters made the choice for brexit based mostly on racist xenophobia.

Feel free to go read the Brexit thread. I'm not going to re-hash old arguments, but racist xenophobia only made up a fringe element of the Brexit vote. The main reasons that the Brexit vote won was that it attracted a lot of protest voters dissatisfied with the status-quo, there's long-standing dissatisfaction with the EU in large segments of the UK, and the Brexit campaign did a better job than the Leave campaign.

If the majority of British voters are racist xenophobes, then why are the second and third most powerful people in the government non-white? 80

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

Feel free to go read the Brexit thread. I'm not going to re-hash old arguments, but racist xenophobia only made up a fringe element of the Brexit vote. The main reasons that the Brexit vote won was that it attracted a lot of protest voters dissatisfied with the status-quo, there's long-standing dissatisfaction with the EU in large segments of the UK, and the Brexit campaign did a better job than the Leave campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes...vour_of_Brexit
The 'Leave' campaign campaigned primarily on issues relating to sovereignty and migration,[5] whereas the remain campaign focused on the economic impacts of leaving the EU. This choice of key positions is significant since Ipsos MORI survey data on which issues Britons felt to be 'important issues facing Britain today' shows that immediately prior to the vote, more people cited both the EU (32%) and migration (48%) as important issues than cited the economy (27%).[6]Immigration
Lord Ashcroft's election day poll of 12,369 voters also discovered that 'One third (33%) [of leave voters] said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."'[7] This despite the fact that most migration to Britain was from outside the EU, and entirely under the remit and control of UK authorities.[9]

Immediately prior to the referendum, data from Ipsos-Mori showed that immigration/migration was the most cited issue when Britons were asked 'What do you see as the most/other important issue facing Britain today?', with 48% of respondents mentioning it when surveyed.[10]

In the decade before the Brexit referendum there was a significant increase in migration from EU countries, as outlined by the Migration Observatory: 'Inflows of EU nationals migrating to the UK stood at 268,000 in 2014, up from 201,000 in 2013. EU inflows were mainly flat for the 1991–2003 period, averaging close to 61,000 per year.'[11]

According to The Economist, areas that saw increases of over 200% in foreign-born population between 2001 and 2014 saw a majority of voters back leave in 94% of cases 81

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by slash2k

The equivalent, in the US, would be for Americans to vote specifically for Donald Trump and then watch Mike Pompeo or Mitch McConnell be inaugurated.

If both Trump and Pence were to resign, or otherwise leave office, there would not be a new election but a procedure would be followed to install a new, unelected, president.

But in general, the position of the PM is closer to that opf McConnell, in that they are effectively chosen by the elected house rather than by public election. (I'm aware, of course that the PM is technically appointed by the monarch, and the President technically voted for by the electors, but the point stands). 82

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Steophan

If both Trump and Pence were to resign, or otherwise leave office, there would not be a new election but a procedure would be followed to install a new, unelected, president.

But in general, the position of the PM is closer to that opf McConnell, in that they are effectively chosen by the elected house rather than by public election. (I'm aware, of course that the PM is technically appointed by the monarch, and the President technically voted for by the electors, but the point stands).

Boris was not "effectively chosen by the elected house"; he was chosen by the rank-and-file membership of the Tory party, a party which holds less than half the seats in the elected house, and which secured much less than half the votes at the most recent election. He was appointed as Prime Minister without the elected house having any opportunity to express a view on whether he should be, and the day after his appointment the elected house went into a recess which is still continuing. 83

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by UDS

Boris was not "effectively chosen by the elected house"; he was chosen by the rank-and-file membership of the Tory party, a party which holds less than half the seats in the elected house, and which secured much less than half the votes at the most recent election. ....

Tory? 84

[UDS]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Tory?

Nickname for the Conservative Party. Goes back to the 17th century when, in the absense of formally-constituted political parties, Parliament was divided into two main factions called "Tory" and "Whig". In time the Conservative and Liberal parties evolved out of these factions.

Comes originally from an Irish word meaning a bandit, and it turns up in English first of all to refer Irish Catholics who had been dispossessed, and who had turned to banditry to survive. It then became a general term of abuse for Catholics, and in time for Protestants who were Not Protestant Enough, especially those who, in opposition to Puritans and Cromwellians, were seen as supportive of the king, and more especially those who supported the right of James, Duke of York, to succeed to the throne despite being a Catholic.

James did of course accede to the throne, as James II, but was deposed in fairly short order. This was - ahem - controversial, and "Tory" then became a label for those who doubted, or were suspected of doubting, the legitimacy or wisdom of this action, and in time to those who were generally sympathetic to conservative, legitimist principles of monarchy, even after they had made their peace with the Hanoverian monarchs.

I believe that during the revolutionary period the term had a brief currency in the American colonies, to describe a colonist who was loyal to the crown. By then, of course, it had lost all overtones of Catholicism. 85

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by UDS

...I believe that during the revolutionary period the term had a brief currency in the American colonies, to describe a colonist who was loyal to the crown. By then, of course, it had lost all overtones of Catholicism.

True. And those supportive of the Patriot cause were sometimes called Whigs, continuing the British political dichotomy in the New World. 86

[Wrenching Spanners]

The anti-immigration stances were a big, perhaps the biggest, part of the protest vote. After the 2004 EU expansion, nearly a million citizens of the new EU countries migrated to the UK after Tony Blair stated that post-expansion immigration would be in the tens of thousands. These new arrivals were great if you were a middle-class latte drinker. They weren't so great if you were working class and living outside of London.

http://old.ismu.org/en/2017/05/eu-en...ots-of-brexit/

The next EU expansion came in 2007 with the joining of Bulgaria and Romania, although that time there were immigration restrictions. Nevertheless, there was still significant migration. Coincidentally, that was when the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis hit. So the UK had a combination of a falling economy and federal spending cuts at the same time as the working class was facing increased job competition, and frankly a lot of natives were out-competed. The coflated blaming that was going on at the time was irrational, but that's how tabloids sell newspapers. So yes, there was, and is, long-held resentment in many areas against immigration. However, it's not simply ignorance based dislike of people who were born in other countries. 87

[Wrenching Spanners]

The Liberal Democrats won the by-election. Boris's majority is now down to one.

I wonder if anyone is reaching out to Dominic Grieve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Grieve 88

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by UDS

Boris was not "effectively chosen by the elected house"; he was chosen by the rank-and-file membership of the Tory party, a party which holds less than half the seats in the elected house, and which secured much less than half the votes at the most recent election. He was appointed as Prime Minister without the elected house having any opportunity to express a view on whether he should be, and the day after his appointment the elected house went into a recess which is still continuing.

He was technically chosen by the Queen, and effectively chosen by the House, as the only person who can command the confidence of the House.

Were the opposition less fractured and ineffectual, it's likely that he would not have been able to command said confidence, but as it stands he has it. A working majority of one should not be enough to keep it, but I'm sure Corbyn will find a way to lose a confidence vote in the near future. 89

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He was technically chosen by the Queen, and effectively chosen by the House, as the only person who can command the confidence of the House.

Were the opposition less fractured and ineffectual, it's likely that he would not have been able to command said confidence, but as it stands he has it. A working majority of one should not be enough to keep it, but I'm sure Corbyn will find a way to lose a confidence vote in the near future.

We can't say that he has the confidence of the House. And we certainly can't say that he was "effectively chosen" by it.

The test for appointing a PM is not that he should have the confidence of the House; it is that he should be "best placed" to obtain it. Teresa May presumably advised the Queen that Johnson was best placed, and so he has been appointed.

But can he, in fact, command the confidence of the House? He hasn't, so far; since his appointment his government has won zero votes in the House of Commons on any subject. There have been no votes.

And there is some reason to doubt that he can. His government is openly admitting that it cannot get even uncontoversial Brexit-related legislation through the House, and therefore will refrain from introducing any.

It may yet be that Johnson never commands the confidence of the House of Commons; that, on the first occasion when he seeks it, it is refused. That would be a first for any UK Prime Minister. 90

[Steophan]

The only reason there was no vote on the motion of no confidence is because Corbyn refused to back it, which technically demonstrates confidence in Johnson. Unfortunately, as Jo Swinson isn't the official leader of the opposition, she couldn't force a vote on her motion.

I'm sure someone will defend Corbyn here, but I struggle to see how. 91

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The only reason there was no vote on the motion of no confidence is because Corbyn refused to back it, which technically demonstrates confidence in Johnson. Unfortunately, as Jo Swinson isn't the official leader of the opposition, she couldn't force a vote on her motion.

I'm sure someone will defend Corbyn here, but I struggle to see how.

I'm not a Corbyn fan, but I can think of two legitimate reasons for Corbyn delaying a No Confidence motion:
1) He’s giving Boris time to screw up.
2) He’s hoping to get Labour’s problems in order before he starts a general ledger election campaign.

It’s also possible he didn’t want to start the election campaign during Parliament’s summer recess. 92

[Gyrate]

I think Corbyn has already nicely ordered Labour's problems. The solutions, not so much. 93

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

I'm not a Corbyn fan, but I can think of two legitimate reasons for Corbyn delaying a No Confidence motion:
1) He’s giving Boris time to screw up.
2) He’s hoping to get Labour’s problems in order before he starts a general ledger election campaign.

It’s also possible he didn’t want to start the election campaign during Parliament’s summer recess.

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I think he's going to hold off until it's too late to syop Brexit. Corbyn's always been a Leaver, and that's not changed. 94

[Elendil's Heir]

Here's CNN on the Tory by-election loss and the road forward (if any) for Boris: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/uk/bo...ntl/index.html

Originally Posted by UDS

...It may yet be that Johnson never commands the confidence of the House of Commons; that, on the first occasion when he seeks it, it is refused. That would be a first for any UK Prime Minister.

In this as in so many other ways, Boris is in a class all by himself. 95

[ElvisL1ves]

So the very next Tory MP to get annoyed with Boris will force a new election during the Brexit countdown? Pass the popcorn. 96

[glee]

Just to help out:

No single party has a majority in the UK Parliament (which has 650 seats.)

It's a bit complicated!

Boris leads the Conservative Party with 311 seats.
The Conservatives are in an uneasy alliance with a Northern Irish party (the DUP) who have 10 seats.

The Speaker (the 'referee' of Parliament) by tradition doesn't vote unless there's a tie (when he votes for the the Government.)
There are also three Deputy Speakers who don't vote.

One party (Sinn Fein) have 7 seats but refuse to vote.

So there are effectively 650-4-7=639 voting seats. Therefore you need 320 seats for a majority.
Boris has 311 + 10 = 321 seats, so an effective majority of 1 - just enough to govern. 97

[glee]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Here's CNN on the Tory by-election loss and the road forward (if any) for Boris: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/uk/bo...ntl/index.html

In this as in so many other ways, Boris is in a class all by himself.

Wait for Boris to upset his allies (the DUP) with a 10 seat swing! 98

[Gyrate]

It amuses me to consider that were Sinn Fein to change their minds about being seated, they could simultaneously bring down the Government and undermine the DUP.

They won't do it. But they could. 99

[Snowboarder Bo]

I'd like to thank everyone participating in this thread; it's been a huge help to me as I try to understand what is happening in the UK politically right now. I knew Boris Johnson's name and a few things about his time int he government and that he was part of the Brexit campaign, but little else. After watching John Oliver's piece about him, I knew that I was missing a lot of information and have been actively seeking to correct the deficiency since.

Y'all have been a big help; thanks again. 100