Tomorrow

[Deleted account DD]

The best advice that GB can get is that from the cabinet secretary. The advice given by the constitutional experts fielded by the Beeb is as I have explained - and seems to be the same. Your arguments to the contrary are just political posturing. I strongly suspect that it is you that is the closet politician.

roflmao.

Posturing? err not remotely my style.

There's quite a few people who could relate how I've demonstrated my hands on forthright style to their expense :augie

As the BBC experts opinions are in contradiction to other experts opinions, as per the one I handed you on a plate and explained, its stalemate in that area so stop banging on about it unless you can quote the next one when they describe the de jour/de facto nuances I dont think that will happen as these very knowledgeable interesting individuals only get chance to briefly and superficially comment to a degree thats good non anorak viewing for the masses.

Overall though that's quite a vacuous poorly thought out accusation of yours, I reckon you are struggling, but hey what do I care because you are still failing to evidence your other assertions too which should be easy if theyre correct :nenau

Have you still not found the statutory instrument may prove your point? :augie

Especially bearing in mind Ive said I would have no problem being proven wrong....I do accept being wrong with good grace it happens quite often actually.

If you cant its not called me posturing, its called me winning that point :clap:clap


ps theres nothing closet about my political activities, staff rep for many years (we're not allowed unions you see) :naughty

 

[Deleted account DD]

=========

sorry about that, double posted!

 

[Deleted account DD]

The best advice that GB can get is that from the cabinet secretary.

Without googling or similar (unless you already have),

tell me why that is?

and...........

Where does the cabinet secretary get there info from? who is the current cabinet secretary , are they a constitutional barrister or an admin person ? what is their full time day job about ? How long has the current one been in post? what is there cv like? what level of civil service are they?

If you cant answer those and other questions you really cant make that assertion

 

[briggie]

as i understand it , the problem is no one wants a unelected person (s) deciding policies of this country ...... so i assume then that they want the house of lords disbanded ? :augie

 

[Deleted account DD]

as i understand it , the problem is no one wants a unelected person (s) deciding policies of this country ...... so i assume then that they want the house of lords disbanded ? :augie

The administration thats in power was elected, their choice of leader is up to them.....unfortunatley

The House of Lords are something thats unlikely to be sorted in our lifetimes!

 

[andrewk]

I have just been watching a recording, on the Beeb, of part of the meeting of the Justice Committee on 24 Feb 2010 on the topic "Constitutional processes following a general election". The document recording the minutes of that meeting is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm

Question 1 and the answer to that are:

" Q1 Chairman: Lord Butler, Lord Turnbull, welcome. We are very glad to have your help and advice and I am sure the whole country is going to be glad to have your help and advice. Lord Butler, you and I have been here before in February 1974, I remember. Are the procedures for the formation of a government following a general election in which there is no overall majority clear at least in the minds of those most closely involved? What is your experience?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think that they are clear and that they are simple. The convention is that the Prime Minister before the election remains Prime Minister until it is clear that he can no longer command the majority in Parliament, and that somebody else can. I think it may be the popular myth that the Prime Minister loses office if his party is defeated in a general election, but that is not the position. The Prime Minister remains Prime Minister until he cannot command a majority in Parliament and somebody else can."

Unless I am mistaken, your view coincides with the "popular myth" described by Lord Butler of Brockwell. If I am mistaken, perhaps you would explain what your view is, with some clarity.

During the part of the recording that I had the patience to sit through, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Oxford University confirmed Lord Butler's statement. There was further confirmation and no dissent from other expert witnesses to the committee. These included: Professor Robert Hazell, Constitution Unit, UCL (who is one of the "experts" that I have seen interviewed by the Beeb), Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service and others.

If your opinion differs from that of the foremost experts on constitutional processes, I think you need to explain why it does. I suspect that you are simply promoting the "popular myth" because it suits your particular political perspective.

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

From the few moments that I was able to grab this morning to listen to the news, it would seem that the leadership of the Conservatives and Lib Dems are close to reaching some kind of agreement, so hopefully the situation should clarify in the next day or so.

Whether they can sell the agreement to their MPs and their party activists is another matter entirely. Seemingly there are many "red neck" (whatever that means) Tories who would prefer not to have anything to do with the Lib Dems and want to have a go at a governing with a minority. There are also several senior Lib Dem MPs who believe that many of those who put their 'X' on the ballot paper against a Lib Dem candidate would not approve of an agreement that would support a Conservative government - and that the Lib Dems would get "slaughtered" at the next election.

Apparently, the pollsters have evidence that about two thirds of Lib Dem voters are "left of centre". If those migrated to Labour at the next election, the term "slaughter" could understate what would happen.

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

The House of Lords are something thats unlikely to be sorted in our lifetimes!

Didn't you read the Labour Manifesto 2010 (no, me neither :doh)? Tut tut .....

See 9:2 here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

I have just come across an interesting answer in the Justice Commitee minutes that I referred to above:

Q13 Dr Whitehead: There is the circumstance under which the incumbent Prime Minister stays on, as it were, as chief adviser to the Sovereign, over and above his political imperative to form a government; but at what point does the leader of the next largest party get invited to be involved in the process or get invited to the Palace?

Lord Turnbull: Only when the Prime Minister has concluded that he cannot form a government himself. I think we can take this one stage further: I do not think that in his role as adviser to the Sovereign he can simply go to the Palace and say: "I cannot make it work; you will have to try someone else." I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to present to the Sovereign an alternative arrangement which he believes is going to work and that has been agreed. In other words, it would be a dereliction of duty for the outgoing Prime Minister to leave a limbo in which the Queen has got to try and make a decision. The last thing you want is the Queen to be presented with trying something out which may not command political support. It has happened in her dominions and it has been controversial, but it would be most regrettable if it happened here.

and to a follow on question .......

Lord Butler of Brockwell: If I can just endorse that, the leader of the second largest party might be having discussions with other political parties, but it is important that the Queen is not involved until the Queen can be sure that the person she invites to form a government has got the best possible chance of doing that. That is something which the outgoing Prime Minister has got a duty to advise her on.


I think that is pretty clear. GB has a duty to sit on his thumbs in No 10 until it becomes clear that DC can form a government (or otherwise).

Andrew

 

[Deleted account DD]

Didn't you read the Labour Manifesto 2010 (no, me neither :doh)? Tut tut .....

See 9:2 here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm

Andrew

No because I want interested enough in that topic , its been bubbling away for years :nenau

 

[Deleted account DD]

I have just been watching a recording, on the Beeb, of part of the meeting of the Justice Committee on 24 Feb 2010 on the topic "Constitutional processes following a general election". The document recording the minutes of that meeting is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm

Question 1 and the answer to that are:

" Q1 Chairman: Lord Butler, Lord Turnbull, welcome. We are very glad to have your help and advice and I am sure the whole country is going to be glad to have your help and advice. Lord Butler, you and I have been here before in February 1974, I remember. Are the procedures for the formation of a government following a general election in which there is no overall majority clear at least in the minds of those most closely involved? What is your experience?

Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think that they are clear and that they are simple. The convention is that the Prime Minister before the election remains Prime Minister until it is clear that he can no longer command the majority in Parliament, and that somebody else can. I think it may be the popular myth that the Prime Minister loses office if his party is defeated in a general election, but that is not the position. The Prime Minister remains Prime Minister until he cannot command a majority in Parliament and somebody else can."

Unless I am mistaken, your view coincides with the "popular myth" described by Lord Butler of Brockwell. If I am mistaken, perhaps you would explain what your view is, with some clarity.

During the part of the recording that I had the patience to sit through, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Oxford University confirmed Lord Butler's statement. There was further confirmation and no dissent from other expert witnesses to the committee. These included: Professor Robert Hazell, Constitution Unit, UCL (who is one of the "experts" that I have seen interviewed by the Beeb), Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service and others.

If your opinion differs from that of the foremost experts on constitutional processes, I think you need to explain why it does. I suspect that you are simply promoting the "popular myth" because it suits your particular political perspective.

Andrew

First of all I make it absolutely clear I live under whatever system is put in via the ballot box, support some parts moan about others. I would never waste my time perpetuating a myth.

Again Andrew, the devils in the detail and you've missed it again.

I have never ever said that there is a legal , "constitutional" or statutory requirement for Brown to go, I believe that is in fact what the urban myth they are talking about is based on where folk believe there is and he has to. That's been widely discussed elsewhere since Friday. You must have seen and ignored that in your research ??

I have though, very clearly said imho he SHOULD go mainly on a moral basis and I am absolutely convinced there's nothing stopping him doing so other than his apparent desire to cling onto power. So far unnamed cabinet members are also telling he he can and should do that as he has so clearly lost.

That is where my opinion differs from the profs opinion as they say he should not go. Thats the way political debate is :nenau up down round and round. They would almost certainly approve of that on the basis if everyone's agreeing someone isn't thinking



However the key word you seem to have overlooked is CONVENTION. Fyi convention is not a statutory requirement.

Brown no longer commands a majority in Parliament, far from it (Ive highlighted that bit for you) Cameron has the simple majority no doubt about that either and thus empowered to form a govt. What he lacks is a ruling majority.



The crux of my question to you as you have insisted Brown HAS to stay and has no choice is

Where is the statutory instrument that says that :nenau

Convention is not enforcible so opens the realistic can of worms of him moving immediately, staute is the only way he can be forced to stay.

You can see clearly in the quotations you've supplied, they dont even discuss that subject to the extent they back my argument up most strongly by use of the word Convention rather than law or statutory measures or instruments. So really the bulk of what you have posted whilst interesting is not entirely relevant....sorry :nenau

So please hurry up and answer that question :augie:augie

I sense you are backed into a corner and will not admit you are wrong :nenau

Typical politician posturing not answering :doh

Q wheres the statutory instrument?
A Earlier today I listened to an article ............

arrggghhhhhh :doh:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh sounds like Brown on line.

I see you didn't bother explaining why the cabinet secretary is the best source of advice either




So in summary, theres still not been anything positively demonstrated that Brown HAS to stay in office. Experts are trotting out and quoting convention (in this case 2 1/2 months ago ) but in these current extraordinary times surely we need to move quickly in such a clearly mandated situation? The longer Brown stays put the more catch up and less background his replacements have to overcome when they need to hit the ground running on topics such as the contribution we're been asked today to make to Greece.

The message is very clear. Labour lost decisively, the ballot boxes showed that, lets move on.

on a lighter note, top acceptance speech video..........http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100038733/gordon-brown-will-you-please-go-now/

 

[Deleted account DD]

Tbh I am getting sick of asking the question and getting evasive or irrelevant replies. Nothing to do with that i haven't got much spare time this evening so don't expect an any answers before tomorrow earliest

And then I should have the long awaited sacred chalice of a link to the definitive statutory measure or instrument that tells me why Brown HAS to remain....................................or maybe I wont :augie

 

[andrewk]

I have never ever said that there is a legal , "constitutional" or statutory requirement for Brown to go, I believe that is in fact what the urban myth they are talking about is based on where folk believe there is and he has to.

Good

So far unnamed cabinet members are also telling he he can and should do that as he has so clearly lost.

Cracking rumour. Unnamed, eh? :lol

That is where my opinion differs from the profs opinion as they say he should not go.

Indeed so, the constitutional experts do seem to say that he should stay until another government is formed.

If you read all of the Justice Committee minutes document I referred you to, you'll see Professor Bogdanor saying that in a hung parliament, it is for parliament itself to choose the government as the people have failed to do that unequivocally.

Brown no longer commands a majority in Parliament, far from it (Ive highlighted that bit for you) Cameron has the simple majority no doubt about that either and thus empowered to form a govt. What he lacks is a ruling majority.

Simple majority? I must have missed that. Didn't the Tories get LESS THAN half the seats?

Convention is not enforcible so opens the realistic can of worms of him moving immediately, staute is the only way he can be forced to stay.

There are lots of areas of life that are governed by tradition/convention/precedent and not by statute. Are you making a serious point here - or just arguing for the sake of it?

in these current extraordinary times surely we need to move quickly in such a clearly mandated situation?

Cameron's mob got less than 50% of the seats and only a little over a third of the actual vote. Mandated? You'll need to explain that one.

Andrew

 

[lacroupade]

Are you making a serious point here - or just arguing for the sake of it?

Andrew

Does a bear shit in the woods? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

 

[Deleted account DD]

Does a bear shit in the woods? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol no

 

[Deleted account DD]

Andrew, no I am not arguing for the sake of it.

I suspect you are although the arguing isnt really about nothing its about avoiding answering the question I asked you , without having to stop posting which you would see as a weakness . Classic politicians type move.

Thats very very simple and straightforward and until you do your ducking , diving and switching decreases your credibility post by post whatever their superficial demonstration of political understanding suggests. Your comment on convention/tradition/precedent demonstrate all I have said above perfectly, you clearly don't understand some basic concepts on the subject.

so

For the final time, admit you were wrong or show me the statute that absolutely requires Brown to stay in office.

not advice, not hearsay, not a debate, not evolved convention. The statutory constitutional requirement that says he cant move out. You said it, you evidence it. Thats part of the basis of credibility in debate, being able to reference your opinions when challenged.

Look at the thread where Felix and I went at it, we both did there and it was a good un

Until you do that and put up or shut up, theres not really much point in continuing this thread

I presume you will avoid doing so and I'll see this post dissected as you claim your "right of reply" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz , I really don't expect anything less from you.

I would also refer you to the quote at the bottom of my sig. Very apt and the delightful amusing irony is in the original poster.


au revoir x

 

[andrewk]

The statutory constitutional requirement that says he cant move out. You said it, you evidence it.

The only person who has used the word statute or statutory in a post in this thread is you. I have made no claims about statutory requirements.

I said that Gordon Brown has a duty to remain as prime minister until a new one who is likely to be able to command a majority in the house is available. This is clearly not now, as negotiations between the Lib Dems and other parties are ongoing. It would seem that these may be further delayed, as the Lib Dems negotiators seem to have fallen at the first hurdle i.e. the Lib Dem MPs have sent the negotiating team back to the Tories for "clarification". :lol

I have cited as support references to statements made by the foremost experts on the British Constitution. You say that your opinion is different. Mmm .... I hope you'll forgive me for attaching rather more value to the opinions of the acknowledged experts in the field. :bow


Andrew

 

[Deleted account DD]

I will correct you immediately. You clearly stated he had no choice but to remain in office.

It doesn't take much to see or be aware that if it not a statutory requirement then he does actually have a choice , there is nothing to stop him leaving office. Convention is not enforceable. This government has lawfully but immorally displayed that on more than one occasion as and when it suited them. I have direct personal experience of that.

He cant have it both ways and nor can you perhaps whilst not realising the full consequence of your statement you definitely did say it

You have not demonstrated any evidence of the experts debating that deeper point nor linked to any evidence to support your assertions, that is why I said your transcript was interesting but not fully relevant :nenau

That was the basis of my question throughout following your assertion, so sadly the question remains unanswered , I haven't been shown where it is written in any formal format that he has to stay in office :nenaudebate and differences on other points remain interesting but additional to my question.

See, no debate, just putting you back on track with a quick precis.

 

[Deleted account DD]

In fact, on reflection I'm not arsed any more don't bother, that's my nicer side letting you off the hook, out of the corner you're backed into whichever metaphor suits best :nenau

 

[andrewk]

It doesn't take much to see or be aware that if it not a statutory requirement then he does actually have a choice

I did not say that there was a statutory requirement. Justify your statement.

This government has lawfully but immorally displayed that on more than one occasion as and when it suited them.

Justify that this government (i.e. the one lead by GB) has displayed immoral behaviour. If you intend a reference to the invasion of Iraq then I may well agree with you, in principle - but the PM was not Gordon Brown at the time.

I haven't been shown where it is written in any formal format that he has to stay in office

Have you read the minutes of the Justice Committee that I referred you to?

Andrew