soon Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: But they are not ''interims'' as you follow the Westminster system by which you elect your MPs to a House of Commons, not specifically a head of government, and in that Commons the leader commanding a majority becomes PM. Inter party elections are a perfectly valid way in deciding a prime minister in the Westminster System. Her name was Kim Campbell, btw. Yes, you are correct we can have interim party leaders but they have to be elected as MPs prior to that event. Your knowledge and wisdom seem wasted on debating many of your lots supposed "lefties." You should interlock with us. I think we would find unity. Have you ever been familiarized with Canadas Preston Manning, a progressive conservative politician (although by title a member of the Reform Party who merged wth the PCs to form the CPC...but I digress)? He had an eye towards social equality with some rather radical ideas? He was in office from I think 93-00ish. Edited July 23, 2019 by soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padme Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: But they are not ''interims'' as you follow the Westminster system by which you elect your MPs to a House of Commons, not specifically a head of government, and in that Commons the leader commanding a majority becomes PM. Inter party elections are a perfectly valid way in deciding a prime minister in the Westminster System. PS Unless of course they were literally interims for whatever reason, e.g., if the Prime Minister dies in office and somebody has to take over before the party decides a new leader. But keep in mind that after last election the result was a hung parliament. Theresa May need outside support. I guess Boris also is going to need DUP or somebody. Besides Brexit there are other issues. Tories can't get things alone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, soon said: Her name was Kim Campbell, btw. Yes, you are correct we can have interim party leaders but they have to be elected as MPs prior to that event. Your knowledge and wisdom seem wasted on debating many your lots supposed "lefties." You should interlock with us. I think we would find unity. Have you ever been familiarized with Canadians Preston Manning, a progressive conservative politician (although by title a member of the Reform Party who merged wth the PCs to form the CPC...but I digress)? He had an eye towards social equality with some rather radical ideas? He was in office from I think 93-00ish. Kim Campbell wasn't an interim though. She become Prime Minister in the same manner as Boris Johnson, winning a party leadership contest, Mulonrey having retired. The Prime Minister would have inherently been the leader of the Progressive Conservatives in accordance with your 1988 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Padme said: But keep in mind that after last election the result was a hung parliament. Theresa May need outside support. I guess Boris also is going to need DUP or somebody. Besides Brexit there are other issues. Tories can't get things alone There is no evidence as to any severance of that confidence and supply with the DUP. It is the party leader capable of commanding the ''confidence'' of the Commons. Even if if Corbyn forms some continental style ''grande coalition'' of Labour, Liberal Democrats and SNP, he would still be lacking by nearly 20 seats a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Kim Campbell wasn't an interim though. She become Prime Minister in the same manner as Boris Johnson, winning a party leadership contest, Mulonrey having retired. The Prime Minister would have inherently been the leader of the Progressive Conservatives in accordance with your 1988 election. We're saying the same thing. We do here use the term 'interim party leader.' I suppose that may be colloquial. Fine Dies, I will stop trying to find common ground with you now. Go back to debating the slack jawed "but if we're so smart how'd Brexit happen" brigade. Sorry for bothering you j/k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, soon said: We're saying the same thing. We do here use the term 'interim party leader.' I suppose that may be colloquial. Fine Dies, I will stop trying to find common ground with you now. Go back to debating the slack jawed "but if we're so smart how'd Brexit happen" brigade. Sorry for bothering you j/k But she won a party leadership contest, defeating Jean Charest, and became bona fide leader of the Progressive Conservatives, upon which, when Mulroney's retirement came into affect, she become bona fide Prime Minister of Canada! Interim is inherently a temporary expedient. For example, Wellington's second ministry (1834) was interim because Robert Peel, the designated Prime Minister, was in Sardinia at the time. Edited July 23, 2019 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 The term ''interim'' is synonymous with ''caretaker'', i.e., ''caretaker government''. Another example besides the above is Churchill's short-lived ministry upon the ending of the war time coalition and the general election, May-July 1945. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: But she won a party leadership contest, defeating Jean Charest, and became bona fide leader of the Progressive Conservatives, upon which, when Mulroney's retirement came into affect, she become bona fide Prime Minister of Canada! I wasnt born yet. Im currently stoned. And I adore your brain. So, for the time being, the interim , lets say that yours is a more accurate statement. I never said she wasnt the bona fide PM. She was the PM and had to call an election promptly because of how it came to be. Fucking Molrooney secretly drafts NAFTA and then bounces - you wanna call that above board democracy? Shame, the more interesting conversation was about Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, soon said: I wasnt born yet. Im currently stoned. And I adore your brain. So, for the time being, the interim , lets say that yours is a more accurate statement. I never said she wasnt the bona fide PM. She was the PM and had to call an election promptly because of how it came to be. Fucking Molrooney secretly drafts NAFTA and then bounces - you wanna call that above board democracy? Shame, the more interesting conversation was about Manning. Hahaha! You said bona! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padme Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 55 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: There is no evidence as to any severance of that confidence and supply with the DUP. It is the party leader capable of commanding the ''confidence'' of the Commons. Even if if Corbyn forms some continental style ''grande coalition'' of Labour, Liberal Democrats and SNP, he would still be lacking by nearly 20 seats a majority. This is not about Corbyn. In order for the Tories to pass any law about anything they need outside help. It could be DUP or any other party depending on the issue. They may get it or they may not. They might have issues among Tories themselves. DUP is going to ask for a lot money, just like they did with May. The confidence and supply didn't work for May when she needed the most. So with Boris there is no guarantee either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Padme said: This is not about Corbyn. In order for the Tories to pass any law about anything they need outside help. It could be DUP or any other party depending on the issue. They may get it or they may not. They might have issues among Tories themselves. DUP is going to ask for a lot money, just like they did with May. The confidence and supply didn't work for May when she needed the most. So with Boris there is no guarantee either Yes but there is no other obvious alternative to the Cons-DUP. 33 minutes ago, soon said: I wasnt born yet. Im currently stoned. And I adore your brain. So, for the time being, the interim , lets say that yours is a more accurate statement. I never said she wasnt the bona fide PM. She was the PM and had to call an election promptly because of how it came to be. Fucking Molrooney secretly drafts NAFTA and then bounces - you wanna call that above board democracy? Shame, the more interesting conversation was about Manning. The election was because the terms of the 1988 Parliament had expired. The fact she was not re-elected is neither here nor there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: The election was because the terms of the 1988 Parliament had expired. Shit, youre right. Thanks. I was thinking about how she irked the people by waiting until the last day possible to ask your bean to dissolve parliament. Elections are in October and she made the request in early September. So 'fast tracked an election' was one of my 3 Kim Campbell pieces of knowledge from grade school. I too should have been reading a wiki as we spoke. Or are you also comprehensive in british colonial 1980s federal politics? Ya prolly are you fucking legend. Any thoughts on Molroney and nafta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, soon said: Shit, youre right. Thanks. I was thinking about how she irked the people by waiting until the last day possible to ask your bean to dissolve parliament. Elections are in October and she made the request in early September. So 'fast tracked an election' was one of my 3 Kim Campbell pieces of knowledge from grade school. I too should have been reading a wiki as we spoke. Or are you also comprehensive in british colonial 1980s federal politics? Ya prolly are you fucking legend. Any thoughts on Molroney and nafta? I know Trump is replacing it with a deal more beneficial to the United States, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. Ratification pending... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtariLegend Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) Other than Brexit, aren't the modern post Charles Kennedy Lib Dems pretty close to the Torries on alot? They both did alot of damage together this decade. Again Jo Swinson voted for most of the horrible things the Torries did this decade. Austerity? Check. Dropping bombs? Check ect. Just saying. Fyi I'm one of those that would have backed Lib Dems pre 2010. They're just as bad as the Torries. There's some things voting remain doesn't over ride. Edited July 23, 2019 by AtariLegend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I know Trump is replacing it with a deal more beneficial to the United States, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. Ratification pending... First I want to thank Canadas' lead on that portfolio, Chrystia Freeland, for pre-figuring some of the very sexy womans fashions for summer 2019. Just fantastic. One main US demand was to do with dairy. We didnt allow (all of?) their milk in because of the chemicals they use to produce milk. So Trumps proud that their chemical milk can now cross into our market, but as consumers we really dont want their shit milk. US negotiators must have thought that they were dealing with a less educated US population. Mulroney was crazy: under NAFTA the US corps can sue us for keeping our own fresh water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 hour ago, soon said: First I want to thank Canadas' lead on that portfolio, Chrystia Freeland, for pre-figuring some of the very sexy womans fashions for summer 2019. Just fantastic. One main US demand was to do with dairy. We didnt allow (all of?) their milk in because of the chemicals they use to produce milk. So Trumps proud that their chemical milk can now cross into our market, but as consumers we really dont want their shit milk. This is basically the same argument for Brexit. Dies' is basically creaming himself for the moment we're outside of the EU so we can enter into a trade deal with the US from a postilion of unprecedented weakness at the mercy of the most pernicious and least trustworthy administration in history. I personally can't wait for Trump to demand access to our health service and I have a major penchant for chlorinated chicken so it's all good. EU regulation be damned and all that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, Dazey said: This is basically the same argument for Brexit. Dies' is basically creaming himself for the moment we're outside of the EU so we can enter into a trade deal with the US from a postilion of unprecedented weakness at the mercy of the most pernicious and least trustworthy administration in history. I personally can't wait for Trump to demand access to our health service and I have a major penchant for chlorinated chicken so it's all good. EU regulation be damned and all that! I think a sovereign nation should be able to make bilateral trade deals with others, something we're unable to do whilst in the EUCU. I have never stipulated a United States one under the nature/conditions you so describe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) Haha. British political discourse is going to get even more cerebral under a Boris ministry I see? I never thought it could ascend higher than the dizzying heights attained following the Brexit referendum. Even the leader of the Liberal Democrats doesn't seem to understand the British constitution, By her logic, Churchill didn't have a ''mandate from the British people'' in 1940! Edited July 23, 2019 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I think a sovereign nation should be able to make bilateral trade deals with others, something we're unable to do whilst in the EUCU. I have never stipulated a United States one under the nature/conditions you so describe. Well we can't make bilateral trade deals with any of the EU 27 so what's the next big prize to aim for? 6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Haha. British political discourse is going to get even more cerebral under a Boris ministry I see? I never thought it could ascend higher than the dizzying heights attained following the Brexit referendum. Even the leader of the Liberal Democrats doesn't seem to understand the British constitution, By her logic, Churchill didn't have a ''mandate from the British people'' in 1940! This constitution you speak of? Where can I buy a copy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dazey said: Well we can't make bilateral trade deals with any of the EU 27 so what's the next big prize to aim for? This constitution you speak of? Where can I buy a copy? - ...under which the EU will not have a trade deal with the United Kingdom. You'll find a list of continuity trade deals here incidentally, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842 - How big is your house? It would require millions of pages of statutory and common law, parliamentary conventions and works of authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, AtariLegend said: Other than Brexit, aren't the modern post Charles Kennedy Lib Dems pretty close to the Torries on alot? They both did alot of damage together this decade. Again Jo Swinson voted for most of the horrible things the Torries did this decade. Austerity? Check. Dropping bombs? Check ect. Just saying. Fyi I'm one of those that would have backed Lib Dems pre 2010. They're just as bad as the Torries. There's some things voting remain doesn't over ride. Well historically the Liberal Democrats are the modern heirs of the Liberals, and before that The Whigs. The Whigs/Liberals, the party of capitalism, big business, anti-working class legislation (the poor laws, workhouses) and imperialism (Palmerstonian ''gunboat diplomacy''). But what you discuss is their neoliberalism. It shouldn't be any surprise that a neoliberal is a staunch supporter of the EU considering the EU itself is an organisation founded and ran by corporate fatcats and dodgy bankers. Edited July 23, 2019 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: - ...under which the EU will not have a trade deal with the United Kingdom. You'll find a list of continuity trade deals here incidentally, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842 - How big is your house? It would require millions of pages of statutory and common law, parliamentary conventions and works of authority. The EU have made their position pretty clear. We stand to be far worse off than them. There are no winners but we'd be the bigger losers. That said, I'm pretty excited that we managed to get Lichtenstein on board. That softens the blow considerably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) It is as simple as this, PS Edited July 29, 2019 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Just now, Dazey said: The EU have made their position pretty clear. We stand to be far worse off than them. There are no winners but we'd be the bigger losers. That said, I'm pretty excited that we managed to get Lichtenstein on board. That softens the blow considerably. We export to the EU £289 billion worth of goods whilst importing £345 billion. That isn't an alarming trade deficit, enough to justify the type of scaremongering national belittlement espoused by remainers such as yourself. The UK position going into the negotiations was hypothetically strong - also factoring in being a net contributor to the EU budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Dazey, even if we take the lowest possible statistic of Britain's contributions to the EU budget - net of Thatcher's rebate, net of public sector receipts, net of private sector receipts (you can make rhetorical points for including these but I'll omit them for sake of argument) - the United Kingdom, having withdrawn from the EU, will have £161 million extra per week. Spoiler Boris of course merely cited the gross with, (And actually under valued it by about 11 million, £361 million being closer). £161 million per week or £8.385 billion per year!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.