Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
just look at trump / clintonMajorities don't automatically mean governance
just look at trump / clintonMajorities don't automatically mean governance
Indeed. But they aren’t, and nor can they be given she hasn’t invited a majority of MPs to it. Her suggestion seems to be a 10-member cabinet.Not that I think it's a great idea or ever likely to happen, but surely if Lucas' handpicked junta were miraculously able to cobble together a majority then they'd be as legitimate a government as any other coalition?
But why? How is Lucas cobbling together a majority from a number of parties any different from May cobbling together a majority from two (let's ignore for a moment the impossibility of it actually happening)?I can't see how without a GE
I presumed her fantasy imagines her 10 member cabinet to be able to command a majority in the house, during the 14 day period after a VONC allowed for in the FTPA.Indeed. But they aren’t, and nor can they be given she hasn’t invited a majority of MPs to it. Her suggestion seems to be a 10-member cabinet.
Normally if a government loses a vonc there would follow a GE, after which Lucas can attempt to control a majority of the House. That doesn’t seem to have been the suggestion though.
But if the numbers had been slightly different in 2017 and the Tories hadn't been able to do a deal to form a government, then Labour might have been able to without a general election despite not winning the most seats. Support of a majority in parliament is what swings it.May's government won more seats than any other giving her the opportunity to do a deal with other parties to form a working government. Lucas' party has yet to do the same.
I presumed her fantasy imagines her 10 member cabinet to be able to command a majority in the house, during the 14 day period after a VONC allowed for in the FTPA.
I only read reports of, rather than an original transcript, and she seems to have dropped it anyway.I presumed her fantasy imagines her 10 member cabinet to be able to command a majority in the house, during the 14 day period after a VONC allowed for in the FTPA.
I mean, it's mad fantasy shit and never going to happen, but it's technically and constitutionally possible as far as I can see, and no more illegitimate than any other coalition.
That’s a fair point, actually. It’s completely in line with “the Queen will save us” and so on. Yup, part of a pattern.I disagree danny la rouge . Whilst this specific suggestion by Lucas might be pure fantasy, the idea of the suspension of liberal democratic norms to respond to a portrayed crisis is not. It's a direction of travel we've started down.
If it was after a Vonc but before a GE, yes. Nothing like it would have happened outside wartime in modern times, as far as I can see. That’s if I understood what she was proposing.Would it be a 'suspension of liberal democratic norms' if it were able to command a majority in the house though?
The EU has been quite a way down that road for some time now. In the democracy vs mobile capital fight it's role is to ensure that the former can be 'suspended' as and when required to the benefit of the latter. Or better, make the possibility of punitive suspension a condition of entry and pressure those already in to write such agreements into their constitution under threat of financial strangulation. Itself an example of such suspension - but suspension disguised as democracy.I disagree danny la rouge . Whilst this specific suggestion by Lucas might be pure fantasy, the idea of the suspension of liberal democratic norms to respond to a portrayed crisis is not. It's a direction of travel we've started down.
The FTPA changed the way a VONC (in this specific circumstance) works - there's no precedent because the way parliament works was different.If it was after a Vonc but before a GE, yes. Nothing like it would have happened outside wartime in modern times, as far as I can see. That’s if I understood what she was proposing.
A temporary suspension, you mean? Right?I disagree danny la rouge . Whilst this specific suggestion by Lucas might be pure fantasy, the idea of the suspension of liberal democratic norms to respond to a portrayed crisis is not. It's a direction of travel we've started down.
Would it be a 'suspension of liberal democratic norms' if it were able to command a majority in the house though?
A temporary suspension, you mean? Right?
Many a tawdry act is within the letter of the law.The FTPA changed the way a VONC (in this specific circumstance) works - there's no precedent because the way parliament works was different.
how would it be different from any other coalition arrangement?Yep. Absolutely. But in a sensible, moderate manner. Even just legitimising the idea of governments of national unity as a response to conjured crisis is doing this.
This is what she really meant and who is what designed to appeal to as we all know, now that the lib-dems and green are fighting in the same stagnant pool.
View attachment 180805
how would it be different from any other coalition arrangement?
It's because "winning" a GE gives the winner the mandate to form a government if they can. Lucas is nowhere near having that mandate.I don't really understand why. You may well be right, but I don't get how one majority cobbled together from a number of parties is different from another majority cobbled together from a number of parties.
It's because "winning" a GE gives the winner the mandate to form a government if they can. Lucas is nowhere near having that mandate.
can't do any worse than the current incumbentI mean, why her? Why should she get a crack at it?
This is the middle class anxiety thread - you want the middle class entitlement thread.I mean, why her? Why should she get a crack at it?
down the corridor, second on the right.This is the middle class anxiety thread - you want the middle class entitlement thread.
Well, she won't. It's just a nonsense article in a nonsense paper, a drunk dinner-party conversation unwisely written up the next morning. But what stops it being a proposal with legs isn't some sort of high minded question of constitutional legitimacy, it's that it wouldn't get anything more than a handful of MPs prepared to support it in parliament.I mean, why her? Why should she get a crack at it?