A prime minister’s job is to speak for the nation. And in his first speech in his new job, that is exactly what Boris Johnson pledged to do. But every action he has taken since entering Downing Street has made those words ring hollow. This is a man with no democratic mandate, who cannot command a majority in parliament, who has been found to have acted unlawfully by the supreme court...in the House of Commons, Johnson sought to politicise the assassination of Jo Cox MP by a far-right terrorist....our political discourse has generally taken place within a shared sense of acceptable parameters...But when Johnson went to answer to parliament for his actions, he showed not a shred of contrition. .Johnson’s toxic behaviour was also intended as a distraction from the problems that have beset his nascent premiership: not just the fact that he has lost every single vote he has held in parliament, but the questions over his probity during his time in City Hall. In recent days, serious allegations have emerged of a conflict of interest with a US businesswoman [bit clumsy]
It would appear nothing is sacred to the Conservative party: not the nation’s economic wellbeing; not the future of the union; not even the very institutions that safeguard our liberal democracy. [Suddenly all these are sacred to the Observer] ...MPs cannot leave him to undermine our constitution using the official Downing Street seal any longer.
So what should they do? It's tricky. Anything that involves the public having a say is risky...
there are many reasons to be concerned about an election that would function as a quasi-referendum [indeed -- Remain might lose again] . Labour’s Brexit position remains ambiguous after its rancorous conference. Our first-past-the-post electoral system means it is entirely conceivable that the anti- or pro-Brexit parties could win more votes between them, but the other side win more seats. And current polling suggests that a likely outcome would be another hung parliament that would be no less gridlocked....
The Observer continues to believe that the best way forward for a temporary government would be to hold a referendum before a general election.[And it has] principled arguments for a referendum as a way of deciding this issue remain as strong as ever: no concrete proposal for leaving the EU was put before voters in 2016, let alone a no-deal Brexit.[no revoking or soft Brexit either, of course, no option to have a coalition of opposition Remainers take over either] .[Even here] There are, of course, risks to holding a referendum but it would not be any less divisive than moving immediately to a general election. [So what remains?] But parliament remains sovereign, and MPs have the power to stop him. They must act [somehow? Anyhow?] before it is too late.
The SundayTimes has the best stuff though:
‘Sack me if you dare,’ Boris Johnson will tell the Queen
The Speaker, John Bercow, has been proposed as a national unity leader [sic]
Apparently, Johnson thinks if he refuses to nominate an alternative after losing a no-confidence vote, because no-one in his view could command a majority, Her Maj will then have to dissolve Parliament and call for an election.
No comments:
Post a Comment