The Brexit Secretary just resigned because he can't agree with the Brexit deal. You know, the one he's just supposed to have negotiated.
Reportedly the 1922 Committee (which runs Tory leadership contests, and yes, it's really called that) has the 48 letters of no-confidence in the PM necessary to trigger a no-confidence vote.
Meanwhile, with the DUP, hardline Tory Brexiteers, Tory Remainers, Labour, and everyone else set to vote against the Brexit Deal, when the Tories need every Tory, plus the DUP to pass any vote, the current version* of the Brexit deal looks dead in the water.
*I'm increasingly of the opinion this will apply to any Brexit deal.
*I'm increasingly of the opinion this will apply to any Brexit deal.
I see no reason to believe you're wrong.
I am afraid your summary does make me wish that my country had retained the vote of no confidence when it kludged our government together, but that is otherwise some pretty serious fwoosh.
I'm personally delighted that Esther McVey, probably the most loathed Minister For Disabled People of all time has quit from her current role of Minister for Works and Pensions, we were all horrified when May brought her back into the Cabinet in overall charge of all benefits policy back in January - though that was clearly done in a panic when another minister refused to take a demotion into the role.
I tend to look at the way the US government is put together and wonder "What were they thinking?"
First fairly large scale attempt at democracy, before the era of game theory in maths? They were tossing a ton of stuff out there, getting rid of some stuff, adding other new stuff, and... yeah. Some things they did worked out okay, many other things... really did not. US govt: we're the LA freeways of modern democracy? :D (ie, we fucked up, other people learned from watching us fuck up.)
(Like, I mean: obviously the Brits had democratic processes, internally? Which was, among other things, what the people putting the US government together were iterating off of. But... the colonies did not, that was literally the spark point for the revolution. So, yeah, I feel the scale on which the democratic processes were operating in Britain at the time was not really fairly comparable to what the US went on to attempt.)
Oh, my God, your government is on fire and your Prime Minister appears to be immolating herself on it. Good luck, and may you not get Brexit out of the ashes.
Yes, Parliament had been running for quite a while.
The bits of the US system that make me go WTF?! are politicisation of government posts down to a ridiculous level, especially where political neutrality is considered a requisite in other countries (policing and the judiciary); and the built-in adversarial assumptions which, as you say, no one had gamed out enough to work out that result would be frequent and inevitable governmental gridlock.
And as for creating a presidential role to replace the king they'd just gotten rid of. Seriously?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2018-11-15 06:52 pm (UTC)Do I want to ask, or should I just pull up the Guardian and wait for the fwoosh?
no subject
Date: 2018-11-15 07:04 pm (UTC)Reportedly the 1922 Committee (which runs Tory leadership contests, and yes, it's really called that) has the 48 letters of no-confidence in the PM necessary to trigger a no-confidence vote.
Meanwhile, with the DUP, hardline Tory Brexiteers, Tory Remainers, Labour, and everyone else set to vote against the Brexit Deal, when the Tories need every Tory, plus the DUP to pass any vote, the current version* of the Brexit deal looks dead in the water.
*I'm increasingly of the opinion this will apply to any Brexit deal.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-15 07:08 pm (UTC)I see no reason to believe you're wrong.
I am afraid your summary does make me wish that my country had retained the vote of no confidence when it kludged our government together, but that is otherwise some pretty serious fwoosh.
*hugs*
no subject
Date: 2018-11-15 07:21 pm (UTC)Guardian coverage of what's happening is good, start here for the meat of it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/15/dominic-raab-quits-as-brexit-secretary-over-eu-withdrawal-deal
With live coverage here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/nov/15/brexit-deal-theresa-may-takes-agreement-to-parliament-politics-live
I'm personally delighted that Esther McVey, probably the most loathed Minister For Disabled People of all time has quit from her current role of Minister for Works and Pensions, we were all horrified when May brought her back into the Cabinet in overall charge of all benefits policy back in January - though that was clearly done in a panic when another minister refused to take a demotion into the role.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-15 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-11-15 08:20 pm (UTC)First fairly large scale attempt at democracy, before the era of game theory in maths? They were tossing a ton of stuff out there, getting rid of some stuff, adding other new stuff, and... yeah. Some things they did worked out okay, many other things... really did not. US govt: we're the LA freeways of modern democracy? :D (ie, we fucked up, other people learned from watching us fuck up.)
(Like, I mean: obviously the Brits had democratic processes, internally? Which was, among other things, what the people putting the US government together were iterating off of. But... the colonies did not, that was literally the spark point for the revolution. So, yeah, I feel the scale on which the democratic processes were operating in Britain at the time was not really fairly comparable to what the US went on to attempt.)
no subject
Date: 2018-11-16 12:27 am (UTC)Oh, my God, your government is on fire and your Prime Minister appears to be immolating herself on it. Good luck, and may you not get Brexit out of the ashes.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-16 08:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-11-17 01:18 pm (UTC)The bits of the US system that make me go WTF?! are politicisation of government posts down to a ridiculous level, especially where political neutrality is considered a requisite in other countries (policing and the judiciary); and the built-in adversarial assumptions which, as you say, no one had gamed out enough to work out that result would be frequent and inevitable governmental gridlock.
And as for creating a presidential role to replace the king they'd just gotten rid of. Seriously?