Share this page!

Robert Saunders Profile picture
Twitter logo
Jul 26 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
What a goal!!!

(So far, at least, tonight's contest is considerably higher quality than last night's...) #ENGSWE
(Wonder where Leah Williamson and Kosovare Asllani stand on tax cuts and the control of inflation?)
I like the fact that almost the entire half-time discussion was about tactics, formation and coaching, instead of endless replays of yellow cards, fouls and offside decisions. Really informative!
Now that is a goal of total genius! #Russo #ENGSWE

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Robert Saunders

Robert Saunders Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @redhistorian

Robert Saunders Profile picture
Jul 23
The @Telegraph should take a breath and think about the constitutional implications of what it's demanding.

Were this to succeed, it would shatter one of the core principles of parliamentary democracy.

And it would mark a fundamental shift in the location of political power.
One of the mightiest powers in any constitution is the right to decide who holds high office.

Allowing activists to overrule MPs, & restore a Prime Minister who's lost their support, would transfer that power from people we elect to people we do not.

It would be const dynamite.
This isn't about whether we like Boris Johnson, or the candidates to replace him.

It's about whether the one institution we actually elect still has the power to remove a prime minister; or whether that power is now subject to people we do not elect and cannot hold to account.
Read 4 tweets
Robert Saunders Profile picture
Jul 19
If we think it's "more democratic" for party members to choose a PM than for MPs to do so, this is hard to gainsay

But it's a striking demand: that activists should be able to overrule MPs & reinstall a Prime Minister, enjoying all the powers of the executive, against their will
If we want presidential leaders with personal mandates, able to govern in defiance of Parliament, they should be directly elected by the public.

If we want a parliamentary democracy, leaders must command the confidence of MPs - and depend upon them for their democratic authority
The petition poses a serious question: is it still the case that a PM must "command the confidence of Parliament"?

Despite yesterday's vote, Johnson does not: he is resigning because his MPs revolted. If members can overrule that decision, we are in new constitutional waters.
Read 4 tweets
Robert Saunders Profile picture
Jul 12
This breaches two important constitutional principles: that a government must command the confidence of the House of Commons; and that the official Opposition has a right to test whether or not that is the case.

Whether ministers like the wording is neither here nor there. [1/7]
2. There has never been a fixed wording for confidence motions, nor do they have to envisage a general election as the outcome.

See, for example, this motion from 1981, which called on the government "to present to Parliament before the end of the year a range of fresh measures"
3. Under a parliamentary system, in which we do not elect prime ministers directly, the democratic authority of government comes *solely* from the confidence of the House.

To deny the Opposition the right to test that confidence strikes at the foundations of parliamentary govt.
Read 7 tweets
Robert Saunders Profile picture
Jul 8
There's a lot of confusion around this issue, so let's try to clear it up.

If the government loses a Vote of No Confidence in Parliament, this does NOT mean "there's a general election".

I'll try to explain why. [THREAD].
1. In a parliamentary constitution, a govt must "command the confidence of Parliament".

A govt that loses that confidence has no democratic mandate to govern.

That creates a constitutional problem which must be resolved: either by changing the govt or by changing the Parliament
2. If Parliament declares that it has "no confidence" in the govt, one of two things must happen

EITHER: a new govt must be formed, that *does* have the confidence of Parliament.

OR: a new parliament must be elected, to test its verdict on the govt.

One or other must change.
Read 10 tweets
Robert Saunders Profile picture
Jun 25
New report by the @HansardSociety on the "breathtaking" powers bestowed on ministers by the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

"Of the Bill’s 26 clauses, 17 confer powers on UK Ministers".

The report identifies numerous important areas of concern. [1/5]
hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/b…
2. The bill not only allows ministers to disapply parts of the Protocol: it gives them sweeping powers to write the "new law that takes their place".

In effect: "the real operation of the Bill...will be entirely at the discretion of Ministers once the Bill receives Royal Assent"
3. The bill includes far-reaching "Henry VIII powers", that empower ministers "to amend, repeal, or otherwise alter the effect of Acts of Parliament by regulations".

Remarkably, "This includes the ability to amend the Bill itself after it receives Royal Assent & becomes an Act".
Read 6 tweets
Robert Saunders Profile picture
Jun 24
I'm sceptical of claims that "senior ministers" could force Johnson out.

First, there are no senior ministers: no one with independent standing in the party & strong name recognition with the public. The current cabinet has no one of the stature of Howe, Lawson,Brown or Prescott
Of those ministers who do have a public profile, half would lose their jobs if Johnson went.

The others fear that resigning would wreck their own leadership chances.

That leaves a few middle-ranking figures, like Oliver Dowden.

Not the most fearsome political hit-squad.
It's hard to see an exit for Johnson that doesn't involve Tory MPs voting to oust him. It's no good hoping Sue Gray, the Met, the Procedure Committee, the Cabinet or the "men in grey suits" will do it for them. That's why I've always thought his chances of survival are underrated
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(