Categories
Options
There will be no May election – politicalbetting.com
There will be no May election – politicalbetting.com
Theresa May has announced she won't stand at the next election after 27 years as an MP. Asked today, Britons' opinion of the former PM…Very favourable: 4%Somewhat favourable: 25%Somewhat unfavourable: 30%Very unfavourable: 24%https://t.co/KrJdSOient pic.twitter.com/cwTuNo6NIx
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But I thought his justification for making Begum stateless was weak. Basically that we can't prosecute her in court so we just don't bother and avoid justice altogether?
What sort of precedent does that set?
Whichever way people all on that question however, and the particular circumstances of the case, I doubt the Starmer government is going to be divesting itself of that power.
I have some admiration for May for her doggedness. I think she was inadequate to the task of managing her internal Brexit coalition, but I'm not sure anyone was up to it, though I turned against the government when it was admitted almost a year into triggering A50 it still had no agreement even at Cabint level, so she did not show strength in that time but was just avoiding arguments.
The LD score is interesting.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendums/leo-varadkar-admits-defeat-in-referendums-as-county-by-county-results-stream-in-for-family-amendment/a312474535.html
However, whenever her legacy is discussed, the mistake of the 2017 election will bulk large in it. However well intentioned and however logical it must have seemed, there is simply no good thing to say about how big a disaster it was. She should have held that trump card until the negotiations were complete, then forced through the deal either by calling it or threatening it.
Oddly, that may help to partially rehabilitate Brown of course.
Lara Trump says when she becomes co-Chair of the Republican Party, “anyone” who doesn’t support Trump and MAGA will be told to “leave” the party
https://twitter.com/DNCWarRoom/status/1764785689344778249
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-theresa-may-a-good-mp-should-never-have-been-prime-minister/ar-BB1jzC94
Charles Moore wields the stiletto. Older PBers will recall that Boris's pal Charles Moore gave disastrous advice about saving Owen Paterson, leading to Boris's own departure and Moore's peerage.
I get it, they want to be elected and by and large they won't manage that without giving in, but it doesn't prevent Trump from still insulting them (see DeSantis), and the biggest Trump fans still despite them even after they give in. So is it even worth it?
Especially for those who are standing down, why don't they speak out more against the Lara Trump's of the world? What do they have to lose?
*Not counting DC, it would be 1984.
But maybe in Ireland each article must get a separate vote.
A triumph for social conservatives and the Vatican though who opposed both amendments as undermining the traditional family and mother's role in the home. After recent defeats in referendums on abortion and gay marriage today is the Irish Roman Catholic church's revenge
May could have the last laugh though, if Starmer does win the next general election the final Brexit deal will likely look more like hers than Johnson's as Sir Keir will push for closer regulatory alignment with the EU while still outside the EU and EEA
Hence my saying we cannot criticise an overly long constitution, since at least theirs can still be broadly read in one document, rather than looking up various other things and trying to figure out which ones and which practices are deemed constitutionally significant.
She was a truly dreadful prime minister. The worst of my lifetime. Yes Truss was a calamity but she only lasted 5 seconds, Truss was like a burst tyre on the motorway, scary but brief. TMay’s premiership was like a long horrible motorway pile up in the fog, eventually involving 389 vehicles and a downed helicopter, when she didn’t have to drive at all
She REALLY did not read the room on Brexit
She could have built a consensus on a very soft Brexit that would have satisfied many Leavers and mollified many Remainers, at least as a holding position
May tried to appease the nutters.
BoZo encouraged the nutters.
Truss was a nutter.
Richi is a dud.
Now the Italian entry…a jump down, five faults
Next, the USA Collie…looking good..but five faults at the see saw, missing the entry contact point.
The Welsh brown Collie…second place, 0.4 seconds off the lead
Scooby, the Luxembourg Collie…five faults missing the contact onto the A frame, then eliminated
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/09/winnie-the-pooh-blood-and-honey-wins-worst-film-at-razzies
Setting aside the results, are Scotland and Britain happier places for their respective Indy and Brexit referendums? No they are not. There is a legacy of polarised anger and bitterness which is taking years to disperse and may never disappear entirely
I guess you must have them for absolutely fundamental changes - like independence - but they should be treated much more seriously. Both sides should have to produce detailed proposals that are independent scrutinised - not waffly manifestos where you can claim anything
There should be long public consultations. Assemblies. Town halls. Major debates. This should take a year or two at least - not a few weeks like an election campaign
OR we go the Swiss route and have them all the time for everything so then people get used to them
We have the worst of all worlds at the moment. We have momentous votes but treat them like they are casual opinion polls
And yet because of the Corbyn factor the Tories still actually held poll leads for most of that period.
And is a nutter.
Last to go, from Portugal - takes the first jump down, five faults.
So the French dog wins with 35.0 secs clear
I forsee when I retire being reviled as a rich pensioner because of the attitude being inculcated while I am struggling to make ends meet. As an example I am keeping an eye on my pension pot and have worked solidly since 1987, been paying contributions, and generally been top 30 to top 20% of earners. I am told I should be looking at an annuity of 5 to 7k a year non index linked if I dont take a lump sum. Hardly going to be having my mouth stuffed with gold on that but the idea of rich pensioners will still persist I don't doubt
The big error was right after her acclamation by her party in 2016, when she was at her most powerful. Instead of the 'Citizens of Nowhere' speech she should have said that given the narrow but decisive result and the fact the winning side had left no plan, her priority was to bring people together and discharge the result and leave as quickly as possible by leaving the EU's political structures. So we could then decide our future by parties offering a more detailed choice of what came next.
She could have then, should see so have wished, have campaigned in an election on ending free movement by leaving the SM that were worked out, having been the person who cleaned up the Brexit mess and showed a way forward. Meanwhile, Labour/the remain side would have likely torn itself to shreds between those unreconciled to Brexit and those who wanted to support May's offer as a path to a softer Brexit.
Instead, she gave a speech that set up the Brexit conundrum that brought her down. Namely, how to get the promised deal that meets the fantasists' demands to exit everything while not screwing NI and the economy, so gets support of MPs for whom those are red lines? Furthermore, she effectively spawned the 2nd referendum movement by giving everyone who thought Brexit a terrible idea every reason to dig in against it, and vote and campaign accordingly. So you then ended up with the 2017 result, as lots voted Labour to avoid the Tories having carte blanche to pursue versions of Brexit they thought were beyond the pale.
Perhaps unfair but no one likes a quisling and the loathing for Leavers is still visceral
If only she had done that. She had the chance. Her failure to see this was a catastrophic unforced error
4a/ Are there storm clouds gathering for the ‘re-join’ voice in our Brexit tracker? The gap narrows this week for the first time in a long time.
* All *
Re-join: 46% (-4)
Stay Out: 34% (+1)
DK or not voting: 20% (+3)
* Exc DKs / won’t vote *
Re-join: 58% (-2)
Stay Out: 42% (+2)
https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1766116864864752113?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
This process will continue. We will get accustomed to being outside the EU and the idea of full fat rejoin and yielding all our sovereignty will come to seem bizarre
I imagine there will be constant tweaks to our trading terms however. This is what happens with Switzerland. They have no desire to join the EU but that means they have to keep adjusting to the huge trading bloc that surrounds them
The catastrofuck began the moment you voted for it.
Various flavours of bad may have had different probabilities, but it remains a bad idea, executed badly, by idiots and fools.
In retrospect, Boris's strategy was probably the only one that could have worked - negotiate a minimal (some might say bad) deal, and build on it gradually from there. We already have the NI Protocol, and the full border controls & single trade window have been delayed five (or is it now six?) times. They're now due to start in October, but if Sunak bottles a May election they'll likely be delayed again to avoid clashing with the campaign...
What comes next? Agreement on financial services passporting & recognition of professional qualifications, presumably with some form of alignment in those areas. Erasmus and Europol. After that... EEA? There's certainly plenty of scope for the Labour government to improve on the current situation!
"Do you agree that while women should be free to make their own decisions about working, the state and society should make it economically possible for women to be full time carers for children in their early years".
> First, thanks to Alanbrooke for bird-dogging this, certainly by reminding yours truly that they are a thing, with actual voting done and results pending.
> On point re: advisability of putting questions to voters that are (or appear) "not serious and simple to understand". Valid point, but only to a point. By their vary nature, promulgating and amending national, federal, state local constitutions and charters - fundamental laws with primacy over mere statutes - require (or should IMHO) going to the basis of constitutional legitimacy.
For example, US Constitution and subsequent amendments required no only approval of Constitution and subsequent Congresses, AND also ratification by super-majority of states via legislative action (or state conventions in case of Prohibition repeal).
US states have similar process, with voter ratification being requirement for final enactment of state constitutions and constitutional amendments.
> In my experience, of over thirty years in state where voting by actual voters on constitutional amendments, initiatives and referendums via statewide and local ballot measures is commonplace (if not exactly ho-hum) the idea that voter are easily or even frequently confused by serious, complex issues is a CROCK of lukewarm possum piss.
From what I've observed, about 99.46% of voters, at least those who bother to give a flying you-know-what in first place, DO figure it out. Either because somebody lets 'em in on what's what, or (more frequently) they get their on there own.
There may be differences in perception (as opposed to comprehension) that can come into play, especially in close contests. For example, here in WA State, the rule in thumb is that voters who are confused (say by competing campaign claims) or conflicted, have some tendency to end up voting No (or equivalent) so groups, interests, etc. against the measure often work at throwing clouds of dust (if not dirt) about.
Gave away a penalty using it whilst going backwards. Which you don't do.
Now a try using it about as poorly as could be.
Why? Because a deal like that would have run counter to where the party's members and voters and a critical mass of their MPs were. It would have been VONC and out. She knew that. As would any other Tory politician in her place at that time in those circumstances.
Soft Brexit = Pipedream.
I've tried to make sense of the Irish constitutional referenda today - there are obviously nuances at work which escape me. Some parts of Ireland remain socially very conservative and it's clear the Catholic Church has played a big role in the rejection of the proposals. Some will argue the likes of Aontu and Independent Ireland represent a wider political future - both socially conservative but the former more interested in strong public services while Independent Ireland is more of a small state tax cutting party.
Could we see a similar evolution here?
If so, it doesn't seem to me that Brexit has fixed any of them:
(https://public.tableau.com/views/Netmigration-December2023/2?:language=en-GB&:embed=y&:sid=&:embed_code_version=3&:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link)
And, of course, there were substantial benefits from FoM - not least enabling many more UK citizens to work and study abroad. Removing FoM is perhaps the most painful Brexit loss for a large number of people.
https://wethink.report/data-hub/brexit-sentiment/