In all the excitement I have almost forgotten POTUS elections. Christie has come in a long way as GOP VP since I last looked. Probably staying out of this except for a wild punt on McSally some time ago.
It's the new reality - to be a proper political party in Britain you have to have an ongoing leadership crisis. Otherwise the media won't report anything you do or say.
What's going on with the greens I wonder
There is a leadership election. Sure to be a blood bath at some point.
Don't the Greens have a leadership election every year at Conference?
No, there are elections for GPEX every year I think. Leader gets a 3 or 4 year term, I forget which.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
In all the excitement I have almost forgotten POTUS elections. Christie has come in a long way as GOP VP since I last looked. Probably staying out of this except for a wild punt on McSally some time ago.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
It won't get that far because many, many Tory members voted for leave on the grounds of sovereignty and control over our laws. Immigration was a secondary concern for the majority of the membership. Additionally, loads of members have investments and we've seen in the last few days what a real Brexit might do to them, that won't be lost on them when the ballots are received. Additionally, forget Leave and Remain for a minute, those campaigns are history, we need a leader who can take over and will command the respect of the whole party, Leadsom won't be able to do that, while May will. I also wouldn't be surprised to see May lend some of her MPs to Crabb if he makes the final round so that she faces off vs him on the members ballot and then it won't even be a race.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
It won't get that far because many, many Tory members voted for leave on the grounds of sovereignty and control over our laws. Immigration was a secondary concern for the majority of the membership. Additionally, loads of members have investments and we've seen in the last few days what a real Brexit might do to them, that won't be lost on them when the ballots are received. Additionally, forget Leave and Remain for a minute, those campaigns are history, we need a leader who can take over and will command the respect of the whole party, Leadsom won't be able to do that, while May will. I also wouldn't be surprised to see May lend some of her MPs to Crabb if he makes the final round so that she faces off vs him on the members ballot and then it won't even be a race.
I very much hope so. I said my scenario was unlikely but it is a fallback plan just in case.
On a second EU referendum: Support: 32% Oppose: 60% (via BMG / 29 - 30 Jun) 274 retweets 166 likes
The question isn't relevant unless we know what type of second referendum it means (rerun/ confirmation of article 50 deal), an in any case won't mean much right now. If we haven't declared in 6 months and the country's gone to the dogs, if people still oppose (as I suspect) then it is more relevant.
I shall be in a most awkward position if Leaving ends up poorly, and we don't lower immigration - Remainers will call me a fool, and anti-immigration leavers will see me as a quisling if I'm ok with a deal with FOM. Speaking to some leavers, they were indeed very clear to me that they expected immigration would be cut. Now, there's no reason the government is bound to that, or even the attempt, any more than a manifesto promise (and in fact less so since not all the government supporter VoteLeave), but while it would please many remainers and some fewer leavers, it will anger a lot of people.
They would then go and vote UKIP, and Labour would fight a rearguard action by getting tough on immigration. So we'd see a rightward shift in the UK's polity.
But this was coming anyway. In many ways the referendum has just accelerated (explosively) inevitable trends in British politics. And indeed politics across the West.
Yes, let Labour deal with that problem. Nothing to do with us. You can see McIRA went on the defensive today by calling for an end to free movement and his lets have a cake and eat it policy of staying in the single market and not having FoM.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
You couldn't go from a Leadsom government to a May government without a Tory leadership election. In practice once a confidence motion was lost and with no viable alternative government coalition we'd head straight to a GE.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
You couldn't go from a Leadsom government to a May government without a Tory leadership election. In practice once a confidence motion was lost and with no viable alternative government coalition we'd head straight to a GE.
Graham Brady would be a very busy man if Leadsom won and proposed to completely take us out of the single market, I very much doubt she would be able to withstand the pressure and would eventually stand down, with May "winning" a coronation.
Maybe your missing the signal they expect their politicians to look at it again.
Yes, well, as I've said a dishonest fudge might be the best way forward, starting from here.
A dishonest fudge is never the best way forward. The very fact that it is dishonest means storing up the problems for later, and probably magnifying the underlying problems/grievances.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
If the house passed a motion of no confidence in the government, the leader of the opposition is then asked to form a government if he can, if we assume that he can't a general election is called. If the motion of confidence is passed then then the above doesn't happen, but the government isn't changed, Leasome would still be PM.
The leadership of the Tory party is an internal party matter, not a government matter. The leadership election process would have to be followed and in the case of MPs trying to depose a leader elected by the party members you could expect deselections and even more determination to get their choice election.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
You couldn't go from a Leadsom government to a May government without a Tory leadership election. In practice once a confidence motion was lost and with no viable alternative government coalition we'd head straight to a GE.
Graham Brady would be a very busy man if Leadsom won and proposed to completely take us out of the single market, I very much doubt she would be able to withstand the pressure and would eventually stand down, with May "winning" a coronation.
You don't think the party members, who let's face it are already pretty pissed off with a bunch of careerist flip-floppers might have something to say on the subject of their MPs trying to throw out the members election choice ?
In anycase I am sure we will see over the next few days that there are considerably more than 140+ Tory Leavers when the careerists and loyalists fall into line.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
Speaking as a member I think the time for complex manoeuvres are over and the membership will act responsibly and elect Teresa for stability and a proven record in Government. Indeed I would not be surprised that when two are left a deal is done in the interest of the party and the nation and Teresa becomes PM unopposed
Re house prices...seanT gets it, but I cannot believe the economic illiteracy of the others. Every recession we have is accompanied by house price falls. Negative equity is not a good thing for the economy. Banks restricting lending is not a good thing for the economy. People worried about their futures is not good for the economy. In fact a house price crash is a terrible thing for the economy.
Brexiters- can you really be this thick , aside from being nihilistic, reactionary and populist
Oh, by Britain's wealth you meant bricks and mortar.
London will be the most effected and the market is well up in recent years. It can afford a small decrease.
TheWhiteRabbit, London will be the most "effected", really?? For a gentleman of your level of overeducation
I had a DoS at Cambridge who looked like a little bit of her died inside every time she saw one of two mistakes: effected/affected and practice/practise. She had tolerant disdain of any other slip. But those two brought out a deadened look in her eyes that I can only describe as "whatever is the world coming to - I want to get off, preferably 50 years ago."
My big bugbear is the inquiry/enquiry one.
Then, for UK vs US English, it is the use of 'momentarily'. "The plane will be landing momentarily" "Well, I hope it lands long enough for me to get off."
Agree with those, plus its and it's, and disinterested vs uninterested.
Oh, and the way here they almost always spell capitOl with an O, even if they shouldn't.
Another irritating thing, on the BBC World Service I notice in particular, is that when asked a question, the responder will frequently start the reply with the word "So, ..."
James Boswell uses disinterested "wrong" in the Life of Johnson, and what's good enough for him...
And while I'm at it I never saw what was wrong with split infinitives, or degrees of uniqueness.
Unique is my least favourite word.
Virtually every investment proposition I get shown is "uniquely positioned" or some such bullsh1t. Makes me want to barf.
While we're on the subject of pet hates. "Exclusive". Every tiny, squalid, sack-of-shit new build round here is always "An exclusive development of..." etc. Had a look at one recently on behalf of my aged Mum. You'd need to decelerate rapidly after entering the front, else you'd break your nose on the back door.
When I see "Exclusive" I wonder who they exclude. Poor people? BME people? Baby eating PB Tories?
It's the new reality - to be a proper political party in Britain you have to have an ongoing leadership crisis. Otherwise the media won't report anything you do or say.
What's going on with the greens I wonder
There is a leadership election. Sure to be a blood bath at some point.
Don't the Greens have a leadership election every year at Conference?
No, there are elections for GPEX every year I think. Leader gets a 3 or 4 year term, I forget which.
Suppose May and Leadsom are chosen by Tory MPs to go to the membership for the final vote, with May being the overwhelming choice of Tory MPs. A likely scenario.
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
Speaking as a member I think the time for complex manoeuvres are over and the membership will act responsibly and elect Teresa for stability and a proven record in Government. Indeed I would not be surprised that when two are left a deal is done in the interest of the party and the nation and Teresa becomes PM unopposed
If anything the risk is more likely on the other side. That Theresa once safely in No10 goes all wishy washy and starts backtracking leaving members heading for the UKIP office.
When I see "Exclusive" I wonder who they exclude. Poor people? BME people? Baby eating PB Tories?
It seems a rather foolish boast.
The implication is clearly "If you live here you will be a person of substance, not one of the riff-raff" which has a certain irony on some of the tiny little hutches they apply the term to, if it was Blenheim Palace I might understand.
When I see "Exclusive" I wonder who they exclude. Poor people? BME people? Baby eating PB Tories?
It seems a rather foolish boast.
The implication is clearly "If you live here you will be a person of substance, not one of the riff-raff" which has a certain irony on some of the tiny little hutches they apply the term to, if it was Blenheim Palace I might understand.
If they mean "Expensive" then they should say so. It is a curious boast!
We had a referendum to leave the EU. It is only the anti-democrats like FF43 who seem to want to ignore it.
The polls (for what they are worth) both before and after the vote have shown a clear majority in favour of maintaining access to the single market even if it means maintaining freedom of movement. If you want to align yourself with the minority who see immigration as the most important issue feel free. The rest of us will continue to press for what has always been by far the most sensible arrangement which is EFTA/EEA membership.
The problem is that the Vote Leave campaign - the side which won, and which you and other Leavers supported - used immigration as their principal argument. Indeed, not only did they make heavy use of it, they even invented some absolute grade-A solid-gold nonsensical scaremongering about Turkey to embellish it. Perhaps they were lying in the most cynical way imaginable. I'll leave that question to the conscience of those who were happy to go along with their campaign.
I've asked before: can anyone show official literature (e.g. leaflets) from either leave campaign that mentioned either EEA or EFTA?
I can't remember any (but that's not saying much).
Does it matter? The people voted to leave the EU. Anything more than that and they can ask for it in another referendum. The leave campaign isn't the government and the next PM (Theresa) will have had little to do with it. This concern trolling from both you and Richard is tiresome. Only half of the leave vote was motivated by immigration, the rest was for a variety of reasons, two of which were having control over our laws and regaining sovereignty.
"Does it matter?"
Yes it does. A classic bait-and-switch by politicians after this referendum will not be taken well by the voters.
Your assumptions on why people voted leave are based (if at all) on polling that has already been widely discredited by the referendum itself. You cannot know with any certainty why people voted the way they did: all we have is what the leave campaigns said.
I am not 'concern trolling'. In a similar spirit: people who promoted the leave campaigns whilst they really wanted EEA or EFTA are just shyster conmen who were cynically taking the public for a ride. Bait-and-switch on an entire population.
To use the language above: only anti-democrats will want to ignore what the leave campaigns had as their core messages.
Comments
This is simply brilliant. Gives me goosebumps.
https://becausewearehere.co.uk/wearehere/
Suppose the Tory membership, 60%+leavers choose Leadsom and her plan to for a WTO model with a big economic impact but full control of immigration. Unlikely but possible.
We didn't have a choice of Norway versus WTO in the referendum so this enormous decision will have been taken by the Tory membership against the views of a big majority of Tory MPs (and the electorate). A democratic outrage. A Tory Corbyn situation - membership versus MPs.
How would this play out? I suggest one way would be in October for the House to resolve "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" i.e. the Leadsom government, which would be carried by a large majority. Under the FPA there would be 14 days for the House to then resolve "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government" which would be the Theresa May Government and her EFTA/EEA plan. It would be easily carried (Labour favours the May option and wouldn't want a general election in its present chaos). Job done. Membership choice of PM overturned. I doubt there would be deselections and in any case it would be too late.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
The leadership of the Tory party is an internal party matter, not a government matter. The leadership election process would have to be followed and in the case of MPs trying to depose a leader elected by the party members you could expect deselections and even more determination to get their choice election.
In anycase I am sure we will see over the next few days that there are considerably more than 140+ Tory Leavers when the careerists and loyalists fall into line.
It seems a rather foolish boast.
Yes it does. A classic bait-and-switch by politicians after this referendum will not be taken well by the voters.
Your assumptions on why people voted leave are based (if at all) on polling that has already been widely discredited by the referendum itself. You cannot know with any certainty why people voted the way they did: all we have is what the leave campaigns said.
I am not 'concern trolling'. In a similar spirit: people who promoted the leave campaigns whilst they really wanted EEA or EFTA are just shyster conmen who were cynically taking the public for a ride. Bait-and-switch on an entire population.
To use the language above: only anti-democrats will want to ignore what the leave campaigns had as their core messages.