I'm really beginning to hope that MPs block her from making the final two. Previously jt was just a vague, well it would be nice, but I'm really worried that she will stoke up a bunch if anti-immigration rhetoric and push May into unfavourable positions on immigration in order to win over the membership.
Unfavourable to the city EEA/EFTA libertarians with comfortable lives, to the north working class, not so much.
Unfavourable to the nation because a tanming economy and rising unemployment helps no one. We can solve the problem of mass immigration by fixing the benefits system. I'm a supply side reformer, clearly UKIP is becoming statist and believes that we can solve it by edict. Just remember that Australia had net migration of 250,000 last year that would be over half a million in the UK if we used their system. Be careful what you wish for.
I'm just not sure when adopting an approach that commands wide support (EEA, coupled with further action on pull factors) became undemocratic. Of course there is a section of the public that won't agree with it, but as long as the British economy comes out of its current weak section, provides them homes and jobs, then their anger won't spill into the streets.
Which is why once that solution js negotiated and ready to implement, we'll need a second vote. One which I think would be won 60/40. Once all the people who voted Leave on the basis of sovereignty are not an issue and want to maintain economic ties, the EEA side only needs to swing 3% of the public to win, it's not going to be difficult.
That's an odd thing to say. In the EEA with FoM the elected representatives of the British people are unable to control their borders, a defining property of a sovereign country.
Leadsom's level of support amongst Con MPs is pretty similar to Corbyn's amongst Lab MPs. 42 MPs is just under 13% of the parliamentary party.
OK, the above declarations only add up to 233 so there are another 97 undeclared. But most of those are likely May as well.
Looks like 25 May supporters should vote Gove in Round 1 - that should get Gove ahead of Leadsom. Then they can assess the situation when they get the result and top-up a few more in subsequent rounds if necessary.
But it's worth getting Gove ahead of Leadsom in Round 1 to make the whole thing less obvious.
It's a high risk strategy.
Better surely to just blow the other candidates out the water on the first ballot and win 2/3rds or more on the last ballot.
It's not high risk - she'll still win by absolutely miles anyway.
Without tacticals, the final round will be about:
May 210 Leadsom 70 Gove 50
Making it the following instead will not change perceptions to any discernable degree:
May 180 Gove 80 Leadsom 70
She simply cannot risk going up against Leadsom. Con members have chosen IDS before (and Lab members Corbyn). This is what party members are like I'm afraid.
It is high risk, previous ballots have seen much lower votes for particular candidates than the number of MPs publically backing them.
Without perfect information, it is high risk.
Sorry, but I don't agree. The margin for error is colossal - way, way, way higher than the number who would be voting tactically.
Going up against Leadsom is a massively higher risk.
The obvious solution here is to vote for May on the first ballot, assess her actual support, and work from there.
I'm really beginning to hope that MPs block her from making the final two. Previously jt was just a vague, well it would be nice, but I'm really worried that she will stoke up a bunch if anti-immigration rhetoric and push May into unfavourable positions on immigration in order to win over the membership.
Unfavourable to the city EEA/EFTA libertarians with comfortable lives, to the north working class, not so much.
Oh well, pandering to Little Englander attitudes is not wise.
Some people call it democracy, a bit old fashioned I know where there is Twitter to follow instead.
Yes and 16m people voted to stay in the EU while millions of the 17m are willing to compromise on free movement to stay in the single market and loads more aren't bothered by it.
Let's take it to a second vote. Single market vs fully out. What will you say then if fully out loses (which it would, and badly) should the 60% completely and utterly override the 40%? Or should there be a compromise and should we try and seek reforms to free movement anyway?
Since Project Bullshit has been widely discredited, and bearing in mind the BSA results on immigration I think that might be brave on your part.
Has it? I'm in the City and all of our private indicators have turned negative over the last week or so. Leaving the single market without a plan to open up new markets worth £10tn with unfettered access is economically suicidal, and the fact that this is currently on the table is delaying enough deal making and investment to slow down UK PLC. The short term sugar rush of weak Sterling isn't going to make up for it once base effects of inflation start to creep in.
@lindayueh: #Aviva suspended dealing on its £1.8bn UK property fund, <24 hours after #StandardLife due to high outflows #Brexit https://t.co/eCBDqlT2XI</p>
It is a bit scary. Brexiteers who say they aren't worried are either deluded or fanatical.
Someone downthread asked if LEAVERS would LEAVE at any price. Well, I voted LEAVE but think it's absurd to say there is no price which would be too onerous. If LEAVING means my older daughter's life prospects are harmed, then I will deeply regret my vote.
It's far too early to tell, but initial signs are a tad unnerving.
I also disagree with those downthread who say Brexit is Brexit. We're definitely out. No we're not.
Consider. We haven't triggered A50 and we are unlikely to do so until after the German election next year (doing it before then makes no sense, unless the markets force us).
By that point we *could* be in deep recession, with surging inflation and unemployment, a property price crash, investment collapsing, London seizing up, our deficit dragging us ever deeper into an ever darker abyss.
Nice.
The polls would by then be showing REMAIN at about 65/35 (not least cause immigration would have largely ceased), and my guess is any prime minister at that point would call a revote, and we'd end up staying.
You seem a little shell shocked. Post Brexitic Stress Disordered.
Man up Sean for gods sake
I'm entirely manned up, and not really THAT wobbly.
I'm just pointing out possible political futures. Which is what this site is about. And one of the futurities - just one, but nonetheless entirely possible - is that the entire economy has a heart attack, and we all get the shakes and decide we'd quite like to STAY after all.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/ If it becomes obvious that a mistake has been made would it be reasonable to say to the electorate, "Sorry you, well 52% of you, have made you bed we will all have to lay in it."
It is impossible to know a mistake has been made. Any pains now are transitionary pains due to changing from one system to another.
To abort halfway would be the height of irresponsibility. It would be like saying that labour pains during childbirth are a reason that having a child is a bad idea so lets have an abortion instead.
Step forward the woman who would have a child if the birth took five years?
Leadsom's level of support amongst Con MPs is pretty similar to Corbyn's amongst Lab MPs. 42 MPs is just under 13% of the parliamentary party.
OK, the above declarations only add up to 233 so there are another 97 undeclared. But most of those are likely May as well.
Looks like 25 May supporters should vote Gove in Round 1 - that should get Gove ahead of Leadsom. Then they can assess the situation when they get the result and top-up a few more in subsequent rounds if necessary.
But it's worth getting Gove ahead of Leadsom in Round 1 to make the whole thing less obvious.
It's a high risk strategy.
Better surely to just blow the other candidates out the water on the first ballot and win 2/3rds or more on the last ballot.
It's a tricky one there are pros and cons to each strategy. I think probably the better one is to be so dominant in the MPs that you either force everyone to capitulate or at least give the members severe pause for thought in terms of thinking about not confirming you etc
I think the correct strategy is for May to go with overwhelming victory and get over 2/3rds of MPs (That means it doesn't go to members right ? )
We've seen what getting 'cute' can do with voting (See Corbyn)
I'm pretty certain there's a vote anyway.
Goes to the members no matter what.
Pop Quiz: May gets 200+ MPs in the final round, the other two barely half her score between them. Whoever comes second is offered to pick the job they want if they concede - in order to get a functioning Government as soon as possible. Or they can go to the members, get thrashed and be offered no Cabinet position. What are you going to do, Andrea?
Or they go public on the blackmail and use it to discredit May, dicey.
She simply cannot risk going up against Leadsom. Con members have chosen IDS before (and Lab members Corbyn). This is what party members are like I'm afraid.
Perish the thought that all those people that pay their party subscriptions, and pound the streets for hours for nothing on behalf of the party should get a fair vote for their choice of leader, what ever next!
Yep - let them make their party unelectable - just as Corbyn has done with Labour.
Two party heavyweights are recorded by Sky giving unguarded views on Tory leadership candidates, calling one "bloody difficult". - http://news.sky.com/
Rather tame, I thought shits, bloody shits and back stabbing bastards was more the thing.
I don't have a problem with any potential leader being bloody difficult. They need to be from time to time.
May does fine from the clip. Gove is destroyed. Boris and Leadsom said to be closet europhiles. I was surprised about Leadsom.
I can't believe that so many of the vociferous PB remainers are still in denial! We are leaving the EU, get over it.
No way The 48 will rollover while a uneasy coalition of non-voters, bitter xenophobic failures and rightwing frothers sets about wilfully destroying the country and the economy. Sorry to break it to you.
Bob, it's over mate, you need to move on. We're out of the EU. Real life isn't like life on PB.(or that there London, for that matter). For every tweet that you and Scott share showing that some poor mug put on the spot by a TV crew has had a Brepiphany, I'll show you whole swathes of normal punters who couldn't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else posts on here. It's happening, and we need all the major political parties to stop thrashing off and get on with making it work.
Easier said than done, of course. In the real world the likelihood is that demand will decrease, investments will be frozen and government income will fall. That means public spending cuts and it means tax increases. That's what making it work will look like. And my guess is that at that stage normal punters are going to care a hell of a lot.
I agree entirely, but both sides of the debate are swimming in circles. The Guardian article today really seems to point to the failure of our p.
He called us - his own voters - Little Englanders.
He did this very late in the campaign. We noticed. And won't forgive him either.
He got that right – the Little Englanders bit.
There you go again, Bob. That attitude, right there, is why the country may well be on it's arse very soon.
Why? Isolationism and xenophobia are attitudes to be exposed, not defended.
So you genuinely believe there are 17 million xenophobic racists in the country after June 23rd?
The BNP got just short of a million votes in the 2009 Euro elections, I'd consider that a baseline but likely to be higher, if nowhere near seventeen million.
And what is the point of that comparison?
Just showing that the number of 'xenophobic racists' wasn't anywhere near the amount of people who voted leave.
Two party heavyweights are recorded by Sky giving unguarded views on Tory leadership candidates, calling one "bloody difficult". - http://news.sky.com/
Rather tame, I thought shits, bloody shits and back stabbing bastards was more the thing.
I don't have a problem with any potential leader being bloody difficult. They need to be from time to time.
Those all look like perfectly sensible comments regarding the various candidates to me.
Sir Malcolm, who was also appearing as a guest, started the conversation with Mr Clarke when he leaned in to say: "I don't mind who wins as long as Gove comes third. As long as Gove doesn't come in the final two I don't mind what happens."
Mr Clarke on Michael Gove:
"I don't think the membership will vote for Gove. I remember being in a discussion about something to do with somewhere like Syria or Iraq and he was so wild that I remember exchanging looks with Liam Fox.
Well that was obviously set up by Sky. It's a shame that Clarke and Rifkind feel the need to do the whole caught on camera thing - nobody would care if they just said it in an interview.
I'm really beginning to hope that MPs block her from making the final two. Previously jt was just a vague, well it would be nice, but I'm really worried that she will stoke up a bunch if anti-immigration rhetoric and push May into unfavourable positions on immigration in order to win over the membership.
Unfavourable to the city EEA/EFTA libertarians with comfortable lives, to the north working class, not so much.
Oh well, pandering to Little Englander attitudes is not wise.
Some people call it democracy, a bit old fashioned I know where there is Twitter to follow instead.
Yes and 16m people voted to stay in the EU while millions of the 17m are willing to compromise on free movement to stay in the single market and loads more aren't bothered by it.
Let's take it to a second vote. Single market vs fully out. What will you say then if fully out loses (which it would, and badly) should the 60% completely and utterly override the 40%? Or should there be a compromise and should we try and seek reforms to free movement anyway?
Since Project Bullshit has been widely discredited, and bearing in mind the BSA results on immigration I think that might be brave on your part.
Has it? I'm in the City and all of our private indicators have turned negative over the last week or so. Leaving the single market without a plan to open up new markets worth £10tn with unfettered access is economically suicidal, and the fact that this is currently on the table is delaying enough deal making and investment to slow down UK PLC. The short term sugar rush of weak Sterling isn't going to make up for it once base effects of inflation start to creep in.
Someone needs to get around to bringing a charge of "Malfeasance in Public Office" against Cameron and Osborne for having no plan for a highly probably and critically important outcome.
1) A public officer acting as such. 2) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself. 3) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. 4) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
I can't believe that so many of the vociferous PB remainers are still in denial! We are leaving the EU, get over it.
No way The 48 will rollover while a uneasy coalition of non-voters, bitter xenophobic failures and rightwing frothers sets about wilfully destroying the country and the economy. Sorry to break it to you.
Bob, it's over mate, you need to move on. We're out of the EU. Real life isn't like life on PB.(or that there London, for that matter). For every tweet that you and Scott share showing that some poor mug put on the spot by a TV crew has had a Brepiphany, I'll show you whole swathes of normal punters who couldn't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else posts on here. It's happening, and we need all the major political parties to stop thrashing off and get on with making it work.
Easier said than done, of course. In the real world the likelihood is that demand will decrease, investments will be frozen and government income will fall. That means public spending cuts and it means tax increases. That's what making it work will look like. And my guess is that at that stage normal punters are going to care a hell of a lot.
I agree entirely, but both sides of the debate are swimming in circles. The Guardian article today really seems to point to the failure of our p.
He called us - his own voters - Little Englanders.
He did this very late in the campaign. We noticed. And won't forgive him either.
He got that right – the Little Englanders bit.
There you go again, Bob. That attitude, right there, is why the country may well be on it's arse very soon.
Why? Isolationism and xenophobia are attitudes to be exposed, not defended.
So you genuinely believe there are 17 million xenophobic racists in the country after June 23rd?
The BNP got just short of a million votes in the 2009 Euro elections, I'd consider that a baseline but likely to be higher, if nowhere near seventeen million.
And what is the point of that comparison?
Just showing that the number of 'xenophobic racists' wasn't anywhere near the amount of people who voted leave.
But aren't all Leavers xenophobic, racist little Englanders? That seems to be the general consensus on here.
Two party heavyweights are recorded by Sky giving unguarded views on Tory leadership candidates, calling one "bloody difficult". - http://news.sky.com/
Rather tame, I thought shits, bloody shits and back stabbing bastards was more the thing.
I don't have a problem with any potential leader being bloody difficult. They need to be from time to time.
Those all look like perfectly sensible comments regarding the various candidates to me.
Not damaging to May at all; "she's a difficult woman but we worked for Thatcher, Theresa's good"
Very damaging to Gove - we'd be at war with three country's at once, even Liam Fox thinks he's a right wing nutter...
@SkyNews: Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind filmed in Sky News Westminster studio making remarks about Tory leadership candidates https://t.co/SywJXdMvH6
I think that is pretty shameful from Sky News. Everyone is entitled to off-the-record conversations with old friends - even in a TV studio. Recording it and releasing it - not on as far as I am concerned.
Leadsom's level of support amongst Con MPs is pretty similar to Corbyn's amongst Lab MPs. 42 MPs is just under 13% of the parliamentary party.
OK, the above declarations only add up to 233 so there are another 97 undeclared. But most of those are likely May as well.
Looks like 25 May supporters should vote Gove in Round 1 - that should get Gove ahead of Leadsom. Then they can assess the situation when they get the result and top-up a few more in subsequent rounds if necessary.
But it's worth getting Gove ahead of Leadsom in Round 1 to make the whole thing less obvious.
It's a high risk strategy.
Better surely to just blow the other candidates out the water on the first ballot and win 2/3rds or more on the last ballot.
It's a tricky one there are pros and cons to each strategy. I think probably the better one is to be so dominant in the MPs that you either force everyone to capitulate or at least give the members severe pause for thought in terms of thinking about not confirming you etc
I agree - if May wins by a mile with MPs, the membership will pay heed. We don't even need to look at history to see what happend if the Parliamentary Party don't support the Leader it's happening right before our eyes. May should be aiming for more than 50% on the final ballot.
Think she'll be at or above that on the first. She needs 165 and has c130 pledges.
Pledges do not mean votes. IIRC Mike pointed out Davis' support in 2005 was half his number of pledges.
There were good reasons for that. Cannot see any good reason for May's total to be less than her pledges and a lot of reasons to think it will be higher.
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
Two party heavyweights are recorded by Sky giving unguarded views on Tory leadership candidates, calling one "bloody difficult". - http://news.sky.com/
Rather tame, I thought shits, bloody shits and back stabbing bastards was more the thing.
I don't have a problem with any potential leader being bloody difficult. They need to be from time to time.
And choosing between people is difficult, and is supposed to be difficult, since the perfect person doesn't exist. Ask anyone who has done interviews for a job.
She simply cannot risk going up against Leadsom. Con members have chosen IDS before (and Lab members Corbyn). This is what party members are like I'm afraid.
Perish the thought that all those people that pay their party subscriptions, and pound the streets for hours for nothing on behalf of the party should get a fair vote for their choice of leader, what ever next!
Yep - let them make their party unelectable - just as Corbyn has done with Labour.
Those challenger banks all have large Buy to Let businesses. And that is being impacted by the new affordability tests, the forthcoming tax changes and then Basil 3...
I think they would be in the same position Brexit or no Brexit. It's just coming to a head slightly earlier...
Leadsom's level of support amongst Con MPs is pretty similar to Corbyn's amongst Lab MPs. 42 MPs is just under 13% of the parliamentary party.
OK, the above declarations only add up to 233 so there are another 97 undeclared. But most of those are likely May as well.
Looks like 25 May supporters should vote Gove in Round 1 - that should get Gove ahead of Leadsom. Then they can assess the situation when they get the result and top-up a few more in subsequent rounds if necessary.
But it's worth getting Gove ahead of Leadsom in Round 1 to make the whole thing less obvious.
It's a high risk strategy.
Better surely to just blow the other candidates out the water on the first ballot and win 2/3rds or more on the last ballot.
It's a tricky one there are pros and cons to each strategy. I think probably the better one is to be so dominant in the MPs that you either force everyone to capitulate or at least give the members severe pause for thought in terms of thinking about not confirming you etc
I think the correct strategy is for May to go with overwhelming victory and get over 2/3rds of MPs (That means it doesn't go to members right ? )
We've seen what getting 'cute' can do with voting (See Corbyn)
I'm pretty certain there's a vote anyway.
Goes to the members no matter what.
Pop Quiz: May gets 200+ MPs in the final round, the other two barely half her score between them. Whoever comes second is offered to pick the job they want if they concede - in order to get a functioning Government as soon as possible. Or they can go to the members, get thrashed and be offered no Cabinet position. What are you going to do, Andrea?
Or they go public on the blackmail and use it to discredit May, dicey.
Double-edged though. "Blackmail" - or "decided to fight on, despite it not being in the best interests of the country..." Any intervening economic woes due to the ongoing uncertainty can be laid at their door....
@SkyNews: Ken Clarke and Malcolm Rifkind filmed in Sky News Westminster studio making remarks about Tory leadership candidates https://t.co/SywJXdMvH6
I think that is pretty shameful from Sky News. Everyone is entitled to off-the-record conversations with old friends - even in a TV studio. Recording it and releasing it - not on as far as I am concerned.
Unless they knew what they were doing.
All they said were things they quite reasonably thought, even if it may not have suited them to have spoken their minds/
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
Crabb was mentioned - Clarke says he'll vote for him in the first round to give him encouragement.
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
There was a bit about Crabb at the start; Clarke said he'd probably vote for him in the first round before supporting Theresa, which is coincidentally what I said I would do if I were a Tory MP. Am I Ken Clarke?
For those of you looking for some more reasoned analysis of the economic fallout of Brexit - and indeed the motivations behind Brexit - I highly recommend this piece.
For those of you looking for some more reasoned analysis of the economic fallout of Brexit - and indeed the motivations behind Brexit - I highly recommend this piece.
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
There was a bit about Crabb at the start; Clarke said he'd probably vote for him in the first round before supporting Theresa, which is coincidentally what I said I would do if I were a Tory MP. Am I Ken Clarke?
Had you down as a touch more eurosceptic than Clarke
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
There was a bit about Crabb at the start; Clarke said he'd probably vote for him in the first round before supporting Theresa, which is coincidentally what I said I would do if I were a Tory MP. Am I Ken Clarke?
Leadsom's level of support amongst Con MPs is pretty similar to Corbyn's amongst Lab MPs. 42 MPs is just under 13% of the parliamentary party.
OK, the above declarations only add up to 233 so there are another 97 undeclared. But most of those are likely May as well.
Looks like 25 May supporters should vote Gove in Round 1 - that should get Gove ahead of Leadsom. Then they can assess the situation when they get the result and top-up a few more in subsequent rounds if necessary.
But it's worth getting Gove ahead of Leadsom in Round 1 to make the whole thing less obvious.
It's a high risk strategy.
Better surely to just blow the other candidates out the water on the first ballot and win 2/3rds or more on the last ballot.
It's not high risk - she'll still win by absolutely miles anyway.
Without tacticals, the final round will be about:
May 210 Leadsom 70 Gove 50
Making it the following instead will not change perceptions to any discernable degree:
May 180 Gove 80 Leadsom 70
She simply cannot risk going up against Leadsom. Con members have chosen IDS before (and Lab members Corbyn). This is what party members are like I'm afraid.
It is high risk, previous ballots have seen much lower votes for particular candidates than the number of MPs publically backing them.
Without perfect information, it is high risk.
Sorry, but I don't agree. The margin for error is colossal - way, way, way higher than the number who would be voting tactically.
Going up against Leadsom is a massively higher risk.
When I was at the FCO, the UK was up for reelection to the Human Rights Committee. We needed about 57 votes, IIRC. We had about 75 pledges, and got 30-ish actual votes. It was stunning.
Entertaining though it is, I do think it's a bit off for broadcasters to broadcast private conversations.
Surely Clarke and Rifkind have been around long enough to realise that they are in a TV studio, and there are microphones, cameras and journalists all around them?
For those of you looking for some more reasoned analysis of the economic fallout of Brexit - and indeed the motivations behind Brexit - I highly recommend this piece.
Someone needs to get around to bringing a charge of "Malfeasance in Public Office" against Cameron and Osborne for having no plan for a highly probably and critically important outcome.
1) A public officer acting as such. 2) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself. 3) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. 4) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
That's all by the by, there is conclusive evidence that even the thought of the UK leaving the single market is causing a slow down. I'm not saying that the remain campaign was completely honest, obviously it wasn't, it was exaggerated almost to the point of ridicule. However, and I said this before the vote, it was always going to be tough to sell people on fully out because the economic damage would be like wildfire. @rcs1000 has written about this before but our economy is reliant on the generosity of strangers at the moment, if we're not in economically benign conditions they may become much less generous. Without a plan to either stay in the single market or open up equivalent value markets the UK economy may go into free fall. Something we can all agree is not an optimal outcome. The people voted to leave the EU. The government should deliver that and do so in a way that is least damaging. If UKIP prosper from the 25-27% of Leave die hards uniting behind them then that's something we'll have to deal with at some other point.
Leadsom's level of support amongst Con MPs is pretty similar to Corbyn's amongst Lab MPs. 42 MPs is just under 13% of the parliamentary party.
OK, the above declarations only add up to 233 so there are another 97 undeclared. But most of those are likely May as well.
Looks like 25 May supporters should vote Gove in Round 1 - that should get Gove ahead of Leadsom. Then they can assess the situation when they get the result and top-up a few more in subsequent rounds if necessary.
But it's worth getting Gove ahead of Leadsom in Round 1 to make the whole thing less obvious.
It's a high risk strategy.
Better surely to just blow the other candidates out the water on the first ballot and win 2/3rds or more on the last ballot.
It's not high risk - she'll still win by absolutely miles anyway.
Without tacticals, the final round will be about:
May 210 Leadsom 70 Gove 50
Making it the following instead will not change perceptions to any discernable degree:
May 180 Gove 80 Leadsom 70
She simply cannot risk going up against Leadsom. Con members have chosen IDS before (and Lab members Corbyn). This is what party members are like I'm afraid.
It is high risk, previous ballots have seen much lower votes for particular candidates than the number of MPs publically backing them.
Without perfect information, it is high risk.
Sorry, but I don't agree. The margin for error is colossal - way, way, way higher than the number who would be voting tactically.
Going up against Leadsom is a massively higher risk.
When I was at the FCO, the UK was up for reelection to the Human Rights Committee. We needed about 57 votes, IIRC. We had about 75 pledges, and got 30-ish actual votes. It was stunning.
For those of you looking for some more reasoned analysis of the economic fallout of Brexit - and indeed the motivations behind Brexit - I highly recommend this piece.
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
There was a bit about Crabb at the start; Clarke said he'd probably vote for him in the first round before supporting Theresa, which is coincidentally what I said I would do if I were a Tory MP. Am I Ken Clarke?
Had you down as a touch more eurosceptic than Clarke
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
There was a bit about Crabb at the start; Clarke said he'd probably vote for him in the first round before supporting Theresa, which is coincidentally what I said I would do if I were a Tory MP. Am I Ken Clarke?
Had you down as a touch more eurosceptic than Clarke
@lindayueh: #Aviva suspended dealing on its £1.8bn UK property fund, <24 hours after #StandardLife due to high outflows #Brexit https://t.co/eCBDqlT2XI</p>
It is a bit scary. Brexiteers who say they aren't worried are either deluded or fanatical.
Someone downthread asked if LEAVERS would LEAVE at any price. Well, I voted LEAVE but think it's absurd to say there is no price which would be too onerous. If LEAVING means my older daughter's life prospects are harmed, then I will deeply regret my vote.
It's far too early to tell, but initial signs are a tad unnerving.
I also disagree with those downthread who say Brexit is Brexit. We're definitely out. No we're not.
Consider. We haven't triggered A50 and we are unlikely to do so until after the German election next year (doing it before then makes no sense, unless the markets force us).
By that point we *could* be in deep recession, with surging inflation and unemployment, a property price crash, investment collapsing, London seizing up, our deficit dragging us ever deeper into an ever darker abyss.
Nice.
The polls would by then be showing REMAIN at about 65/35 (not least cause immigration would have largely ceased), and my guess is any prime minister at that point would call a revote, and we'd end up staying.
You seem a little shell shocked. Post Brexitic Stress Disordered.
Man up Sean for gods sake
I'm entirely manned up, and not really THAT wobbly.
I'm just pointing out possible political futures. Which is what this site is about. And one of the futurities - just one, but nonetheless entirely possible - is that the entire economy has a heart attack, and we all get the shakes and decide we'd quite like to STAY after all.
I get that, but what does "Stay" look like now? The status quo doesn't seem possible- or palatable to many. Does it mean further integration? Joining the Euro? An EU army? Surely if we decide we're better off in, the EU will want us to fully sign up, not the half arsed status we had before. Could that be sold on the Leaver region's doorstep?
If the UK left then tried to rejoin then some member states may say, "Join properly or don't bother", but if it's just aborting Brexit partway through then they won't mind muddling on with opt-outs and a bit of political grandstanding every now and again.
Nobody's going to try to force Britain to join an EU army, although the British government will probably want to join such a thing if they think they can get it past the voters.
That lot all looks very good for May to me - note they don't even bother mentioning Fox (Other than to reference how mad they think Gove will be) and Crabb not mentioned once.
Crabb was mentioned at the start of the tape but they only really said that few MPs really knew much about him or about his views – implied he was a bit of a nobody
For those of you looking for some more reasoned analysis of the economic fallout of Brexit - and indeed the motivations behind Brexit - I highly recommend this piece.
Comments
https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/750313288232214528
Sir Malcolm, who was also appearing as a guest, started the conversation with Mr Clarke when he leaned in to say: "I don't mind who wins as long as Gove comes third. As long as Gove doesn't come in the final two I don't mind what happens."
Mr Clarke on Michael Gove:
"I don't think the membership will vote for Gove. I remember being in a discussion about something to do with somewhere like Syria or Iraq and he was so wild that I remember exchanging looks with Liam Fox.
Candidly honest, and all true no doubt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-14/tory-seeking-to-keep-u-k-in-eu-says-out-vote-might-help
1) A public officer acting as such.
2) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
4) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
Very damaging to Gove - we'd be at war with three country's at once, even Liam Fox thinks he's a right wing nutter...
I think they would be in the same position Brexit or no Brexit. It's just coming to a head slightly earlier...
All they said were things they quite reasonably thought, even if it may not have suited them to have spoken their minds/
http://thesovereigninvestor.com/exclusives/u-s-betrayed-real-reason-britain-left-european-union/?z=523876
Warning - do not drink coffee while reading. You may ruin your computer. I particularly liked the idea that gold will reach $10,000 an ounce
http://news.sky.com/story/1721982/watch-ken-clarke-ridicules-tory-candidates
And I expect you think he didn't know he was being recorded too? Yeah, right....
new thread
BTW: whatever happened to the sovereign debt crisis that was due to kick off in September 2015? The Elliott Waves were so clear...
I have just been thinking about this.
I think you are probably right Richard.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
I call bs.
Nobody's going to try to force Britain to join an EU army, although the British government will probably want to join such a thing if they think they can get it past the voters.
Andrea Leadsom - 66
Michael Gove - 48
Stephen Crabb - 34
Liam Fox - 16