Osborne as Foreign Secretary? If Remain had won, perhaps.
How about David Cameron
His ability to negotiate with foreign counterparts would likely be questioned, but honestly he'd probably be good in a senior position somewhere under May, but I doubt he wants that even if she did, which who knows.
He has said he is staying in the HOC and is widely respected and will want to serve his Country.
Will there be a TV debate between Leadsom and May?
There should be a couple, I think the dates for that and the hustings should be announced in the next fortnight
How awful will that be, two women who loathe each other pretending to be friends
I do not think they loathe each other - they are competing for the biggest job in the UK but hopefully they will act like adults - Theresa May will for certain
"hopefully they will act like adults"
Judging by the way their supporters act that's highly unlikely. A few tribal deadheads are scouring twitter, the rest of the country is shaking its head in disbelief.
I've read the article (thank you btw), and it's typical Hannan: disingenuous and blames other people. Much of the article he spends casting LEAVErs as open internationalists seeking free trade and not even slightly mentioning immigration, which is...a rather partial interpretation, to put it mildly. I'm sure some LEAVEers did exactly that (Tyndall for one, and there were others), but many did not and I don't call Michael Gove "Screams At Migrants" for nothing.
There is also the question of "work with who exactly?". The government is not functioning, Leadsome is not a competent PM, Labour is autocoloning, UKIP is dissolving, nobody is driving. So who is this "we" that Hannan wishes REMAIN to work with?
So I'm torn. I want the EEA/EFTA combination that Hannan is too disingenuous to explicitly name, but I don't trust him and I don't think he can deliver.
It's going to be immensely difficult. Try selling EEA / EFTA in Sunderland or West Bromwich.
Sunderland? Thinks. Ah, gottit. Pause. We deep-fry it, yes?
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
I suspect that will be futile. My reading of the rules is that the leader would be automatically on. The most reasonable way to interpret 'no vacancy' is that the current leader is being challenged and a challenge must involve a fair and equal fight. However, if a challenger waited until the last moment before submitting a nomination paper, that would give the incumbent no time to organise their own nomination - because until that nomination paper was in, there'd be no notice that an election was even taking place - and hence the leadership could simply be taken on the basis of a minority of MPs playing the timetable.
There may be very good reasons to get rid of Corbyn but going to the courts to try and keep him off the ballot strikes me as beyond crazy. The system they have is that members choose the leader. So surely it should be up to them to get rid of him. And surely keeping him off the ballot would only lead to enraging the members and an even more radical leader. McDonnell?
If the leader is automatically on the ballot, why did Kinnock have to secure nominations when Benn challenged him in the late 80s (with, of course, Corbyn runnng the Benn campaign)?
That is the last time a sitting leader was openly challenged and surely would be seen as a precedent for this situation
The difference with Kinnock is the nature of the election has changed to OMOV and legal advice confirms this.Corbyn will be on the ballot.
Legal advice means nothing unless it is tested and proven to right on this particular occasion. Different lawyers will give different advice on different days.
This will end up before a judge or three
If you're right, what does that do to the timetable? Is the Labour leadership election going to be held up pending litigation for the next five years?
Indeed, we vote to Leave without freedom of movement, so that's what we've got to honour.
We voted to LEAVE. Any qualification or riders did not exist on the ballot paper.
Quite so. No FOM may be what most of those who voted Leave would prefer, though not all, and all the referendum was was an instruction to Leave, no details. Fans of total, partial or no FOM are free to try to control the government to get what they want, but there's no obligation to honour no FOM like there is the obligation (albeit not legal obligation) to leave.
Osborne as Foreign Secretary? If Remain had won, perhaps.
How about David Cameron
His ability to negotiate with foreign counterparts would likely be questioned, but honestly he'd probably be good in a senior position somewhere under May, but I doubt he wants that even if she did, which who knows.
He has said he is staying in the HOC and is widely respected and will want to serve his Country.
We will see
Yes, but he wouldn't want to so quickly be back in the Cabinet serving a new PM, I suspect.
I presume he intends to stand down in 2020, but the test of if he really does want to serve as an MP, will be if there is an early GE and he stands.
This is of course a meaningless thing to say. What is marginally interesting is that the country is still split down the middle.
No it isn't,for the past week or so,we have had TV news media,newspapers and PB posters banging on about more voters now regretting voting leave,the poll puts some balance to it.
This is bollocks. Yes, the EEA does mean we cede sovereignty on trade, but we get BACK all the sovereignty on all the OTHER laws passed by the EU - all those competences where the EU is slowly devouring our freedom.
60-70% of EU laws now have nothing to do with trade, when we enter the EEA we will regain control of ALL THAT. And we quit the CAP and the CFP; and there's no chance of us being further enmeshed in political union. And the ECJ can fuck off unless its ruling on widgets. And the entire corrupt charade in Brussels has nothing to do with us. And Westminster is reinstated as OUR parliament making OUR laws.
Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than being actually in the EU? God yes.
The point of shared sovereignty is that you give up discretion over aspects of your policy in exchange for influencing the shared policy for the common good and for your own good. This principle applies to the EU, the UN, the ECHR and NATO. This principle categorically does not apply to the EEA. We submit to rules set by others, but have no influence over them This is a fundamental point. With the EEA, unlike the EU, we don't have shared sovereignty - we have no sovereignty at all. We simply sit back and get what to do and when to do it. Like Norway our government won't have a policy on anything to do with the EEA, which still has a very broad remit. Like Norway we won't discuss any of it in parliament, beyond the mechanics of implementation, because there is no point. To do so would just raise questions that we have can never have answers to.
It's about fifteen percent of our economy - that trades with the EU. And our companies can still lobby.
The rest of our political life will be liberated from this diseased nonsense which is responsible - lest we forget - for the horror that is the euro.
GET OVER IT. YOU LOST.
The EEA covers the whole of our economy. It also covers migration, environmental policy and social security. I am well aware the sensible option was rejected so we have to choose from options that won't work well. But there is no point pretending that they are good options simply because we ruled out the better one. EEA really, really won't work for the UK. We're not Norway. We should face up to that now.
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
I suspect that will be futile. My reading of the rules is that the leader would be automatically on. The most reasonable way to interpret 'no vacancy' is that the current leader is being challenged and a challenge must involve a fair and equal fight. However, if a challenger waited until the last moment before submitting a nomination paper, that would give the incumbent no time to organise their own nomination - because until that nomination paper was in, there'd be no notice that an election was even taking place - and hence the leadership could simply be taken on the basis of a minority of MPs playing the timetable.
There may be very good reasons to get rid of Corbyn but going to the courts to try and keep him off the ballot strikes me as beyond crazy. The system they have is that members choose the leader. So surely it should be up to them to get rid of him. And surely keeping him off the ballot would only lead to enraging the members and an even more radical leader. McDonnell?
If the leader is automatically on the ballot, why did Kinnock have to secure nominations when Benn challenged him in the late 80s (with, of course, Corbyn runnng the Benn campaign)?
That is the last time a sitting leader was openly challenged and surely would be seen as a precedent for this situation
The difference with Kinnock is the nature of the election has changed to OMOV and legal advice confirms this.Corbyn will be on the ballot.
Legal advice means nothing unless it is tested and proven to right on this particular occasion. Different lawyers will give different advice on different days.
This will end up before a judge or three
If you're right, what does that do to the timetable? Is the Labour leadership election going to be held up pending litigation for the next five years?
Litigation can be wrapped up fairly quickly if necessary. But I could see it adding at least a couple of months to the process.
I see that the LEEAvers are wobbling like blancmanges. You do have to wonder what they thought a post-Brexit Britain would look like. It isn't as if they weren't warned.
They thought that they could game the result. I might buy property in Dubin, ha ha, it doesn't matter to me, explains how a decline in sterling will make my US properties cheaper. honesty and dishonesty matters.
WHO CARES. YOU LOST. WE'RE OUT.
*turns off capitals*
*turns them on again*
TOSSER
I recommend the Heineken with a chaser of B&Q white spirit.
This is of course a meaningless thing to say. What is marginally interesting is that the country is still split down the middle.
No it isn't,for the past week or so,we have had TV news media,newspapers and PB posters banging on about more voters now regretting voting leave,the poll puts some balance to it.
It's a pretty meaningless question right now. Ask people in 6-12 months and it would be interesting (although not to the extent of stopping anything - I fully expect article 50 to be declare in that period at the latest), once there's a better picture how much initial shock there will be after this initial chaos. There will still be chaos, but it should be manageable if things go well.
This is of course a meaningless thing to say. What is marginally interesting is that the country is still split down the middle.
No it isn't,for the past week or so,we have had TV news media,newspapers and PB posters banging on about more voters now regretting voting leave,the poll puts some balance to it.
It's a pretty meaningless question right now. Ask people in 6-12 months and it would be interesting (although not to the extent of stopping anything - I fully expect article 50 to be declare in that period at the latest), once there's a better picture how much initial shock there will be after this initial chaos. There will still be chaos, but it should be manageable if things go well.
A Ipsos Mori poll out showing more Remainers (4%) "regret" their vote than Leavers (3%) do.
Yes you've posted that three times, oddly I don't think you've posted some of the contradictory polling on that subject.
Can't imagine why.
Yes, please stop. I'm sure people are regretting, renouncing their regrets, re-regretting, resiling from their re-regretting ad bloody infinitum. It's called being human.
Referendum campaign is over.
If we don't stop raking over the eternal topic of 'have we changed our minds yet', it'll be like the Pacific War all over again. Like the old Japanese soldier tottering out of the jungle years after VJ day with their uniform in rags..."Things would be better in the EU! Banzai! For the Commissioners!" etc.
Indeed, we vote to Leave without freedom of movement, so that's what we've got to honour.
Maybe we should have the referendum ballot paper set as the background on the site. People seem to forget what it said.
For me, it's ultimately pointless debating what's going to happen. It's completely out of my hands - most of my time on here is just displacement activity.
If I don't like what the politicians come up with, then I'll endeavour to kick them in the nuts in 2020.
Will there be a TV debate between Leadsom and May?
There should be a couple, I think the dates for that and the hustings should be announced in the next fortnight
How awful will that be, two women who loathe each other pretending to be friends
I do not think they loathe each other - they are competing for the biggest job in the UK but hopefully they will act like adults - Theresa May will for certain
"hopefully they will act like adults"
Judging by the way their supporters act that's highly unlikely. A few tribal deadheads are scouring twitter, the rest of the country is shaking its head in disbelief.
What a shower of shite this govt is.
You refer to reporters but not to May and Leadsom. I believe they will act with respect for each other but we will have to wait and see.
Government of this Country is in an unbelievable mess but I have no doubt the conservative party will unite after the PM election and drive forward Brexit, but also re-start the day to day business that has been suspended since the referendum was called.
It's a big mistake to assume May will walk this. In fact it's a big mistake to make any assumptions about anything in British politics going smoothly for a long time.
This is of course a meaningless thing to say. What is marginally interesting is that the country is still split down the middle.
No it isn't,for the past week or so,we have had TV news media,newspapers and PB posters banging on about more voters now regretting voting leave,the poll puts some balance to it.
It's a pretty meaningless question right now. Ask people in 6-12 months and it would be interesting (although not to the extent of stopping anything - I fully expect article 50 to be declare in that period at the latest), once there's a better picture how much initial shock there will be after this initial chaos. There will still be chaos, but it should be manageable if things go well.
What initial chaos?
Political chaos - it's unclear at present what type of Brexit we will even be looking to achieve for one. That uncertainty will have an effect - but once it is settled, any other effects there may or may not be, positive and negative, will become more apparent.
This is bollocks. Yes, the EEA does mean we cede sovereignty on trade, but we get BACK all the sovereignty on all the OTHER laws passed by the EU - all those competences where the EU is slowly devouring our freedom.
60-70% of EU laws now have nothing to do with trade, when we enter the EEA we will regain control of ALL THAT. And we quit the CAP and the CFP; and there's no chance of us being further enmeshed in political union. And the ECJ can fuck off unless its ruling on widgets. And the entire corrupt charade in Brussels has nothing to do with us. And Westminster is reinstated as OUR parliament making OUR laws.
Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than being actually in the EU? God yes.
The point of shared sovereignty is that you give up discretion over aspects of your policy in exchange for influencing the shared policy for the common good and for your own good. This principle applies to the EU, the UN, the ECHR and NATO. This principle categorically does not apply to the EEA. We submit to rules set by others, but have no influence over them This is a fundamental point. With the EEA, unlike the EU, we don't have shared sovereignty - we have no sovereignty at all. We simply sit back and get what to do and when to do it. Like Norway our government won't have a policy on anything to do with the EEA, which still has a very broad remit. Like Norway we won't discuss any of it in parliament, beyond the mechanics of implementation, because there is no point. To do so would just raise questions that we have can never have answers to.
It's about fifteen percent of our economy - that trades with the EU. And our companies can still lobby.
The rest of our political life will be liberated from this diseased nonsense which is responsible - lest we forget - for the horror that is the euro.
We voted to LEAVE. Any qualification or riders did not exist on the ballot paper.
Quite so. No FOM may be what most of those who voted Leave would prefer, though not all, and all the referendum was was an instruction to Leave, no details. Fans of total, partial or no FOM are free to try to control the government to get what they want, but there's no obligation to honour no FOM like there is the obligation (albeit not legal obligation) to leave.
It's a big mistake to assume May will walk this. In fact it's a big mistake to make any assumptions about anything in British politics going smoothly for a long time.
THAT is true
We need to stiff Leadsom
What's wrong with a social conservative leading the Conservative Party for a change? The social liberals ought to set up their own party and see how many seats they can win.
Mervyn King was another who seemed curiously unmoved. Personally I'm sitting on the fence but I can't help but believe that the disaster narrative is being hyped by the media and politically motivated.
It's a big mistake to assume May will walk this. In fact it's a big mistake to make any assumptions about anything in British politics going smoothly for a long time.
THAT is true
We need to stiff Leadsom
What's wrong with a conservative leading the Conservative Party for a change? The social liberals ought to set up their own party and see how many seats they can win.
Because she isn't a conservative - she is a narrow minded bigot with no political experience
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
This is bollocks. Yes, the EEA does mean we cede sovereignty on trade, but we get BACK all the sovereignty on all the OTHER laws passed by the EU - all those competences where the EU is slowly devouring our freedom.
60-70% of EU laws now have nothing to do with trade, when we enter the EEA we will regain control of ALL THAT. And we quit the CAP and the CFP; and there's no chance of us being further enmeshed in political union. And the ECJ can fuck off unless its ruling on widgets. And the entire corrupt charade in Brussels has nothing to do with us. And Westminster is reinstated as OUR parliament making OUR laws.
Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than being actually in the EU? God yes.
The point of shared sovereignty is that you give up discretion over aspects of your policy in exchange for influencing the shared policy for the common good and for your own good. This principle applies to the EU, the UN, the ECHR and NATO. This principle categorically does not apply to the EEA. We submit to rules set by others, but have no influence over them This is a fundamental point. With the EEA, unlike the EU, we don't have shared sovereignty - we have no sovereignty at all. We simply sit back and get what to do and when to do it. Like Norway our government won't have a policy on anything to do with the EEA, which still has a very broad remit. Like Norway we won't discuss any of it in parliament, beyond the mechanics of implementation, because there is no point. To do so would just raise questions that we have can never have answers to.
It's about fifteen percent of our economy - that trades with the EU. And our companies can still lobby.
The rest of our political life will be liberated from this diseased nonsense which is responsible - lest we forget - for the horror that is the euro.
GET OVER IT. YOU LOST.
In 1999, one € = £ 0.71.
Today, € = £ 0.83
I am not sure which one is the horror !
So long as you aren't totally profligate as a nation, the € isn't really all that bad. It's only a bad thing if you're terrible at controlling spending and daren't raise enough tax.
I think we have negotiating leverage with the most important country in the rEuro.
26 other countries have a veto. What do they get?
What Germany lets them have.
This is the same theory that the same people brought out when they were saying Cameron was going to get all kinds of amazing things in his renegotiation. It's bollocks. Angela Merkel is influential, but she doesn't get everything she wants. The other member states are going to look out for their interests.
It really is high time the sulking, mewling crybabies of pb REMAINIACS got a grip. They could do worse than model themselves on me: someone of unflinching determination, gritty and dauntless, never for a moment doubting the righteousness of my cause
Because, guys, you LOST. You LOST the vote because the EU is SHIT. It was unsellable. Even the combined might of the entire Establishment couldn't persuade the British people to vote for the tepid cup of second hand puke, that is the EU.
So now, how about this. Let's pull together. Let's see a way forward. Brexit is incredibly risky, but there are also new freedoms and opportunities. It might, in the end, make us a happier, richer country, content to see itself as a senior, second division nation, military formidable and diplomatically influential, with a grand history and quite fabulous heritage, and soft power unmatched by almost anyone.
Seize the day.
Wow, the "remainiacs" are really getting to you aren't they Sean. Are you alright, hon? This is really spurring me to fight on :-)
The sulking, mewling cry-babies seem to be (with all due respect) the Brexiteers (like yourself) who thought they could somehow 'fix' the Europe question with a dodgy referendum. But, hey, people are still arguing. The quick fix isn't quick, and it ain't a fix.
Sean, you WON. Congratulations. Now man up.
Jean-Paul Sartre: "Once you hear the details of victory, it is hard to distinguish it from a defeat.". Mean anything?
Farage took 20 years to get us out of the EU, if it takes us 20 years to get back in, then that's a fight I'm happy to take on. I'm sorry it's not worked out the way you wanted it, we're a divided country, and the political reality has changed.
But I agree with you about pulling together. I'm busy pulling together with the millions who believe in a united Europe, and will continue to work towards that. See you at GE2017...
Put up an ALTERNATIVE vision of "united Europe" to the EU and I can be persuaded to fight by your side.
But if you want to fight for the EU then we'll have to be opponents (not that a mild middle-aged man such as I would frighten you! )
The EU is just ONE PATH to a united europe - and one to which I am implacably opposed.
It's a big mistake to assume May will walk this. In fact it's a big mistake to make any assumptions about anything in British politics going smoothly for a long time.
THAT is true
We need to stiff Leadsom
What's wrong with a conservative leading the Conservative Party for a change? The social liberals ought to set up their own party and see how many seats they can win.
Because she isn't a conservative - she is a narrow minded bigot with no political experience
I'm still waiting to see if Leadsom will impress over the next two months, but I thought the funniest take on the matter was the suggestion that she is a conservative, and the Tories have not been a conservative party since 'Winds of Change', a suggestion made on here in the past couple of days. I find it funny as far from an argument why Leadsom is a great choice, it would surely mean that she is in fact nothing but a careerist, since as a conservative she joined a party which has not been conservative for decades.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If se loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
Let's see how things pan out in a few days before looking at doomsday scenarios like this.
But if she does become Leader, it is too late for this sort of plan to work. And it is too late to save the Tory Party as we now know it.
Mervyn King was another who seemed curiously unmoved. Personally I'm sitting on the fence but I can't help but believe that the disaster narrative is being hyped by the media and politically motivated.
I've never seen any evidence that any of the Remain-leaving posters on here have actually read any of the forecasts or financial models.
There are two risks for me. Firstly, that Brexit precipitates a crisis elsewhere. There are all sorts of skeletons in the global economic cupboard. Secondly, that we screw up the implementation of Brexit and chill the non-EU UK economy.
Basically, we can be really screwed up by second-order effects. Christine Lagarde was interviewed on Thursday, and she mentioned that the IMF will be putting out post-Brexit forecasts based on both a quasi-EEA and WTO approach. That might give us a better range of possibilities.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
I've gone from completely disinterested to desperate for Leadsom to win. The last 6 months has confirmed what a ghastly mob this tory party are. Leadsom could finish them for good, love it.
It's a curious thing, how the attitude of REMAINOPERVS to their defeat can turn a pensive LEAVER into an utterly convinced LET'S-GET-THE-FUCK-OUTER
They are simultaneously juvenile and prissy, entitled and wanky, histrionic and sniffy. Seriously offputting. Ugh.
We have post-watershed (or post-lagershead) Sean in tonight. Will tomorrow see a return of daytime 'what have we done? Let's sort this out we need EEA agreed to yesterday' Sean?
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If se loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
Let's see how things pan out in a few days before looking at doomsday scenarios like this.
But if she does become Leader, it is too late for this sort of plan to work. And it is too late to save the Tory Party as we now know it.
There obviously needs to be a major re-alignment in British politics where we have political parties with names that actually reflect their major policies. Introducing proportional representation would also be a good idea if we want to continue having high turnouts as we did at the referendum.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While it may be technically possible for them to act so as far as I know, on what grounds would they do it? She got 84 MP votes, yes a lot fewer than May, but so what? The whole point is to narrow it down to the final two then let members decide, there's no threshold of lead in MP votes that means its unfair if the members take a different view - and she has a lot more genuine support than Corbyn ever did, so a lot more chance of core support in the parliamentary party which the others may well go along with.
It's a big mistake to assume May will walk this. In fact it's a big mistake to make any assumptions about anything in British politics going smoothly for a long time.
THAT is true
We need to stiff Leadsom
What's wrong with a conservative leading the Conservative Party for a change? The social liberals ought to set up their own party and see how many seats they can win.
Because she isn't a conservative - she is a narrow minded bigot with no political experience
What you seem to be saying is that being a social conservative and a bigot are the same thing. Probably 30-40% of the population are social conservatives so they need to be represented by political parties.
It's a big mistake to assume May will walk this. In fact it's a big mistake to make any assumptions about anything in British politics going smoothly for a long time.
THAT is true
We need to stiff Leadsom
What's wrong with a conservative leading the Conservative Party for a change? The social liberals ought to set up their own party and see how many seats they can win.
Because she isn't a conservative - she is a narrow minded bigot with no political experience
What you seem to be saying is that being a social conservative and a bigot are the same thing.
It's a curious thing, how the attitude of REMAINOPERVS to their defeat can turn a pensive LEAVER into an utterly convinced LET'S-GET-THE-FUCK-OUTER
They are simultaneously juvenile and prissy, entitled and wanky, histrionic and sniffy. Seriously offputting. Ugh.
We have post-watershed (or post-lagershead) Sean in tonight. Will tomorrow see a return of daytime 'what have we done? Let's sort this out we need EEA agreed to yesterday' Sean?
No, that's not due until Monday, though I'll have to consult with hunchman to see if I've got the cycles absolutely correct.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If se loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
Let's see how things pan out in a few days before looking at doomsday scenarios like this.
But if she does become Leader, it is too late for this sort of plan to work. And it is too late to save the Tory Party as we now know it.
There obviously needs to be a major re-alignment in British politics where we have political parties with names that actually reflect their major policies. Introducing proportional representation would also be a good idea if we want to continue having high turnouts as we did at the referendum.
It would be a terrible idea if we want decent governance.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If se loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
Let's see how things pan out in a few days before looking at doomsday scenarios like this.
But if she does become Leader, it is too late for this sort of plan to work. And it is too late to save the Tory Party as we now know it.
There obviously needs to be a major re-alignment in British politics where we have political parties with names that actually reflect their major policies.
The names don't need to reflect their major policies, there are plenty of parties around the world whose names don't reflect their policies - the Chinese Communist Party comes to mind, although there are democratic examples too - but it would be handy if there was a realignment and they really did coalesce around broadly distinct ideologies or at least shared goals, rather than the present fudge where people seem to delude themselves they are still closer to people in their own party than another.
This is bollocks. Yes, the EEA does mean we cede sovereignty on trade, but we get BACK all the sovereignty on all the OTHER laws passed by the EU - all those competences where the EU is slowly devouring our freedom.
60-70% of EU laws now have nothing to do with trade, when we enter the EEA we will regain control of ALL THAT. And we quit the CAP and the CFP; and there's no chance of us being further enmeshed in political union. And the ECJ can fuck off unless its ruling on widgets. And the entire corrupt charade in Brussels has nothing to do with us. And Westminster is reinstated as OUR parliament making OUR laws.
Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than being actually in the EU? God yes.
The point of shared sovereignty is that you give up discretion over aspects of your policy in exchange for influencing the shared policy for the common good and for your own good. This principle applies to the EU, the UN, the ECHR and NATO. This principle categorically does not apply to the EEA. We submit to rules set by others, but have no influence over them This is a fundamental point. With the EEA, unlike the EU, we don't have shared sovereignty - we have no sovereignty at all. We simply sit back and get what to do and when to do it. Like Norway our government won't have a policy on anything to do with the EEA, which still has a very broad remit. Like Norway we won't discuss any of it in parliament, beyond the mechanics of implementation, because there is no point. To do so would just raise questions that we have can never have answers to.
It's about fifteen percent of our economy - that trades with the EU. And our companies can still lobby.
The rest of our political life will be liberated from this diseased nonsense which is responsible - lest we forget - for the horror that is the euro.
GET OVER IT. YOU LOST.
In 1999, one € = £ 0.71.
Today, € = £ 0.83
I am not sure which one is the horror !
So long as you aren't totally profligate as a nation, the € isn't really all that bad. It's only a bad thing if you're terrible at controlling spending and daren't raise enough tax.
Despite, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain......... the Euro has gained 16% on Sterling in 17 years !
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
I've gone from completely disinterested to desperate for Leadsom to win. The last 6 months has confirmed what a ghastly mob this tory party are. Leadsom could finish them for good, love it.
It's a curious thing, how the attitude of REMAINOPERVS to their defeat can turn a pensive LEAVER into an utterly convinced LET'S-GET-THE-FUCK-OUTER
They are simultaneously juvenile and prissy, entitled and wanky, histrionic and sniffy. Seriously offputting. Ugh.
We have post-watershed (or post-lagershead) Sean in tonight. Will tomorrow see a return of daytime 'what have we done? Let's sort this out we need EEA agreed to yesterday' Sean?
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If se loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
Let's see how things pan out in a few days before looking at doomsday scenarios like this.
But if she does become Leader, it is too late for this sort of plan to work. And it is too late to save the Tory Party as we now know it.
There obviously needs to be a major re-alignment in British politics where we have political parties with names that actually reflect their major policies. Introducing proportional representation would also be a good idea if we want to continue having high turnouts as we did at the referendum.
I think FPTP+ as used in Scotland and Wales could be a good idea, the Scottish Gov't seems to have run fine with it - and it gets more minor parties in (UKIP, Greens, LD) with respect to their actual representation whilst still maintaining the constituency link. We'd probably have a UKIP-Con Gov't which wouldn't be my ideal choice but the theory is sound in my view.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
Or Cameron could jump ship to the Democrats, carry on being Prime Minister for a while and leave what's left of the Tory Party to it. Things would have looked quite different for the SDP if they'd gone straight into government.
What's wrong with a social conservative leading the Conservative Party for a change?.
I want a Conservative party dedicated to making me rich thru free trade, free-markets, light-touch regulation, careful spending and tax cuts. Unfortunately, I seem to be getting one dedicated to making me poor based on protectionism, subsidies, overregulation, deficit spending and taxing everything.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
I've gone from completely disinterested to desperate for Leadsom to win. The last 6 months has confirmed what a ghastly mob this tory party are. Leadsom could finish them for good, love it.
It's been said she's a stalking horse, although I'm not convinced she even intended to declare - it's been reported multiple times in the past week at least that she was going to stand tomorrow, no the day after, no after that, and it almost feels like someone else is just announcing she'll stand on the basis if they do it enough, she won't have a choice.
This is bollocks. Yes, the EEA does mean we cede sovereignty on trade, but we get BACK all the sovereignty on all the OTHER laws passed by the EU - all those competences where the EU is slowly devouring our freedom.
60-70% of EU laws now have nothing to do with trade, when we enter the EEA we will regain control of ALL THAT. And we quit the CAP and the CFP; and there's no chance of us being further enmeshed in political union. And the ECJ can fuck off unless its ruling on widgets. And the entire corrupt charade in Brussels has nothing to do with us. And Westminster is reinstated as OUR parliament making OUR laws.
Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than being actually in the EU? God yes.
The point of shared sovereignty is that you give up discretion over aspects of your policy in exchange for influencing the shared policy for the common good and for your own good. This principle applies to the EU, the UN, the ECHR and NATO. This principle categorically does not apply to the EEA. We submit to rules set by others, but have no influence over them This is a fundamental point. With the EEA, unlike the EU, we don't have shared sovereignty - we have no sovereignty at all. We simply sit back and get what to do and when to do it. Like Norway our government won't have a policy on anything to do with the EEA, which still has a very broad remit. Like Norway we won't discuss any of it in parliament, beyond the mechanics of implementation, because there is no point. To do so would just raise questions that we have can never have answers to.
It's about fifteen percent of our economy - that trades with the EU. And our companies can still lobby.
The rest of our political life will be liberated from this diseased nonsense which is responsible - lest we forget - for the horror that is the euro.
GET OVER IT. YOU LOST.
In 1999, one € = £ 0.71.
Today, € = £ 0.83
I am not sure which one is the horror !
So long as you aren't totally profligate as a nation, the € isn't really all that bad. It's only a bad thing if you're terrible at controlling spending and daren't raise enough tax.
Despite, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain......... the Euro has gained 16% on Sterling in 17 years !
Sturgeon could change her mind on the currency.
I was reading about the 1920s/1930s UK economy yesterday. We tried to go back on the Gold Standard @ $4.85.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira .
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
I've gone from completely disinterested to desperate for Leadsom to win. The last 6 months has confirmed what a ghastly mob this tory party are. Leadsom could finish them for good, love it.
This is bollocks. Yes, the EEA does mean we cede sovereignty on trade, but we get BACK all the sovereignty on all the OTHER laws passed by the EU - all those competences where the EU is slowly devouring our freedom.
60-70% of EU laws now have nothing to do with trade, when we enter the EEA we will regain control of ALL THAT. And we quit the CAP and the CFP; and there's no chance of us being further enmeshed in political union. And the ECJ can fuck off unless its ruling on widgets. And the entire corrupt charade in Brussels has nothing to do with us. And Westminster is reinstated as OUR parliament making OUR laws.
Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than being actually in the EU? God yes.
The point of shared sovereignty is that you give up discretion over aspects of your policy in exchange for influencing the shared policy for the common good and for your own good. This principle applies to the EU, the UN, the ECHR and NATO. This principle categorically does not apply to the EEA. We submit to rules set by others, but have no influence over them This is a fundamental point. With the EEA, unlike the EU, we don't have shared sovereignty - we have no sovereignty at all. We simply sit back and get what to do and when to do it. Like Norway our government won't have a policy on anything to do with the EEA, which still has a very broad remit. Like Norway we won't discuss any of it in parliament, beyond the mechanics of implementation, because there is no point. To do so would just raise questions that we have can never have answers to.
It's about fifteen percent of our economy - that trades with the EU. And our companies can still lobby.
The rest of our political life will be liberated from this diseased nonsense which is responsible - lest we forget - for the horror that is the euro.
GET OVER IT. YOU LOST.
In 1999, one € = £ 0.71.
Today, € = £ 0.83
I am not sure which one is the horror !
So long as you aren't totally profligate as a nation, the € isn't really all that bad. It's only a bad thing if you're terrible at controlling spending and daren't raise enough tax.
Despite, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain......... the Euro has gained 16% on Sterling in 17 years !
Sturgeon could change her mind on the currency.
Tbh I wouldn't mind locking in at our current rate - would be good for business
Mervyn King was another who seemed curiously unmoved. Personally I'm sitting on the fence but I can't help but believe that the disaster narrative is being hyped by the media and politically motivated.
I've never seen any evidence that any of the Remain-leaving posters on here have actually read any of the forecasts or financial models.
There are two risks for me. Firstly, that Brexit precipitates a crisis elsewhere. There are all sorts of skeletons in the global economic cupboard. Secondly, that we screw up the implementation of Brexit and chill the non-EU UK economy.
Basically, we can be really screwed up by second-order effects. Christine Lagarde was interviewed on Thursday, and she mentioned that the IMF will be putting out post-Brexit forecasts based on both a quasi-EEA and WTO approach. That might give us a better range of possibilities.
Thing is, there is no real reason to believe in any economic upside for Leave. Stripping out political and economic uncertainty, which will almost certainly extend into the medium term, long term effects are likely to be negative to neutral. The tyre hitting the road is that we are disengaging from a highly integrated rules-based system with the rest of Europe and moving to a less efficient set of not quite reciprocal deals. Everything else is likely to be the same as what would have happened anyway.
I was reading about the 1920s/1930s UK economy yesterday. We tried to go back on the Gold Standard @ $4.85.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira .
Britain (I think this predates the UKGBI, so "Britain" not the "UK") has never defaulted on a loan. As the old joke goes, it doesn't have to: it just continually devalues the currency...
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While it may be technically possible for them to act so as far as I know, on what grounds would they do it? She got 84 MP votes, yes a lot fewer than May, but so what? The whole point is to narrow it down to the final two then let members decide, there's no threshold of lead in MP votes that means its unfair if the members take a different view - and she has a lot more genuine support than Corbyn ever did, so a lot more chance of core support in the parliamentary party which the others may well go along with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
Or Cameron could jump ship to the Democrats, carry on being Prime Minister for a while and leave what's left of the Tory Party to it. Things would have looked quite different for the SDP if they'd gone straight into government.
If Leadsom wins she will form a government but will not exercise power. She will have to compromise and hopefully the party will come together but have in reserve the ability to overthrow her at any time through the 1922 Committee.
Not the best of solutions and for that reason we need to hope Theresa May wins
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
I've gone from completely disinterested to desperate for Leadsom to win. The last 6 months has confirmed what a ghastly mob this tory party are. Leadsom could finish them for good, love it.
In theory yes, the PM has gone AWOL, the Chancellor is on suicide watch, 5 cretins are taking part in a freak show, the short favourite two weeks ago was stabbed in the back by his running mate.
'Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.'
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While it may be technically possible for them to act so as far as I know, on what grounds would they do it? She got 84 MP votes, yes a lot fewer than May, but so what? The whole point is to narrow it down to the final two then let members decide, there's no threshold of lead in MP votes that means its unfair if the members take a different view - and she has a lot more genuine support than Corbyn ever did, so a lot more chance of core support in the parliamentary party which the others may well go along with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
Wow! Just in from the pub. Seems each of the editors of newspapers have gone back to the 'I have a bucket of s*** on my desk and I'm going to pour it over your head' i.e Leadsom and motherhood.
Will this backfire? Are we in Trump territory? I hope not.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
There's no reason at this point to think she won't have the support of most Tory MPs if she wins. Quotes about people quitting the party or being rebels if she wins may or may not be true in the actual event.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While it may be technically possible for them to act so as far as I know, on what grounds would they do it? She got 84 MP votes, yes a lot fewer than May, but so what? The whole point is to narrow it down to the final two then let members decide, there's no threshold of lead in MP votes that means its unfair if the members take a different view - and she has a lot more genuine support than Corbyn ever did, so a lot more chance of core support in the parliamentary party which the others may well go along with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
Why have members?
Members are important, and as a member I like having a say but it's insane to give us the power to overrule the MPs in my opinion.
What's wrong with a social conservative leading the Conservative Party for a change? The social liberals ought to set up their own party and see how many seats they can win.
Well, a social conservative might be popular with much of the Conservative party membership, but would find things much more difficult with the electorate as a whole. Because obviously for quite some time now the leaderships of all the main political parties have subscribed to a broad liberal consensus on social issues. And most of the population now live in very different circumstances from those of the 1950s.
So a socially conservative Prime Minister would need to display a great deal of intelligence and tact in order to avoid alienating the sections of the electorate outside the traditionalist Tory core. Is there any sign that Andrea Leadsom possesses those qualities?
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While it may be technically possible for them to act so as far as I know, on what grounds would they do it? She got 84 MP votes, yes a lot fewer than May, but so what? The whole point is to narrow it down to the final two then let members decide, there's no threshold of lead in MP votes that means its unfair if the members take a different view - and she has a lot more genuine support than Corbyn ever did, so a lot more chance of core support in the parliamentary party which the others may well go along with.
The grounds would be if she couldn't command majority support in the Parliamentary party.
She got 84 votes. A majority is 166 so it's entirely possible that she cannot command majority support.
The root cause of all this and the problems in the Lab party is that the leadership voting systems in both parties are untenable.
It's fine involving the members but if say 75% or 80% of MPs want A as leader then it is daft that B could defeat A by 51-49 in a members vote and the MPs then have B imposed on them - who cannot possibly lead effectively. We can already see this with Corbyn.
As I posted earlier, the only sensible answer is an Electoral College - 50% MPs, 50% members. That way members would still have a say - and a significant say - but if the MPs overwhelming did / didn't want someone then it would be very unlikely in practice that they would be overturned by the members.
The above system would have avoided the Corbyn disaster for Lab and it would avoid a Leadsom disaster for Con.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While it may be technically possible for them to act so as far as I know, on what grounds would they do it? She got 84 MP votes, yes a lot fewer than May, but so what? The whole point is to narrow it down to the final two then let members decide, there's no threshold of lead in MP votes that means its unfair if the members take a different view - and she has a lot more genuine support than Corbyn ever did, so a lot more chance of core support in the parliamentary party which the others may well go along with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
Why have members?
Members are important, and as a member I like having a say but it's insane to give us the power to overrule the MPs in my opinion.
And that's a fair opinion, and the way things used to be done. But it is not the way things have been done for awhile, and if the MPs have a problem with it they should change the rules, or try to do so.
As it is, the current system for both parties is designed to ensure the MPs have primacy over the process by screening candidates. If they cannot do that, or choose not to do that in the case of Corbyn, if the members pick the 'wrong' option the problem is not the system, but the MPs not doing their job properly in it.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While it may be technically possible for them to act so as far as I know, on what grounds would they do it? She got 84 MP votes, yes a lot fewer than May, but so what? The whole point is to narrow it down to the final two then let members decide, there's no threshold of lead in MP votes that means its unfair if the members take a different view - and she has a lot more genuine support than Corbyn ever did, so a lot more chance of core support in the parliamentary party which the others may well go along with.
The grounds would be if she couldn't command majority support in the Parliamentary party.
She got 84 votes. A majority is 166 so it's entirely possible that she cannot command majority support.
The root cause of all this and the problems in the Lab party is that the leadership voting systems in both parties are untenable.
It's fine involving the members but if say 75% or 80% of MPs want A as leader then it is daft that B could defeat A by 51-49 in a members vote and the MPs then have B imposed on them - who cannot possibly lead effectively. We can already see this with Corbyn.
As I posted earlier, the only sensible answer is an Electoral College - 50% MPs, 50% members. That way members would still have a say - and a significant say - but if the MPs overwhelming did / didn't want someone then it would be very unlikely in practice that they would be overturned by the members.
The above system would have avoided the Corbyn disaster for Lab and it would avoid a Leadsom disaster for Con.
The Tory Party would collapse in those circumstances, or split in two. The membership wouldn't accept having their views overturned.
This is bollocks. Yes, the EEA does mean we cede sovereignty on trade, but we get BACK all the sovereignty on all the OTHER laws passed by the EU - all those competences where the EU is slowly devouring our freedom.
60-70% of EU laws now have nothing to do with trade, when we enter the EEA we will regain control of ALL THAT. And we quit the CAP and the CFP; and there's no chance of us being further enmeshed in political union. And the ECJ can fuck off unless its ruling on widgets. And the entire corrupt charade in Brussels has nothing to do with us. And Westminster is reinstated as OUR parliament making OUR laws.
Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than being actually in the EU? God yes.
The point of shared sovereignty is that you give up discretion over aspects of your policy in exchange for influencing the shared policy for the common good and for your own good. This principle applies to the EU, the UN, the ECHR and NATO. This principle categorically does not apply to the EEA. We submit to rules set by others, but have no influence over them This is a fundamental point. With the EEA, unlike the EU, we don't have shared sovereignty - we have no sovereignty at all. We simply sit back and get what to do and when to do it. Like Norway our government won't have a policy on anything to do with the EEA, which still has a very broad remit. Like Norway we won't discuss any of it in parliament, beyond the mechanics of implementation, because there is no point. To do so would just raise questions that we have can never have answers to.
It's about fifteen percent of our economy - that trades with the EU. And our companies can still lobby.
The rest of our political life will be liberated from this diseased nonsense which is responsible - lest we forget - for the horror that is the euro.
GET OVER IT. YOU LOST.
In 1999, one € = £ 0.71.
Today, € = £ 0.83
I am not sure which one is the horror !
What is a horror is that our trade deficit with the EU at the end of 2015 was £68bn, compared to a mere £11bn in 1999.
A devaluation of the £ was long overdue, without which that long term trend was only going to get worse.
Meanwhile, in the coming negotiations, the £290bn of EU exports to the UK in 2015 will be our ace in the pack.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
There's no reason at this point to think she won't have the support of most Tory MPs if she wins. Quotes about people quitting the party or being rebels if she wins may or may not be true in the actual event.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
There's no reason at this point to think she won't have the support of most Tory MPs if she wins. Quotes about people quitting the party or being rebels if she wins may or may not be true in the actual event.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
I would not say nobody thinks she has the ability. But the point remains, if the fear is the members will pick an insane choice, then it is the MP's job to make sure they don't get presented with that choice in the first place. Either they don't think she is an insane choice, or a large chunk of their MPs are insane, or they are incompetent/think she has no chance.
It really is high time the sulking, mewling crybabies of pb REMAINIACS got a grip. They could do worse than model themselves on me: someone of unflinching determination, gritty and dauntless, never for a moment doubting the righteousness of my cause
Because, guys, you LOST. You LOST the vote because the EU is SHIT. It was unsellable. Even the combined might of the entire Establishment couldn't persuade the British people to vote for the tepid cup of second hand puke, that is the EU.
So now, how about this. Let's pull together. Let's see a way forward. Brexit is incredibly risky, but there are also new freedoms and opportunities. It might, in the end, make us a happier, richer country, content to see itself as a senior, second division nation, military formidable and diplomatically influential, with a grand history and quite fabulous heritage, and soft power unmatched by almost anyone.
Seize the day.
Wow, the "remainiacs" are really getting to you aren't they Sean. Are you alright, hon? This is really spurring me to fight on :-)
The sulking, mewling cry-babies seem to be (with all due respect) the Brexiteers (like yourself) who thought they could somehow 'fix' the Europe question with a dodgy referendum. But, hey, people are still arguing. The quick fix isn't quick, and it ain't a fix.
Sean, you WON. Congratulations. Now man up.
Jean-Paul Sartre: "Once you hear the details of victory, it is hard to distinguish it from a defeat.". Mean anything?
Farage took 20 years to get us out of the EU, if it takes us 20 years to get back in, then that's a fight I'm happy to take on. I'm sorry it's not worked out the way you wanted it, we're a divided country, and the political reality has changed.
But I agree with you about pulling together. I'm busy pulling together with the millions who believe in a united Europe, and will continue to work towards that. See you at GE2017...
Getting fed up with Remainers claiming we are a divided country. We were a divided country before the referendum as the polls showed, we have been divided for many years before that and we would have been just as divided had Remain won.
But Remain lost.....So feck your claim to hold the moral high ground on divided. The EU has caused the divide you are just too blind to see how the EU has grown these divisions.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
There's no reason at this point to think she won't have the support of most Tory MPs if she wins. Quotes about people quitting the party or being rebels if she wins may or may not be true in the actual event.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
You're underestimating how much personal support she picked up during the referendum campaign. An awful lot of people liked what they saw.
I went for a run (well half walk) through Harthill this evening. Never seen so many British flags in all my days !
Where is that?
Harthill is a rural village in North Lanarkshire in Scotland, on the border with the neighbouring county of West Lothian about halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh It lies on the River Almond about 2.5 mi west of the small town of Whitburn.
I thought everyone knew that. "neighbouring" seems otiose though.
Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
While with.
Parliamentary system requires leaders with support of their MPs, it's the danger of ordinary members having the preponderance of the decision.
There's no reason at this point to think she won't have the support of most Tory MPs if she wins. Quotes about people quitting the party or being rebels if she wins may or may not be true in the actual event.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Its obvious that nobody is picking Leadsom because they think she has the ability, it's simply because she voted the right way. Which is so utterly mental it defies belief.
In fairness a PM who thinks Brexit was a bad idea is likely to try to backslide, so if you voted for it you wouldn't be mad to want somebody who agrees with the policy they're supposed to be implementing. After all, wasn't that the reason Cameron gave for resigning in the first place?
That said, I think it says something about the Brexit case that all the MPs who supported it have turned out to be either untrustworthy backstabbing chancers or mad as a box of frogs.
I went for a run (well half walk) through Harthill this evening. Never seen so many British flags in all my days !
Where is that?
Harthill is a rural village in North Lanarkshire in Scotland, on the border with the neighbouring county of West Lothian about halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh It lies on the River Almond about 2.5 mi west of the small town of Whitburn.
I thought everyone knew that. "neighbouring" seems otiose though.
I see there is a big Orange Order meeting planned, so are the Union flags for that?
The Tory Party would collapse in those circumstances, or split in two. The membership wouldn't accept having their views overturned.
Well that's exactly what happened in 2003 - the only difference being MPs waited two years to avoid it looking so blatant.
And would it collapse - most of the members aren't active in any way - so their absence wouldn't actually matter in the slightest. My Mum's a member - she pays her sub and goes to one or two coffee mornings per year. The majority of members do the same.
Of course that may appear unkind, but it is the reality.
Comments
We will see
Judging by the way their supporters act that's highly unlikely. A few tribal deadheads are scouring twitter, the rest of the country is shaking its head in disbelief.
What a shower of shite this govt is.
I'll get me coat...
I presume he intends to stand down in 2020, but the test of if he really does want to serve as an MP, will be if there is an early GE and he stands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3682601/NIGEL-FARAGE-Theresa-s-cold-alabaster.html
For me, it's ultimately pointless debating what's going to happen. It's completely out of my hands - most of my time on here is just displacement activity.
If I don't like what the politicians come up with, then I'll endeavour to kick them in the nuts in 2020.
Government of this Country is in an unbelievable mess but I have no doubt the conservative party will unite after the PM election and drive forward Brexit, but also re-start the day to day business that has been suspended since the referendum was called.
As for labour who knows
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3680577/Boris-bangs-drum-fellow-Brexit-champion-Andrea-Leadsom-battle-Number-10-says-confident-optimistic-approach-make-great-PM.html
It's a big mistake to assume May will walk this. In fact it's a big mistake to make any assumptions about anything in British politics going smoothly for a long time.
Today, € = £ 0.83
I am not sure which one is the horror !
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&action=Click&region=Header&pgtype=Blogs&version=Blog Post&contentCollection=Opinion
Mervyn King was another who seemed curiously unmoved. Personally I'm sitting on the fence but I can't help but believe that the disaster narrative is being hyped by the media and politically motivated.
'Looks like the new party, Progressive Democrats. will have Chuka Umunna, Tim Farron and Anna Soubry.'
LOL
Chuka Harrison ,Student politics & Shouty
That's impossible, that's inside the room!
(looks up at ceiling)
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.
And possibly Horst Buckholtz.
But if you want to fight for the EU then we'll have to be opponents (not that a mild middle-aged man such as I would frighten you!
The EU is just ONE PATH to a united europe - and one to which I am implacably opposed.
But if she does become Leader, it is too late for this sort of plan to work. And it is too late to save the Tory Party as we now know it.
There are two risks for me. Firstly, that Brexit precipitates a crisis elsewhere. There are all sorts of skeletons in the global economic cupboard. Secondly, that we screw up the implementation of Brexit and chill the non-EU UK economy.
Basically, we can be really screwed up by second-order effects. Christine Lagarde was interviewed on Thursday, and she mentioned that the IMF will be putting out post-Brexit forecasts based on both a quasi-EEA and WTO approach. That might give us a better range of possibilities.
Sturgeon could change her mind on the currency.
http://www.cncformingshops.com/winston-churchills-grandson-nicholas-soames-tells-fellow-tory-mp-to-f-off-you-c/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/news/eu-debate-gets-heated-as-energy-minister-tears-into-brussels-elites/
But apart from that, no pressure.
Doomed if she wins - as Momentum will fight her every step of the way (including deselecting her)
Doomed if she loses - as deselection proceedings will start within minutes.
If she weren't so weak, one might almost admire her self-sacrifice.
We're just doing a very slow depreciation. In 200 years the pound will be like the lira
Not the best of solutions and for that reason we need to hope Theresa May wins
Chimps tea party
'Surely if Leadsom wins MPs have to take this into their own hands.
There will likely be a gap of a day or two in between the declaration of the leadership result and Cameron formally going to Buckingham Palace.
MPs need to prepare in advance and if Leadsom wins they need to submit the 50 letters to Graham Brady the same day requesting a motion of no confidence in her as leader.
Cameron will still be PM at that point and then they must get Cameron to remain PM whilst the no confidence ballot takes place. If she loses then Cameron remains PM whilst another leadership election takes place.
It would obviously be far more awkward to do this if Cameron had formally departed as PM. But if Cameron is still there it can be done without causing instability and the whole thing looking chaotic - the existing Cabinet would remain in place. That would not be the case if Leadsom had formally become PM.'
Are you having a laugh or just hate democracy ?
https://twitter.com/Stewart4Pboro/status/751901422560706560
(If you can see my Stewart jackson tweet because I bloody can't ;-) )
Will this backfire? Are we in Trump territory? I hope not.
Political parties don't have to let their ordinary members pick their leader at all. But having set up rules to let them, they have in essence stated they think it is a good thing. Both parties have methods to screen out the loony candidates. As 84 MPs backed Leadsome and decided of the 5 candidates she was one of the best two, what reason can the rest of the MPs have for thinking she is so bad they won't work with her at all?
This is not the same as Corbyn only getting through because the members ignored the purpose of their own rules. Leadsome got through into the final two fair and square - if she was so bad the majority could not support her, they'd have made sure Gove made it into the final two.
Buy Osborne is finished now.
So a socially conservative Prime Minister would need to display a great deal of intelligence and tact in order to avoid alienating the sections of the electorate outside the traditionalist Tory core. Is there any sign that Andrea Leadsom possesses those qualities?
She got 84 votes. A majority is 166 so it's entirely possible that she cannot command majority support.
The root cause of all this and the problems in the Lab party is that the leadership voting systems in both parties are untenable.
It's fine involving the members but if say 75% or 80% of MPs want A as leader then it is daft that B could defeat A by 51-49 in a members vote and the MPs then have B imposed on them - who cannot possibly lead effectively. We can already see this with Corbyn.
As I posted earlier, the only sensible answer is an Electoral College - 50% MPs, 50% members. That way members would still have a say - and a significant say - but if the MPs overwhelming did / didn't want someone then it would be very unlikely in practice that they would be overturned by the members.
The above system would have avoided the Corbyn disaster for Lab and it would avoid a Leadsom disaster for Con.
As it is, the current system for both parties is designed to ensure the MPs have primacy over the process by screening candidates. If they cannot do that, or choose not to do that in the case of Corbyn, if the members pick the 'wrong' option the problem is not the system, but the MPs not doing their job properly in it.
Good night.
A devaluation of the £ was long overdue, without which that long term trend was only going to get worse.
Meanwhile, in the coming negotiations, the £290bn of EU exports to the UK in 2015 will be our ace in the pack.
But Remain lost.....So feck your claim to hold the moral high ground on divided. The EU has caused the divide you are just too blind to see how the EU has grown these divisions.
I thought everyone knew that. "neighbouring" seems otiose though.
I still think May will win and we can all relax!
That said, I think it says something about the Brexit case that all the MPs who supported it have turned out to be either untrustworthy backstabbing chancers or mad as a box of frogs.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/harthill-drivers-warned-delays-orangemen-8355841.amp?client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb#
And would it collapse - most of the members aren't active in any way - so their absence wouldn't actually matter in the slightest. My Mum's a member - she pays her sub and goes to one or two coffee mornings per year. The majority of members do the same.
Of course that may appear unkind, but it is the reality.